Sitting of 18 October 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Household Waste
  Mr. Andrew Love: What action she is taking to reduce the proportion of household waste that is put into landfill; and if she will make a statement. [4668]
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): In "Waste Strategy 2000" the Government made clear our determination to minimise waste production and to maximise recycling and composting wherever that is cost-effective to reduce our reliance on landfill.
  We have a landfill tax that encourages diversion of waste away from landfill and there will be further reviews of its rate. We also consulted earlier this year on a system of tradeable landfill permits to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill and to meet the directive targets.
  To achieve more recycling and composting, we have set tough statutory targets, under best value, for local authorities to double the amount of household waste recycled by 2003–04 and to treble it by 2005–06. To support those targets, we have increased funding to local authorities, including a £140 million ring-fenced grant and £40 million to set up the waste end resources action programme, a company that will tackle market barriers for recycled products.
  Mr. Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. There are two main alternatives to landfill. The first, as she suggested, is recycling and the ether is incineration. To encourage both, recent departmental guidance said:
  "Energy from waste plant should be appropriately sized … and avoid 'crowding out' recycling".
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong argument to suggest that we should not concentrate incineration in a small number of plants, such as the one in my constituency, but that we should spread them out across the country where the benefits of combined heat and power can be realised?
  Margaret Beckett: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the proposals for his constituency. He will be aware that they are not a matter for my
  1284
  Department, but I take his point. I am grateful to him for suggesting that we should consider the way in which some incineration might be used and for recognising that there is a role for such use.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: What plans does the Secretary of State have to deal with the increasing problem of fly-tipping in rural areas? She will be aware that it is not only unsightly and a health problem, but places an increasing burden on farmers and landowners who are, after all, responsible for the cost of disposing of it.
  Margaret Beckett: I am aware of the problem, as all hon. Members are. The hon. Gentleman will understand the difficulties, because much of the material tipped in this way is household waste. We will seek to place a range of pressures on individuals and on local authorities when that is the right approach to minimise the occurrence of such events and to deal with them when they occur.
  Mr. David Lepper: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the non-metal components of cars whose lives have come to an end are an increasingly important element in landfill sites. Is she aware of the innovative work on the recycling of those components that has been carried out by Professor Peter Gardiner and his colleagues at the university of Brighton and its subsidiary, the Brighton environmental body? Will she ask her officials to give serious consideration to the results of that research?
  Margaret Beckett: I am conscious of the excellent work that is being done in Brighton and other areas. I am also conscious of the innovative work that is being done by many people in British research institutes and universities to try to tackle these problems. It is one of the sectors—in the United Kingdom and across the world—where there are opportunities for innovation and for new business to be developed. It has long been my wish to do more to encourage that development.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not refer to reducing the amount of waste. That is the first step. However, she might not have referred to it because the Government have not managed to reduce the amount of household waste. Reducing household waste and recycling are important waste management strategies.
  It is a pity that, in 1998–99, 19 per cent. of Conservative councils did not make separate provision for the collection of household recyclables, but the Secretary of State might like to know that I have written to each and every one of them. But why is it that, according to Audit Commission figures, 29 per cent. of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils and 42 per cent. of Labour-controlled councils have made no provision whatever?
  We know that the Liberal Democrats are little more than environmental poseurs, but if the Secretary of State cannot persuade her own party to act green, what have the Government been doing for the past four years?
  Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asks what the Government have been doing, but I am sorry to say that it appears that he has not been listening. I pointed out in

  1285
  my reply that the Government have set demanding targets to double household waste recycling by 2003–04 and almost treble it by 2005–06. We believe that that will transform the position, which I accept is not sufficiently good in areas run by councils of all political shades.
  The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by accusing me of having said nothing about reducing the incidence of waste, and I must point out to him that I referred to that in the first sentence of my reply.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I remind my right hon. Friend that household waste increases each year, thus posing a great problem for local authorities in particular and communities in general? When did she last meet representatives of the packaging waste industry to reinforce the regulations on the reduction of packaging waste and to ensure that there will be less such waste going into landfill?
  Margaret Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that household waste is a great problem for local authorities. That is why, although I do not agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), I do agree that it is incumbent on us all to do everything that we can to minimise the production of waste.
  I fear that I have not met representatives from the industry's association to which my hon. Friend referred, although my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment meets them on a regular basis. Obviously, it is one of the many organisations that have a pressing claim on my time. In the first week after my appointment, 400 organisations announced their pressing need for a meeting with the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend will understand that it is not always easy to accommodate all those with a genuine need and desire to meet me.

  Flood Defences (Wyre Forest)
  Dr. Richard Taylor: What plans she has to visit Wyre Forest to inspect the proposed flood defences during their construction at Bewdley. [4669]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I have no such plans at present, but I have carried out a programme of visits this summer to flood and coastal defence schemes under construction and completed, and always welcome the opportunity to do so.
  Dr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for his reply and assure him that if he decides to visit my constituency, he will receive a warmer welcome than was afforded to the Prime Minister last November. Will he recognise the expertise of the Bewdley residents flood committee, which has organised flood defence fairs across the country, and look favourably on an application from the committee for funding its aim to set up a national flood defence forum and flood action network?
  Mr. Morley: I accompanied the Prime Minister on his visit to Bewdley, and the people were very grateful to him for taking the trouble to visit when they were suffering the effects of floods. I certainly pay tribute to the residents committee. Its members came to see me in London, and I was impressed by their ideas as well as their energy and
  1286
  drive. The committee has not submitted proposals for a national forum directly to the Department, but if it wanted to do so, I would gin e them careful consideration.
  Mr. Michael Foster: Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance, if not at the Dispatch Box then perhaps in writing, that when flood defences are constructed in Bewdley, they will not have a detrimental effect downstream in Worcester? When the Environment Agency announces plans for flood defences in Worcester, will he do all that he can to make sure that the cash is available to pay for them?
  Mr. Morley: By 2003, expenditure on flood and coastal defences will have increased by about 50 per cent. since last year. We recognise that there is a need for more resources. I can assure my hon. Friend that the assessment of any flood defence scheme takes into account any possible detrimental effects downstream or within the catchment area. We are looking at the Severn as part of a catchment area study which will include his area.
  Mr. John Greenway: The constituents of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) have been in touch with me more than once because North Yorkshire shares the problem of flooding. I listened carefully to their suggestions on establishing a national flood defence forum, an idea that I commend to the Minister.
  Surely the problem is that there is inadequate direction from Government. There is insufficient responsibility because far too many agencies are involved in the provision of flood defences. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have suffered from the problem in the past few months as a result of the October flooding. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are not satisfied with the present arrangements and will introduce proposals so that central Government ensure that there is strong Executive power to improve and strengthen our flood defences?
  Mr. Morley: Following the recommendations of the former Agriculture Committee, we are carrying out a full funding review of flood and coastal defence, the results of which will be published shortly. Flood and coastal defence is a shared responsibility between central and local government. There is an important element of local democracy because local councils are represented on regional flood defence committees. That is a strength although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are sometimes weaknesses in local democracy and problems with local issues.

  Recycling
  Ian Lucas: What assessment she has made of the effect a tax on incineration set at the same level as the landfill tax would have on the level of recycling carried out by local authorities in England and Wales. [4670]
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have set local authority statutory targets that will almost triple recycling and composting of household waste from the 1998–99 baseline by 2005–06, as my right hon. Friend said. We have set up the waste

  1287
  and resources action programme to foster markets for recycled materials. We consulted on a system of tradeable permits for biodegradable municipal waste. Given those instruments, I doubt whether an incineration tax is needed at this stage to secure our main priority of diverting waste from landfill to recycling.
  Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is great concern in my constituency about the relative amount of recycling and incineration outlined in a recent application to site a waste recovery centre there? What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the recycling targets set out in "Waste Strategy 2000" are met and that the amount of future incineration is minimised?
  Mr. Meacher: When we set statutory recycling targets, sanctions are attached to ensure that they are achieved. I assure my hon. Friend that they will be. We will keep track of all local authorities to ensure that they are making progress and will want to know why if they are not. We are offering managerial advice as part of the waste resources action programme. If need be, we can take action to put in place managerial systems that will deliver targets in each local authority.
  I understand that a waste management private finance initiative project is being considered for Wrexham. A major part of that will be a facility that is designed, built, financed and operated by the private sector and will include incineration. That is still at the procurement stage. The business plan has to be passed by the Minister for Finance in the Welsh Assembly. Planning consent is then needed. However, whatever Wrexham decides, it must meet its recycling targets.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: As the constituency of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) neighbours Eddisbury, I have an equal interest in that plant and proposal. How can the Minister square the tax answers, which affect both England and Wales, with the decoupling of planning as a result of the devolution arrangements? My constituents might be most affected by the fallout from that incineration plant but have no rights of representation in the planning process. They are deeply concerned about that.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman raises the devolution arrangements. It is our view that all reasonable powers should be devolved to the Assembly in the case of Wales and the Executive in the case of Scotland, and that is what we have done. However, tax is not a devolved matter. That is why the recommendation that I understand is in the Welsh draft waste management strategy—the Assembly's initial view—that there should be a tax on incineration will be considered duly by the United Kingdom Government, although the matter is of course entirely for the Treasury.
  Syd Rapson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the landfill tax credit scheme, whereby tax is recycled to local partnerships to create environmental schemes for areas that are affected by landfill. There is some concern that that scheme will be
  1288
  scrapped. I urge the Government to reconsider the effects of doing so, as we in Portsmouth have certainly benefited from it and want it to continue.
  Mr. Meacher: I am well aware of the mixed views on the landfill tax credit scheme. There is no question but that it has benefited many environmental projects, particularly to do with wildlife and biodiversity. Whatever changes might be made in any new arrangements—let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that a decision has not yet been taken—I would be extremely anxious to ensure that such benefits were secured. However, the proportion of the moneys that are raised by the credit scheme that goes into local recycling is not nearly enough. We have used indicative targets to try to increase it, but the issue remains whether that is adequate.
  Dr. John Pugh: Will the Minister acknowledge that the way in which waste authorities apportion local council landfill tax is not always fair and equitable? A poor example in that respect is the Merseyside waste disposal authority. Some local authorities charge not by the tonne but by population and council tax banding, and therefore have no financial incentive to recycle. Will he consider tightening guidance given to waste disposal authorities to ensure that those that recycle the most pay the least?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The overwhelming thrust of the Government's waste management strategy is to achieve the maximum feasible increase in recycling. He is right that the structure of the allocation of moneys does not always optimise that. We are certainly considering his point.

  Landfill Sites
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If she will make a statement on the powers of the Environment Agency to regulate landfill sites. [4671]
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Waste disposal sites including landfills are regulated by the Environment Agency using powers in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994.
  Dr. Starkey: In the first seven months of this year, my constituents in Bletchley were subjected to incredibly high levels of hydrogen sulphide emissions from the landfill at Shanks Waste Services Ltd. in Newton Longville. The Environment Agency has now required Shanks to bring the situation under control and the nuisance appears to have ceased. I believe that charges are being brought against Shanks for breaches of the licence conditions. However, there is great concern among my constituents that the Environment Agency did not detect the problems as they were building up and seemed to take action only once my constituents had suffered a very high level of nuisance and there was a potential health hazard.

  1289
  Will the Minister undertake to investigate whether the Environment Agency's failure was due to it having inadequate powers to undertake proper monitoring or due simply to inadequately exercised powers?
  Mr. Meacher: I do not believe that the existing powers are inadequate, and I hear what my hon. Friend says about the exercise of those powers. The Environment Agency served four enforcement notices on Shanks, the landfill operator, in February for compliance by April.
  The operator failed to comply on any count and, therefore, the agency suspended its licence on 1 May. As a result, the operator undertook some major improvements on the site, and the suspension has now been lifted, but the agency is still making, and will continue to make, weekly unannounced inspections of the site to assess compliance with the licence conditions and, as my hon. Friend said, it is also prosecuting the operator for breach of licence. I take the point, which she made, that the agency did not act fast enough. If she will give me the evidence, I will certainly pursue it.
  Mr. James Gray: Of course, we entirely support the Government's laudable aim of reducing landfill by increasing recycling, but in that context what does the Minister think about the activities of Liberal Democrat-controlled North Wiltshire district council, which recently announced that it will do away with the free collection of household goods for recycling and introduce a charge instead? To facilitate that, it has opened a recycling centre that is miles and miles away from anyone who wants to recycle. What does the Minister think about that?
  Mr. Meacher: I always seek to be cautious in intruding local grief, but I am aware of the very real problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions because the Liberal-controlled council in Oldham has done exactly the same thing. Perhaps he and I can get together to monitor the effects that the rather curious and perverse charge may have. The charge is unwise and imprudent. It raises a small amount of money, but produces a very severe disincentive to recycle, which, I thought, we all wanted to encourage.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I am disappointed about my right hon. Friend's answer because there seem to be major limitations in the Environment Agency's powers. For example, when a so-called golf course was being constructed in my area and lorry loads of topsoil were coming out of the site and hundreds of lorry loads of rubbish were going into it every day, the Environment Agency kept telling us that it could inspect the lorries, but could not inspect the apparent golf course. I hope that he realises that the Environment Agency is saying that it sometimes does not have the powers to do what it should.
  Mr. Meacher: This is an unusual question session because I have to tell my hon. Friend that in Oldham we, too, have what he calls a so-called golf course, which has been used for the tipping of materials, and the residents have been concerned about their potentially hazardous nature. In fact, answers have been given and there have been assurances that the materials are not hazardous. The issue arises out of waste management licence exemptions,
  1290
  and I share the view that those exemptions have been granted too readily and that they need to be tightened up. If he will give me details of his case, that will certainly add to the dossier that will help me to take some action.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Has the Minister had a chance to consult the Environment Agency about the prospect of having to dispose of up to 1 million old fridges each year because of Government incompetence? Are they now destined for landfill sites? When Ministers blithely signed up to EC regulation 2037 on products containing CFCs, did they simply overlook the fact that it is almost impossible to implement? The Department has now told local authorities that it will urgently review the situation. I should hope so—there has been a chance urgently to review the situation for the past four years. Is not "urgent review" Labour-speak for "haven't got a clue"? If not, what exactly are the Government's plans?
  Mr. Meacher: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is new to these matters, but I can assure him that, as he might well expect, when the issue was discussed in the Environment Council, the chlorofluorocarbon content of used fridges was exhaustively discussed. The issue of exports and effects on other countries was carefully examined. We are, of course, looking at the technology; in fact, a great deal of work has been done on the technology of removing CFCs from fridges and storing them safely. I hope that he does not take the view that fridges should continue to be landfilled.
  Of course changes, reforms and improvements take place all the time but, in 20 years under the Conservative Government, fridges were just chucked into landfills. We do not think that that is proper; a more environmentally sensitive way of dealing with the problem is needed, and we are providing it.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. David Chaytor: What her policy is on the management of radioactive waste. [4672]
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The Government and the devolved Administrations published the consultation paper, "Managing radioactive waste safely" on 12 September. We propose a programme of national debate and research, leading to scientifically sound decisions on the long-term management of radioactive waste which, we hope, will inspire greater public confidence across the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Can she give the House the latest estimates of the cost of decommissioning existing power stations and the management of waste? Would it be wildly inaccurate to suggest that that cost is in the region of £85 billion? Who will bear the cost regarding existing stockpiles of waste? Will she seek to ensure that, if there is any new nuclear build following the publication of the energy review in December, the costs of the management of waste are built into the initial economics of power generation?

  1291
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the recent horrific evidence of terrorist groups gaining access to biological materials of warfare, it is now only a matter of time before they gain access to nuclear materials as weapons of war? Has she discussed chat matter with—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is too much for the Secretary of State to take in.
  Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right; the figure of £85 billion is correct, and includes all civil, military, public and private radioactive waste as well as the costs of decommissioning. A rough breakdown of the figure is that some £34 billion relates to British Nuclear Fuels plc; some £30 billion to Ministry of Defence matters; some £7 billion to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and some £14 billion to British Energy. The final cost of managing such waste depends on the decisions made in the light of the consultation that we initiated and, indeed, on the classification of radioactive waste.
  My hon. Friend asked who will bear the costs of handling such waste; one way or another, our economy will bear those costs in some capacity. He asked about the performance and innovation unit review; he will know that that process is under way and any recommendations that it might make are some distance away. However, he is certainly correct; I am mindful that, on a number of occasions, those outside Government have long advised that the full knock-on costs of such projects should be part of the decision-making structure at the beginning, not something that emerges at the end. We certainly believe that that is a sound basis for planning.
  Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State explain how her recent decision to give the go-ahead to the Sellafield mixed oxide plant fits into her radioactive waste management strategy? Given that the Irish Government are now mounting a legal challenge and Sellafield has a history of leaks and fraudulent data, there is a lack of confidence in the management of the plant. Will she explain why in her announcement she concentrated on the economic aspects of the development, rather than the environmental aspects? Does she not recognise that there is considerable concern, not only about leakage from the plant but, in the post-September 11 circumstances, about the risk of an attack on shipments of plutonium by suicide terrorists" Has she made an evaluation of that, or does she not think that she should?
  Margaret Beckett: To take the hon. Gentleman's last point first, he must be aware that that issue has been evaluated. There are risks in the existence of such a plant and those risks are little changed by the decision that was made. However, whether they made a difference was carefully considered.
  The hon. Gentleman asks how the plant fits in. It is in the public domain that during the anticipated operational lifetime of the plant—a considerable number of years—the expectation is that it will add only about 1 per cent. to the total level of intermediate level waste now generated at Sellafield. The decision that the plant should go ahead was based on a range of environmental and other considerations.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why I concentrated on the economic aspect. There is a mixture of issues here. First, a legal duty was laid on myself and my right hon. Friend
  1292
  the Secretary of State for Health, the nature of which is set down in the basic standards enshrined in statute. Secondly, not only have there been extensive and numerous consultations on the issue during the past three or four years, but the Environment Agency recommended that the environmental aspects did not impede going ahead with the plant and, having done all the independent economic assessments, recommended that the plant should go ahead.
  Judy Mallaber: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Environment Agency has asked Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations Ltd. to apply for new authorisations for its work in Derby and the associated approval since 1966 for the dumping of gloves, coveralls and other items contaminated with low-level radioactive waste at Hilts Quarry at Crich in my constituency. Is she aware that since the Environment Agency started looking in detail at the application, and with the advent of a local protest group, Rolls-Royce has somehow managed to reduce its waste substantially, now tipping a lorry load only once every eight weeks instead of weekly? Will she ensure that the agency applies similar pressure to minimise waste elsewhere? I realise that she cannot comment on an application currently being determined, but will she look sympathetically at any request to transfer the Rolls-Royce waste to a more secure site that is not unlined and in a village next to a school?
  Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend accepts, I am aware of the basic issue, and it is clear from what she said that she is aware that these are matters for the Environment Agency. I freely confess that I am not aware whether the amount of waste has been substantially reduced or is simply being transported less often. However, those are issues that the Environment Agency, with the company, keeps under review and we retain information on those matters from time to time.
  Michael Fabricant: In the light of the present situation, does the Government have a view regarding the transportation of waste through residential areas, especially London?
  Margaret Beckett: The transportation of waste is always a sensitive and difficult issue. The hon. Gentleman will know that over the years many studies have been carried out and the issue of how to maintain high security is always kept under review.

  Farming
  Paul Flynn: What the contribution of the farming industry was as a proportion of English gross domestic product in the latest year for which figures are available; and what the average figure is for the last five years. [4673]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The contribution of the farming industry as a proportion of English gross domestic product in 2000 was £5 billion—0.7 per cent. The average contribution during the years 1996 to 2000 was 1 per cent.
  Paul Flynn: When subsidies are taken into account, the total contribution made by agriculture in the four years

  1293
  before foot and mouth was less than 0.5 per cent., compared with manufacturing industry which contributes 20 per cent. We know that the contribution is now less than zero. We all feel sympathy with the farming industry as a result of the suffering caused by foot and mouth, but is it reasonable to expect manufacturing industry, particularly the steel industry which is facing a new crisis, to contribute to and subsidise just one industry alone? Is not the answer to listen to what Lord Haskins is saying today and for farming to be made more entrepreneurial in future, rather than continue with the mistake that we have made in farming since the war where the industry has been subsidy sensitive but market blind?
  Mr. Morley: My noble Friend Lord Haskins is a farmer and business man. His assessment is important and will be listened to carefully by the entire farming industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the future for farmers is to become closer to the market and more consumer and customer oriented. The present level of subsidies to agriculture is not sustainable in the long term—it is not good for the consumer or the environment, and it has not been good for farmers as it has distorted the market. The Food and Farming Commission, which the Government have set up, will provide important pointers for the future of farming. There is no doubt that changes need to be made: we live in a changing and dynamic society, and agriculture is part of that.
  Mr. David Curry: The Minister is aware of the contribution made by the sheep industry to gross domestic product, especially in the uplands. In the light of that, can he explain the total confusion that has arisen over the research programme into BSE in sheep? Is he aware that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has apparently cancelled the meeting at which that was to be discussed? At 10.30 last night, DEFRA apparently put out a press release about it.
  On the radio news this morning, it was said that the samples that were being examined to find out whether there was BSE in sheep were actually samples from cows. A state of total confusion has descended, and the matter is of colossal importance to the entire agricultural industry. Can the Minister tell us what is happening? If he cannot tell us now, will he come back to the House as soon as possible and be specific about it?
  Mr. Morley: In all matters relating to BSE and animal health, the Government have been open and transparent. For that reason, the Government and our Department commissioned DNA testing in relation to the long-term experiment being carried out by Professor Bostock and the Institute for Animal Health. There were some concerns that there may be contamination by bovine brain material in the experiment. The step taken was appropriate and prudent, in order to control the quality of the research.
  As it happened, the results of the DNA testing, which did not come out until this week, demonstrated that there was serious contamination of the sample, and that in fact it was predominantly bovine brain material. There will have to be a full audit trail and evaluation of the
  1294
  experiment. It is therefore not surprising that SEAC has cancelled the meeting scheduled for Friday until we can evaluate the situation carefully.
  Paddy Tipping: But is it not the case that farming produces a wider economic contribution to the rural economy, in that it provides a landscape and an environment that people wish to visit? Given that, is it not rather strange that there are those who argue against compensation for farming instead of tourism, and against greater investment for rural rather than urban areas? Those things are interdependent. Should not that be the policy that we support?
  Mr. Morley: All independent studies and our recent rural White Paper demonstrate the clear interdependence between urban and rural areas, and between agriculture and other rural businesses, including tourism and the leisure sector. Agriculture is the country's biggest land user, so it has a key role not only in food production, which is its primary objective, but landscape, habitat and biodiversity measures. For those reasons, the Government are committed to shifting the current damaging and market-distorting subsidies in the common agricultural policy from production support to the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, the rural development structure, so that we can develop all those aspects in a holistic and integrated way that will benefit agriculture, the rural economy and the economy generally.
  David Burnside: Does the Minister share my concern, which is also the concern of the entire farming community, that in the departmental strategic review of policy, farming was listed as only the fifth priority? Is it not about time that the Government started to build confidence by restoring agriculture to the departmental title of the Department, and followed that up with more constructive policies for the farming community?
  Mr. Morley: I think that it is a serious mistake to try to apply a league table of priorities to Departments' aims and objectives. DEFRA was formed, quite rightly, to bring together a range of environmental, land-use objectives in an integrated way. I believe that that is the view of the majority in the House and certainly the majority of people outside the House, as well as in the agricultural sector. In that respect, those are all important issues. DEFRA covers not just agriculture but environmental issues, land use, forestry, floods and environmental control. It is a strength of the Department that it does so, and we should not try to prioritise the list or draw up league tables.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Minister talks about transparency; the only thing that is transparent is the muddle and confusion that the Government have brought to this whole area of their competence. Is he aware that farmers are saying that the Government do not understand or care; that it is no good telling farmers that they must change without telling them how; that they need not lectures from Ministers but clarity and leadership; and that, with earnings dawn to a pathetic £2,500 a year they cannot invest in the future? How can farmers be entrepreneurs when they have no funds to invest? Does the Minister accept that if there is no viable future for

  1295
  farming, it will not just be the rural economy that suffers, but the whole economy, our environment and millions of people and businesses, whether they live in the countryside or the towns?
  Mr. Morley: Of course farming has suffered a decline in income, but that has gone on for years. It is not a recent issue. Farming has been going through structural changes for a very long time—since 1945—and those changes will continue. Our job is to try to work in partnership with the industry to manage those changes and assist farmers. We contribute some £ billion a year to agriculture, which is a high level of subsidy.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about understanding. In my frequent meetings with farmers and land-use managers, they say that they very much appreciate the direction that the Government are taking. Those who use the word "understanding" often measure it by the size of the cheque that they are asking for.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister's reply reveals the extraordinary complacency that the Government have shown throughout their handling of foot and mouth and towards the countryside in general. I agree that there are no quick fixes, but the Government could make a start today by announcing that they will claim the £57 million compensation available under EU rules—but for just another 13 days. Does the Minister accept that failure to do so will simply confirm the widely held view that the Government have turned their back on rural Britain?
  Mr. Morley: This demonstrates the bare-faced cheek and hypocrisy of the Opposition. The Conservative party opposed the introduction of agrimonetary compensation measures within the Council of Ministers and has been arguing for cuts in public expenditure, yet demands increases in public spending. The two do not match because there is no logic. The hon. Gentleman's question is an example of his party's empty promises and rhetoric on countryside issues.

  Foot and Mouth
  Kevin Brennan: How many animals have been culled in (a) England and (b) Wales as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak; and how many of the carcases were disposed of in each country. [4674]
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): In round figures, some 2.84 million animals have been slaughtered in England and almost 326,000 in Wales. Just over 2.9 million carcases were disposed of in England and 224,000 in Wales. I can provide try hon. Friend with a more precise breakdown of those figures in writing if he wishes.
  Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that the topographical nature of Wales and the lack of rendering facilities make it particularly difficult to dispose of large numbers of carcases within Wales? Do not the figures show the
  1296
  benefit of Wales being a devolved nation within the United Kingdom, rather than following the selfish separatist agenda of the nationalists?
  Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right—it is one of the many areas in which the benefits of devolution are demonstrable. I entirely take his point about the different circumstances and conditions that apply in Wales and it is right that it is Welsh people and the Welsh Assembly who have been able to take the decisions in that respect.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing it in mind that millions of animals were slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, why have the Government set their face against holding a full, independent and public inquiry into its cause and handling? Such an inquiry has been called for by every rural organisation, without exception. The outbreak has cost taxpayers almost £2 billion. Surely, they have a right to learn the truth and to be told how the Government propose to prevent infection from being reimported into the United Kingdom in the near future.
  Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady refers to a cost to the economy of almost £2 billion. That figure is correct, but it contrasts slightly with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who suggested that the Government had not been prepared to spend any money to assist the industry.
  The thrust of the hon. Lady's question, however, was about inquiries. Of course, there is a general demand for public inquiries. Whenever anybody wants an inquiry into anything, everybody always says that they want a full public inquiry. It is only very rarely, however, that people define what they mean by that term. I say to her, as I have said repeatedly in the House, that the definition is very specific, as she will know. Indeed, the arrangements for a full public inquiry are so substantial that a Prime Minister's decision is required even to establish one. That means that they tend to be extremely time consuming and costly.
  The Government have proposed an inquiry structure with three separate and independent components, which means that a dedicated group of scientists will, as scientists—
  Mrs. Winterton: Not good enough.
  Margaret Beckett: The Royal Society, conducting a scientific investigation, is not good enough? That is absolute rubbish, and it shows the posturing and stupidity of the Opposition.
  Scientists are carrying out the scientific inquiry and an independent person is carrying out the inquiry into what specifically happened in the outbreak and what can be learned for good or ill. There is a separate process, which is not clouding its discussion and decisions with consideration of what specifically happened, but looking to the future. Indeed, it is looking to the questions asked by the hon. Member for East Surrey a moment ago—the future of farming and agriculture in the United Kingdom, how can they be prosperous and how can we have a prosperous rural economy. Three separate issues are being handled separately and everyone will be acting

  1297
  independently. The whole inquiry will report long before any public inquiry would have done so. That seems much better than the Opposition's posturing.

  Flood Defences (York)
  Hugh Bayley: When the Environment Agency will complete its assessment of the November 2000 flood of the Yorkshire Ouse and the feasibility of strengthening the City of York's flood defences. [4675]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I understand that the Environment Agency's preliminary strategic review for the River Ouse catchment is due for completion early in 2002. The findings of this strategy review and others that the agency is undertaking in the Yorkshire region will inform its plans for a prioritised programme of feasibility studies and capital works. Urgent repairs to York's defences were carried out following last year's floods.
  Hugh Bayley: The Environment Agency's most recent estimate of the cost of reinforcing York's flood defences is about £11 million. That will require a substantial increase in the regional flood defence committee's budget, in terms both of the Government's contribution and that of the local authority. Is my hon. Friend prepared to meet me to discuss those respective contributions, as well as the possibility of revising the rules for local authority contributions? Currently, those rules allow local authorities in upland areas to veto the raising of revenue for building vital flood defences in lowland areas, especially in the Vale of York.
  Mr. Morley: There is no doubt that those who are in charge of regional flood defences must face up to their responsibilities. I accept that, in the Yorkshire region, there is a backlog of investment in relation to long-term repairs, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that a great deal of additional resources have gone into the York defences, as well as others throughout the country. An extra £11 million was made available for this year alone, in the aftermath of last year's floods, to strengthen and repair defences. One of them was the Foss barrier, which received additional expenditure.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister meet me to discuss the plight of residents who were evacuated in the vale of York and in the Rawcliffe part of the city of York? Will he press the Environment Agency to establish a pumping station? Preferably, a permanent one should be established, but at the very least a mobile station is needed to prevent the water from Blue beck and all the nasties produced by sewage treatment from coming back into those houses again this year.
  Mr. Morley: As the hon. Lady knows, I am always willing to meet hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), to discuss issues of concern in their constituencies relating to flood defence. In regard to the pumping station, the hon. Lady will be aware that I have met local residents and the parish council so I understand the concerns of local people. It depends on environmental factors, cost-benefit considerations, how often the pump will be used and
  1298
  whether there are other ways in which the area can be defended. However, I am more than willing to consider all representations and to meet hon. Members.

  Welfare-friendly Farming
  Colin Burgon: What plans she has to introduce welfare friendly farming systems. [4676]
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Encouraging high animal welfare standards on farms is at the heart of Government policy. We have comprehensive legislation in place, supported by species-specific welfare codes. In addition, we run advisory campaigns for farmers on welfare issues and commit substantial sums to farm animal welfare research.
  Colin Burgon: As a townie and a meat eater, I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she any plans to meet the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to discuss its excellent 10-point sustainable welfare-friendly farming methods? Will she be discussing with the Soil Association its advocacy of the scheme to vaccinate animals rather than continue with the horrific mass slaughter of cattle that we have seen during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease? Does she agree that even townspeople should be involved in the widespread debate that we should be having about the future of agriculture and that we should be looking for radical changes in many of the current practices in the farming industry?
  Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend has asked me about two slightly different issues. I accept entirely his view that one does not have to be a vegetarian to care about animal welfare, or indeed to live in the countryside. I accept his points about the very good work carried out on several fronts by the RSPCA.
  My hon. Friend referred to vaccination rather than slaughter. Throughout the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the Government have continually kept under review and consideration whether vaccination can play a constructive role and whether it would assist. I remind him that it does not seem to be widely reported or understood that at present it is the approach not only of the British Government but right across the European Union, including Holland, for example, that vaccination is undertaken as a prelude to slaughter and not instead of it.
  These are difficult issues that must be considered. Together with the Dutch Government, we are sponsoring a conference later in the autumn to discuss these policy issues, but it is sadly not the case that there is a lovely, simple animal welfare-friendly option that would solve all the problems and would be easy to implement at any stage in any outbreak, let alone the current one.
  Mr. Colin Breed: We welcome very much the Government's animal welfare-friendly plans, but can the Secretary of State confirm that any costs associated with such plans will not fall upon British agriculture, rendering it more uncompetitive than it already is against its European competitors?
  Margaret Beckett: Yet another plea from a different quarter for more money from a party that claims to be

  1299
  concerned about the state of the economy. Of course we recognise that there may be costs associated with these measures and we do our best to make sure that what high standards require is adequately assessed, but we do not go over the top. The approach that we adopt—and I am slightly surprised to hear that it might not be the approach of the Liberal Democrats—is to seek to ensure that higher animal welfare standards are observed not only here, but across the European Union. We consider that that is the right course of action to make sure that people are competing on the same fair basis rather than going for the cheapest option and accepting tin damage to animal welfare that that might involve.

  Fishing (Essex)
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations she has received on the impact of the total allowable catch on fishing communities in Essex. [4677]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I regularly receive representations on all fishing issues from all over the country.
  Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that Leigh-on-Sea fishermen feel that if the cuts continue it will be uneconomic to go to sea and they would like levels to be underpinned? If he cannot achieve that, will he consider supporting our bid for European funding for a local hatchery, which would help to conserve stocks and offer alternative job opportunities?
  Mr. Morley: I realise that there is pressure on inshore fishermen when there are stock reductions because of pressure on quota, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is underpinning on, for example, sole, which will benefit his local inshore fishermen. I understand that my officials have met his constituents, who are proposing schemes under this budget, and that they will give advice and pursue the matter.

Rural Recovery (Cumbria)
12.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: We now come to written question No. 8.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—

Rural Recovery (Cumbria)
Mr. Eric Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Lord Haskins will make his report on rural recovery in Cumbria; and if she will make a statement. [9471]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): First, let me apologise. I hope not to take up too much of the House's time, but, in view of the many strictures about announcements being made outside the House rather than inside, I thought it right to try to make it known to the House that the Government welcome the report by Lord Haskins that was published this morning. We are grateful to Lord Haskins for his work in consulting stakeholders in Cumbria and other areas affected by the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and for producing a lucid and thoughtful report. We shall respond to all his recommendations shortly.
As the House may know, Lord Haskins' main recommendation stated that affected small businesses needed help to see them through the winter. I am pleased to be able to announce an extension of the business recovery fund in the worst-affected regions. Some £14 million of central Government funding has been made available, plus £10 million from reprioritisation within the regional development agencies' budgets. That will provide an extra £24 million for rural recovery through grants to individual businesses and other measures such as tourism promotion. We shall consider later in the year whether it is possible to provide more.
I apologise to the Opposition for not having been able to give them more notice of this announcement; but, as I have said, I thought it right to share the information with the House at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Martlew: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for taking the question. I also thank the Secretary of State for requesting it.
I am impressed by the report, which reaches conclusions that I consider essential in relation to Cumbria. We have had a major problem; the county's economy has gone into recession, although it will recover well. Lord Haskins makes 12 recommendations for the short term. The fifth is that £40 million should be made available for business recovery in the areas concerned, so I am rather disappointed that my right hon. Friend has announced only £24 million. Will she discuss with the Treasury whether the extra money is available? Without extra money, and extra money soon, good businesses in Cumbria and throughout the country that have been affected by foot and mouth will go bankrupt.
Margaret Beckett: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the problems experienced in Cumbria,
1302
which he and many other Members representing the county have frequently drawn to the House's attention. I also accept that he is a little disappointed that I cannot provide at once the full sum identified by Lord Haskins—although I think that he will find that Lord Haskins, along with others, will feel that this is very much a step in the right direction.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: This is a confused and innovative way of making an announcement to the House. I understand that no copies of the Haskins report are available in the Vote Office, although copies were made available to the media before DEFRA questions. I have managed to obtain a copy by dint of ingenuity, but it is not possible to ask questions and read at the same time. This is not an easy situation for any Member. If the Haskins report is as important as the Government have made out, surely it merited a full and proper statement to the House rather than the strange procedure that is taking place. We will, of curse, study the report with great care.
Can the right hon. Lady say how much of the new money that she has announced is, in fact, new money? Does she accept that the Cumbria foot and mouth taskforce estimated that at least £150 million of help was needed in the county? Lord Haskins recommends considerably less, and I understand that she wants to cut the amount further. Will she comment on that?
Will the right hon. Lady act on the recommendation that an extra £40 million should be put into the business recovery fund, half of which is due to Cumbria? Can that amount be provided swiftly? Many businesses in Cumbria simply will not survive the winter without the extra help that is needed so urgently. When will she further discuss the matter and the recommendations with her right hon. Friends in the Treasury, and when will she report? I note that she says that she will report shortly, but rural Britain and Cumbria in particular would like a clear date.
Farmers in Cumbria and elsewhere depend on livestock markets. Will the right hon. Lady reaffirm her support for livestock markets, despite the report's recommendation that they need to be better regulated? Are not the main opponents of livestock markets the big food processing companies such as Northern Foods, which is, of course, run by Lord Haskins?
Margaret Beckett: I welcome all members of the Opposition Front-Bench team to their new responsibilities, which I should have done previously. I apologise to them.
I fear that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that this procedure is innovative—it has been adopted before. I also say to him and the House that, had there been a question on the Order Paper to which I could have attached the announcement, I would certainly have done so. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House groans, but if he reads the Order Paper he will find that even his ingenuity would have been taxed by working the announcement into any of the questions that were before us.
I simply say to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that this is not a Government report; it is Lord Haskins' report to the Government. It is available in the Library, and if it is not yet available in the Vote Office I regret that.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. It is of course true that other taskforces and bodies have made a range of recommendations, all of which run to hundreds

1303
of millions of pounds. My understanding is that one of Lord Haskins' observations is that those making such recommendations should be more realistic.
When I say shortly, I mean shortly. I shall pursue a discussion on all the various recommendations that are made. The recommendation on livestock markets is one that we shall examine when we consider the report. Of course I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman as he seeks to assimilate what he has been asked o comment on while devising his questions: Labour Members had years of practice at that.
Mr. David Drew: I verb much welcome the report, which has come not a moment too soon. I am aware that it concentrates on Cumbria, but many other parts of the— [Interruption.]
>Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his question.
Mr. Drew: The report relates to other parts of the country, even though Cumbria was apparently the worst affected. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that some dates by which businesses must appeal for help can be extended, given that certain ones have passed? Will she also consider ways in which her ministerial team can go out and talk to farmers about how to move towards a more sustainable food policy?
Margaret Beckett: On my hon. Friend's last point, not only my team but the policy commission are engaged in that debate. I understand his points about businesses. One aspect that has led us to respond so speedily to the publication of the report is an understanding of the number of businesses that are in the queue, so to speak, and that have been affected by the existing position.
I did not deal with the point made by the hon. Member for East Surrey about whether the money is new. It is all money that will be newly available to people in such circumstances. I find the pretence that money that is available for the purposes for which it is to be used is somehow not available to be artificial and ridiculous.
Mr. Tim Collins: Cumbria has been through a horrendous nine months and I am afraid that the Government's reaction today is yet another example of too little, too late. May I press the Secretary of State specifically on Lord Haskins' recommendation that the extension of the amnesty for business rate and VAT payments should run to April next year? Will she have urgent discussions with the Treasury on that recommendation? If those bills are presented in the next few months, a large number of businesses will go bankrupt.
Will the right hon. Lady comment on the extraordinary statement in Lord Haskins' report that Government support should be provided only to those businesses that deserve to survive? Will she clarify exactly which businesses, in the Government's view, deserve to survive? I can tell her that in my constituency and throughout the county of Cumbria a large number of businesses that deserved to survive are already bust.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct and, naturally, I accept that the situation in
1304
Cumbria has been terrible. Members throughout the House recognise that. I take on board his further points about the extension of the amnesty. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and I have been discussing and will continue to discuss these issues. I take this opportunity to tell the House that the rural taskforce report, on which my right hon. Friend has been engaged, will also be published later this afternoon and made available in the House.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: We have just heard that the total contribution of agriculture to our GDP is worth £5 billion. Is the Secretary of State aware that The Economist calculates that cannabis dealing in the United Kingdom is worth more than £1 billion? Has Lord Haskins considered the enormous contribution that could be made by legalising cannabis and producing the crop in the United Kingdom, which would be perfectly possible—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the question.
Malcolm Bruce: I welcome any circumstance that requires Ministers to make a statement about publications that have been issued outside. It is unfortunate, however, that it was not possible to have a full statement.
What does Lord Haskins' report, as it applies to Cumbria, imply for the rest of England and Wales in terms of compensation requirements, and what recommendations will flow from that? Given that the rural taskforce has also reported today to the Prime Minister—I understand that the report has just been published—can the Secretary of State say anything about that report, which I understand calls for more extensive support for businesses across the rural community? May we have a debate in the House about both reports, rather than a hurried statement tacked on to the end of Question Time?
Margaret Beckett: With respect, the Government have tried, without unduly disrupting business, to ensure that the announcement of our reaction to the report has been made in the House. The breakdown and the justification for it are issues that we can consider at greater length. As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the matter, it has been heard by the Leader of the House. Indeed, the rural taskforce report looks more widely and more at the medium and longer term. Nothing that I have said today precludes consideration of what might be the right steps to take in the medium and longer term. The House and the Government will return to those issues over time.
Tony Cunningham (Workington): I welcome the report and the money that is being provided. Will the Secretary of State ensure that local people are brought into discussions on the implementation of the report? We want to make sure that the new money is spent as efficiently as possible because the people of Cumbria have truly suffered over the past nine months.
Margaret Beckett: I entirely take my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs advises me that one of the key recommendations in the rural taskforce report as he sees it concerns teamwork, and clearly that involves local people. It is right to give

1305
careful consideration to the best, most effective use of the money. It is not for me to define Lord Haskins' terms for him, but I suspect that is what he meant when he talked about businesses that deserve money.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Does the right hon. Lady accept that Lord Haskins is not the most popular man with farmers? He is not a particularly successful farmer and his company certainly is not friendly to the farming industry. Does it come well from a man such as Lord Haskins to hector livestock farmers who work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months a year? Does she further accept that the subsidies mentioned by Members during Question Time today go to the consumer, not the farmer? Unless farmers are there, the great land that we represent and which people take for granted will not be maintained. Farmers must produce from their land to maintain it for the benefit of the country.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will have been in the Chamber and heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) indicating that we all recognise not only the direct contribution that agriculture and farming make to the economy, but their contribution to the rural landscape, which is a key issue for tourism.
As for the hon. Gentleman's contention that Lord Haskins is not popular in the countryside, I think that a succession of Agriculture Ministers would like to know how that is to be achieved.
Paul Flynn: The present animal markets are wasteful, inefficient, cruel to animals and accelerate the spread of animal diseases. During this crisis some farmers have sold their animals via video links, and Lord Haskins rightly says that the best way of conducting such sales is via the internet, which not only avoids suffering for animals, as they do not have to travel so far, but is far cheaper. Most of all, however, such a system would avoid the spread of disease, as animals do not come into contact with each other. Is not that recommendation, like the rest of the report, far-sighted? Lord Haskins rightly says that aquaculture, bio-farming and fuel farming are more prosperous and employ more people than traditional agriculture. They could also create an industry that has a far better future, without subsidies.
Margaret Beckett: People may or may not like what Lord Haskins has to say, but it is generally recognised that he is always a thoughtful and stimulating contributor to debate. My hon. Friend has drawn on some of the ideas that are in the public domain and being discussed. They are also very much ideas that we hope that the policy commission will consider and take into account when it makes its own recommendations.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): I recognise the very special impact that foot and mouth had on Cumbria, but other parts of the country suffered as well. People in those areas
1306
will look carefully at the conclusions of Lord Haskins' report and note the additional resources going to Cumbria. Does the right hon. Lady have any plans to apply those lessons, and further resources, to other parts of the country?
Margaret Beckett: I should make it plain that it is not the intention that all that money will go to Cumbria. Clearly, however, the flavour of what Lord Haskins says is that many of the problems have been more severe there. Of course the Government recognise that the problems are more widespread.
Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, with 134 cases in North Yorkshire, many of which have been in its two national parks, the impact or our sub-regional rural economy—particularly in my constituency in the Esk valley—was much the same as the impact in Cumbria. Will she confirm that North Yorkshire will share in substantial support to deal with that impact? Will the national park authorities, with their expertise, be used to tackle the problems of overstocking, especially in the sheep sector, that face many of my constituents?
Margaret Beckett: We are listening to the views and input of the various authorities on the future direction of policy. We shall also examine the distribution of the money. I am sure that not everyone will be satisfied, and that everyone will think that there should be more for their area, but I hope that people will recognise that it is a contribution.
I should also like to share with the House a piece of information of which I have just been reminded. Lord Haskins was in fact recommended as the person to conduct the study by the National Farmers Union in Cumbria.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): Those of us who have not had access to the papers rather assumed that the £24 million that the right hon. Lady has announced was specifically targeted on Cumbria. If that is not so, will she make it clear? At the beginning of this debate, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly raised the essential issue of the quantum of compensation. Have we heard her last word on that subject? Can we tempt her to keep open the possibility of increasing the sum it demands increase in other parts of the United Kingdom" Specifically, what new money will be made available in south-east and south-west Scotland as a result of her announcement today?
Margaret Beckett: I accept that it is not easy for hon. Members to follow the precise nuances of announcements. As I said, however, the money is indeed for Cumbria and for other areas; the hon. Gentleman is right about that. Nevertheless, I anticipate that the lion's share of the money will go to Cumbria, for all the reasons that hon. Members understand and have identified. I also accept that there will be continuing concerns in other areas, and that tip, Government will come under continuing pressure to see whether it is possible, in our difficult circumstances, to do more.

Business of the House
12.50 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Homelessness Bill.
TUESDAY 23 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. Until about 10 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Conduct of Ministers in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill.
THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day 1st part]. There will be a debate on a motion. Subject to be announced. Motion on the Social Security (Jobcentre plus Interviews) Regulations 2001.
Motion to take note of European Document No. 14174/00 relating to the European Food Authority.
FRIDAY 26 OCTOBER—Private Members' Bills. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Adoption Bill.
TUESDAY 29 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
WEDNESDAY 31 OCTOBER—OppOsition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 1 NOVEMBER—I intend to keep that date free at this stage; it may be appropriate for a further debate on international terrorism.
FRIDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
I know that Members will welcome early notice of recess dates. It may therefore be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House rise for the Christmas recess at the end of business on Wednesday 19 December, or Thursday 20 December, until Tuesday 8 January.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks—and not only that; knowing how keen his colleagues always are to get away from this place as much as possible, I suspect that they, in particular, will be grateful for the announcement of the Christmas recess.
I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement that he wants to make provision on Thursday 1 November for a possible further debate on terrorism. On Monday 15 October, he said:
"we will have repeated debates on the issue of terrorism … Whenever appropriate, we will return to it"— [Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 975.]
I am sure that everyone in the House will welcome that. I welcome the fact that the Government have already given proper time for the subject to be debated, and I hope that
1308
the Leader of the House will find it possible to give us as much reasonable notice as possible that it is the Government's firm intention to have that debate on 1 November. We want to avoid any last-minute decisions or scrambles for debates, especially on such an important issue. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want the maximum possible notice of such a debate.
With regard to next Tuesday's debate, I hope that the Leader of the House will be gratified that we took his advice. In the same column of Hansard it is recorded that he said that if I wished to return to the issue of Ministers, the civil service and special advisers, the Government would be delighted to debate it robustly with us. I followed his advice. Effectively, he asked us for a debate, and we have decided to give it to him. I hope that he will enjoy it—and I hope that his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will enjoy it equally; that remains to be seen.
Finally, may I press the right hon. Gentleman on a point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who on Monday asked what had happened to the debate on drugs. That has disappeared, and this Friday we now have a debate on cleaner fuels. The right hon. Gentleman gave a lot of explanations about how busy the Home Office was and how difficult it would be for Home Office Ministers to find time, and so on. He then said:
"I hope to see the debate reinstated at an appropriate time when the Home Office can appropriately find priority for it." — [Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 975.]
I will not say that that was waffle; that would be unfair, but I hope that the Leader of House can give a more positive indication on whether we can return to the important subject of drugs, which I dare say some in the House, even some of his hon. Friends, think is marginally more important than cleaner fuel.
Mr. Cook: I welcome the clear indication from the right hon. Gentleman and Conservative Back Benchers that they will be happy to be here at Christmas. The recess that I announced is clearly subject to the progress of business, but I take note of the fact that Conservative Members are willing to be here at Christmas should that be required.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the day that we have set aside for a debate on terrorism. I will, of course, confirm that date at next Thursday's business questions. That will give us seven days' warning, and I am sure that that will be satisfactory for the House. Should we change our plans, I am sure that he will be the first to know.
I think that I speak for all Labour Members when I say that I am grateful for the fact that the party that thought up the privatisation of the railways and devised the structure of Railtrack now proposes to have a full-day's debate about the disastrous consequences for Railtrack and the travelling public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was faced with a choice: to pour more taxpayers' money down the black hole of an insolvent company, or to create a not-for-profit company in which money would go first to the travelling public rather than to shareholders. We chose to put passengers first. The Conservative party would obviously choose to put shareholders first, but I have not the slightest doubt what the travelling public would vote for.

1309
I explained to the House on Monday that the sole reason for deferring the debate on drugs was that the Home Office is, at present, introducing three new Bills in response to the events of 11 September. The first will be an emergency anti-terrorism Bill, and I hope that all Members of reason would agree that the Home Office should be able to give priority to that issue at this time. However, I fully accept the case for a debate on drugs; that is why we found time for it in the first place. We shall return to it whenever we can.
On Monday, I congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I now congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who is sitting in a suitably modest position, on joining the team of the shadow Leader of the House. I hope that, for his own sake, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will find the experience more congenial than his predecessor did, who quit after only 30 days in the post.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Minister for Industry and Energy will make a statement about his predecessor's decision on an equal pay claim for all the canteen workers in the coalfields? Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 2,500 of those workers have not qualified for the money? Will he draw that fact to the attention of the Chancellor of Exchequer and explain to him that we need extra money for all the canteen workers who were left out of the agreement and who must be paid? In my area, those who belonged to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers were paid, while those at Bolsover colliery who stayed loyal to the National Union of Mineworkers during the pit strike were left off the list. That state of affairs has been repeated across all the coalfields and in many constituencies represented by Labour Members. We want a statement or, better still, payment pretty sharp.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend states his case with his characteristic robustness. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Ministers. It is long overdue that the events of that period were put behind us. Everyone should be treated on an equal and fair basis.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I reinforce the plea that my colleagues have just made for a debate on the rural crisis? Many Members on both sides of the House think that such a debate is long overdue.
Will the Leader of the House examine the allocation of time for questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? In the Question Time that we have just completed, it took us more than half an hour to reach a question on farming and agriculture and, indeed, no fishing questions were reached at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "One was."] I apologise to the House; one fishing question was reached at the very end.
Previously there was an arrangement by which a large Department—the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—allocated some time to environmental questions and some time to transport questions. May we put that procedure in place again? Will the Leader of the House and the House authorities consider that possibility so that agriculture and rural affairs are not kicked into touch, as they were today?
1310
The Leader of the House will recall—indeed, he may still have the bruises—his experience when the House decided that appointments to Select Committees should be more transparent, should be seen to be more transparent and should be more open to influence by Members rather than the so-called usual channels. Does he expect to be able to make an announcement on that, as a result of recommendations from the Modernisation Committee, within the two-week period that he announced today or very shortly? He will be aware that there are vacancies on Select Committees and, he may wish to make a statement about how he wishes to approach the task of filling them.
Mr. Cook: I am aware of, and sympathetic to, the pressure for a debate on the countryside. I hope that we will be able to find time for it at an appropriate moment.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about questions to DEFRA, and I am alive to the fact that I am addressing a Chamber that is mostly composed of Members who were here for DEFRA questions, and with whom his point might resonate. I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but there is no time available with which to widen the envelope; whether or not the envelope can be reshuffled is a matter on which I must seek the advice of my colleagues in the Department.
I am pleased to report to the House that the Modernisation Committee had a good first discussion on appointments to Select Committees yesterday morning. I hope that we will be able to make good progress in reaching an agreement on an alternative method of bringing nominations before the House. If so, we may be able to bring a report to the House in November. In the meantime, I am conscious of the need to fill the vacancies that are arising, which is one of the reasons for my desire to make progress as quickly as possible.
Geraldine Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the wholesale redundancies, outsourcing and sell-offs currently being planned by Consignia, which could jeopardise its ability to meet its universal service obligations, destroy the morale of employee: and plunge this country's postal services into a terrible mess. In view of that, may we have an early debate on the future of the Post Office?
Mr. Cook: I am very much aware of the position to which my hon. Friend draws my attention, and I fully sympathise with the concerns arising from the announcement. My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement is only the start of a process of consultation and discussion, and I am sure that the House will have opportunities to ventilate the concerns of individual Members as that proceeds. These are, of course, matters for the company, not the Government, and I would not wish to suggest that Ministers will interfere in the way in which the company addresses the important task of ensuring that the Post Office remains in profit.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the Leader of the House consider the case for a debate on Lord Haskins' other report, published yesterday, the annual report of the better

1311
regulation taskforce? Does he accept Lord Haskins's conclusion that the present system of regulation is "excessively centralised"
and
"inherently autocratic, inflexible and remote"?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have expressed concern about the speed that is required in deregulation, which is why, after all, we passed the reform Act in the previous Session. I am pleased to say that since we did so, no fewer than 50 different areas have come within the scope of the Act and are being acted on as we speak. We will continue to make all due progress.
Mr. Mike Wood: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the gas explosion in my constituency last December, which killed two constituents, Alvin and Shirley Sykes, as they slept. The explosion was subject to an immediate investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, but 10 months later we are still waiting for the report to be published, and there is no evidence that publication is imminent. Will my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to the people of Batley, not least the Sykes family, who need to put that dreadful experience behind them, by arranging an immediate and urgent statement to the House about the full circumstances of the explosion and an explanation of why we are being denied the report?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is important to his constituency, and particularly to the family of the constituents whom he named He makes his point with great dignity and force. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive and encourage it to release the report as quickly as possible.
Sir George Young: The Government have made it clear that over the next few weeks the House will deal with a substantial volume of additional legislation on terrorism, much of which will be taken on the Floor. Does he agree that if the House is to perform its scrutiny role adequately, this necessarily means that some of the other items in what was already an ambitious programme will have to be dropped?
Mr. Cook: I do not anticipate a problem with timetabling up to the next recess, which I have announced. As for the future, we will review the matter when we get there. Let us be clear: there has been a change, not only in our security environment, but in international affairs. Both the House and the Government would be subject to immense criticism if we were to say that we do not have the flexibility to respond, to introduce and scrutinise legislation and to pass it with the expedition required for emergency legislation. I look forward to the co-operation of all quarters of the House in achieving that objective.
David Cairns: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the looming crisis in the airline industry, brought about as a direct result of actions on 11 September? He will be aware that the American Government and other European Governments are giving strong support to their national airlines. It is a fiercely competitive industry and global market. The debate will also allow the Government to address the central
1312
problems that face the industry—the difficulty of insurance, the increased costs for extra security at airports and the provision of compensation for when the planes were grounded.
Andrew Mackinlay: And also about the absurdity of terminal 5, which should be stopped.
Mr. Cook: I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), although I fear that that is not in order.
The Government have responded to the crisis in the aviation industry and underwritten provisions, especially in relation to insurance to the end of the month. We are in consultation with the aviation industry to consider what further support may be appropriate and consistent with our European obligations, which also apply to our partners. I note that the relevant Department will be up for questions next week and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and others may want to ventilate that issue then.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know from his former incarnation that problems arise if countries do things in different ways. Will it be possible before the next debate on terrorism for the Foreign Secretary to discover how far those who have joined in the coalition are working to defeat international terrorism? Belgium is not handing over information to the Americans and someone in the Republic of Ireland keeps his own army council, with illegally held weapons, against the constitution.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he and his hon. Friends might want to reiterate in the full-day debate that I have announced for two weeks hence. One reason why we held the Justice and Home Affairs Council immediately after 11 September and are anxious to introduce emergency legislation to implement our decisions is to ensure that all European Union member states work together with everyone else to ensure that we crack down on terrorism and co-operate with each other to bring to justice those who are guilty of terrorism.
Fiona Mactaggart: More than 100 Labour Members and some Opposition Members have demonstrated their unease about the Wakeham proposals by signing early-day motion 226:
[That this House supports the democratic principle that any revised Second Chamber of Parliament should be wholly or substantially elected.]
In view of that, will my right hon. Friend agree to consult further before he introduces legislation based on those proposals, which do not include a substantial democratic element for any elected second Chamber?
Mr. Cook: I have noted the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend refers and see that she tabled it. I am happy to say that there will be a consultation document before legislation is introduced. We gave that commitment in the Queen's Speech and it is how we will proceed.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Leader of the House said that there has been an obvious

1313
change in the domestic security environment. May we have a statement next week on civil defence? There seem to be some mixed messages from Ministers, including the Prime Minister. When asked specific questions in television interviews, they respond that they do not want to create alarm, which is understandable, and we received some information in the margins of Health questions earlier this week, but the approach is in stark contrast to the attitude to public information in the United States. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on that issue? We are receiving questions in our mailbag and I have some questions that I should like to ask. The House deserves a statement and an opportunity to question Ministers without revealing too much that would undermine security.
Mr. Cook: There will be an opportunity to question Ministers at the Department of Health. In fairness to the Government, we should recall that we began on Monday with a statement from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which dwelt on the internal security situation in Britain.
The hon. Lady puts her finger on a dilemma that we must try to get right. We are aware of no specific threat to the UK, but at the same time we must recognise that in the present environment some people may wish to execute an attack on the UK if they have the opportunity and means to do so. Although we may be aware of no specific threat, we must be constantly alert and vigorous in safeguarding our people, and take all possible measures to do so. I am sure that we will debate the balance of those considerations as we proceed with emergency legislation.
David Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the future of the United Kingdom hospice movement, which is under severe financial pressure? Sue Ryder Care expects to close four of its hospices throughout the country, including one at Staunton Harold hall in my constituency, about which a 20,000-signature petition was presented to No. 10 Downing street just last week. Is not the hospice movement, with the day, respite and terminal illness care that it offers and the dignity that it gives so many of our citizens in their final days, of sufficient importance for finance to be more heavily sourced from the national health service and not dependent on the vicissitudes of voluntary contributions?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Having previously held the health portfolio in opposition, I fully understand and greatly value the work of the hospice movement, which can provide particularly sensitive care at a very difficult time for both patients and relatives, who immensely appreciate its services. This Government certainly want the hospice movement to prosper, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my colleagues at the Department of Health.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the conduct of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, particularly relating to the fishing industry? In the Shetland part of my constituency, the fishing industry accounts for 20 to 25 per cent. of our economy. My
1314
constituents would consider a system that allows for less than two minutes' questioning of Ministers in two weeks next to useless. I therefore ask whether time will be found for a statement or a proper debate on the crisis of stock levels in the North sea and the need, highlighted in a paper produced today by the World Wildlife Fund, for money to be provided by the Treasury for short to medium-term aid for the fishing industry and the white fish fleet in particular.
Mr. Cook: I note that the hon. Gentleman has seconded the suggestion made from the Liberal Democrat Benches by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and I fully understand and am aware of the importance of the fishing industry to his constituency. I am delighted that this occasion has given me the opportunity to put that on the record in the way in which Question Time did not.
John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of demerger plans concerning mmo2, which is part of BT. I should register an interest as an ex-BT employee of 30 years, a small shareholder in the company and a member of Connect, the management and professionals union. My right hon. Friend will also be aware that, if carried, the proposals could damage not only BT but the UK's communications infrastructure. Is he aware that the trade unions representing BT's employees are firmly against any demerger on the grounds not only of possible job losses but of national interest? Will he arrange a debate in which we can discuss what might happen if the demerger goes ahead?
Mr. Cook: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but I am aware of the issue and I fully understand the anxiety to which it has given rise. The matter is essentially for BT as a company, but I hope that, in taking it forward, it will fully consult and listen to is employees and consider carefully whether the division of debt in the demerger is fair to both parts.
Chris Grayling: The Leader of the House may be aware that in early September the Strategic Rail Authority presented to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions an analysis of Central Railway's proposal to build a freight line from the channel tunnel to the north-west. As the Leader of the House may be aware, the proposal has caused considerable anxiety across many parts of south-east England, so I should be grateful if he would invite the Secretary of State to attend the House at the earliest possible date to make a statement on the proposals and their viability.
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needs no further encouragement from me to appear in the House next week—he will be involved in Question Time and a debate next Tuesday, and I am sure that that will furnish the hon. Gentleman with adequate opportunity to air his concerns.
Mr. Colin Challen: Since 11 September, all hon. Members have welcomed the opportunities that way have had to discuss, in a very sombre and respectful way, the consequences of

1315
international terrorism, and we welcome the further opportunities to do so that have been announced, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing debate outside the House about the long-term consequences of the events of 11 September? We may be dismayed that such action has to be taken now, but beyond the fight in Afghanistan, there is a war against poverty and so on in the wider world. We may also be dismayed by a recent report, which we may have all received, from the Jubilee Plus campaign about the effect of poverty in the heavily indebted poor countries. That also needs to be debated, and perhaps a whole day should be set aside to debate that wider context.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the events of 11 September will have long-lived and wide repercussions, and I share with him the hope that, as a consequence, there will be a greater international consensus on bearing down on word poverty, which is, of course, one of the breeding grounds of the fanaticism that can produce terrorism. This Government have a very good record on taking the initiative in the G8 and elsewhere on relieving the debt of the poorest countries. We shall continue to provide that leadership, and I hope that we can now build a bigger alliance to lift the burden of debt from those countries that sometimes find that they pay more in interest on debt than they spend on their schools and hospitals.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Will the Leader of the House try to ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions can tell the House, either in the debate next week or in an early statement, how much public money will be made available to the new Railtrack, when decisions will be made about investment projects that have been put on ice by Railtrack's going into administration and when we will know the details of the successor company? In my constituency, we were well advanced with plans for a new station, but we now have no idea where Railtrack is coming from, who is running it, how much money it has and whether it can get on with modernising the railways. We will need answers from the Secretary of State, and I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the time will not be wasted next week.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reflect on the right hon. Gentleman's observations and consider what weight he should attach to them in his speech. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also favour us with a speech on Tuesday and explain how, while sitting in the Cabinet that privatised the railway industry, he helped to devise the system of railway administration. The system was thought up by that Cabinet and is part of the Railways Act 1993, so perhaps he could share with is the answers that Conservative Members had in mind in 1993.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover): Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to hold an urgent debate on encouraging the recruitment and retention of general practitioners? Has he had a chance to study the two surveys published yesterday? Is he aware of the growing shortage of GPs across the country, especially in east Kent? Yesterday, the prospect arose of one large practice in my constituency shedding 500 patients from its roll.
1316
That is driving us into a dangerous position, so will he seriously consider holding a debate on those important matters?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point about the situation in his constituency, and I understand why he is concerned. On the broader, national picture, I have to tell him that there are now more GPs than ever before and that the survey to which he refers discovered that the clear majority of those GPs believe that health care to their patients has improved under this Government.
Sir Sydney Chapman: If not next week, then at an early date, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on a matter that is assuming some urgency—the proper parliamentary scrutiny of the new European security and defence project? Given the need for the ESDP closely to ally its work with NATO, does he agree that it would be far better if the scrutiny at European level were conducted by a reconstituted Assembly of the Western European Union rather than by the European Parliament or the European Union, because some members of the EU are not members of NATO and some members of NATO are not members of the EU?
Mr. Cook: I would suggest that, in the light of the events of 11 September, we should try to make every possible progress on European security to make sure, for example, that we can guarantee stability in our own continent, especially in south-east Europe and the Balkans, so that we never again see in Europe the emergence of the kind of pressures that gave rise to the attack on the World Trade Centre. Of course, it is important that European security and defence policy is democratically accountable, but I strongly suggest—the Government have maintained this position since the start of the process—that democratic accountability should be to the national Parliaments, including this one.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Government published their consultation paper on a national strategy for sexual health, including HIV, in July? Having waited two years for that paper, it was disappointing that it was published in the recess, which meant that there was no possibility of a statement or debate. A lot of people are interested in the issues raised by the paper. Will he see if time can he found for a debate, if not immediately, then before the consultation period ends?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question and know of his own interest through the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. I am aware of the concern about the time taken to produce the report; indeed, it was raised with me in business questions before the recess. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend is indulgent of the fact that the report was published, albeit in the recess. It is important that we do not propose that all Government work be suspended during the recess, and it is vital that the Government are held to account for any major statement. I shall bear in mind his request for a debate; I cannot give any promises, but I shall certainly take it on board, along with the many other requests that I receive.
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): Ahead of next Tuesday's debate, if we are going to restore confidence in

1317
public and political life, is it not essential that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions comes to the Dispatch Box and announces that he has at last sacked his special adviser, which is what the overwhelming majority of people in the country expect? Also, because of the delay in sacking, the Secretary of State should now say that he is considering his own position.
Mr. Cook: There is absolutely nothing new left to say about the case of Jo Moore and the right hon. Gentleman has not found anything. The issue is not whether or not Jo Moore made a mistake; she herself said that she made a terrible error of judgment. The issue is whether someone's career and livelihood should be ended because of a single mistake. That may be how Conservative Members treat their staff, but it is certainly not how they behaved when they were Ministers. Had they resigned after making one mistake, they would not have lasted 18 days, never mind 18 years.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, 12 months on from the devastating floods of last autumn, it is appropriate to have a debate to examine their impact and consider where we are now as a result and what we have been able to achieve? For instance, 300 homes in my constituency were devastated at Stockbridge. If we had a debate, one of the many things that I would like to raise is the fact that the Environment Agency will not start work to improve flood defences on the River Aire at Stockbridge until next summer. Meanwhile, many of my constituents are extremely worried every time that there is heavy rain. In addition, as a result of the laggardly behaviour of one or two insurance firms, several of my constituents have still not been able to move back into their homes 12 months on.
Mr. Cook: I am fully aware of the seriousness of the issue, particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency, and know that my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are following the matter closely. As for a debate, I have now accumulated requests for a full week of debates, and I must warn the House that I cannot please everybody.
Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe): Could the Leader of the House provide the House with an opportunity to debate the Government's proposals to legislate against religious hatred so that Opposition Members and, perhaps, Government Members can inquire how they are going to do so without a definition of religion in the Bill?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: With Mr. Bean's stand-in.
Mr. Cook: I am not quite sure how Hansard will interpret my hon. Friend's comment.
The Bill will be published, we hope, in the middle of November, when the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) will be able to see its full terms. However, an awful meal is being made of issues of definition. Personally, I see no problem whatever with understanding the difference between a joke about a religion and inciting religious hatred and violence. Indeed,
1318
we ourselves tackle I those questions in the past. I remember when people said that legislation against incitement to race hatred was impossible because it could not be adequately defined. We managed that; the legislation was passed and plays a useful role. I see no reason why we should not do the same with religious hatred.
John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that on Monday the Home Secretary announced that he would bring forward measures to increase security at airports, and yet, since then, there has been an exposé in the media showing that companies such as Securicor have been allowing staff with no security clearance to work in high-risk areas. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Secretary of State fog Transport, Local Government and the Regions to bring those powers forward urgently to ensure that companies that exploit loopholes in the existing regulations should be prevented from doing so immediately, or, failing that, should not be allowed to operate at the airport itself?
Mr. Cook: I saw the reports and made inquiries. There is a genuine dilemma here. The events of 11 September have required heightened security, not just at airports but at many other sites in the UK. It is impossible to provide that additional security without an increase in staff, and it is not possible necessarily to complete the screening of all members of staff before they commence work. The present arrangements make that permissible, provided that the screening proceeds as quickly as possible. The choice facing some of the installations is whether to have any security at all or security with those who may not have been fully screened. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend: we must make all haste and that is why we seek to introduce an emergency Bill with, we hope, expedited procedures.
Pete Wishart: Would the Leader of the House be agreeable to a full debate on the international humanitarian aid effort in Afghanistan, and, if so, could that debate be preceded by a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development so that she can inform the House of her recent visits?
Mr. Cook: As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend is currently in Pakistan pursuing that very issue. The Prime Minister and all members of the Cabinet have repeatedly stressed that the humanitarian effort is receiving the same priority and the same resources necessary for the job as the military effort. We will have an opportunity to debate the matter in a fortnight's time and we shall consider nearer the time who is most appropriate to speak for the Government.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: It is an extremely long time since we debated the work of the Child Support Agency, changes to which will be made next year. The CSA is powerful: it overrides medical evidence and will not allow appeals against its decisions. We should once again be considering the work of the CSA, which impacts on many people's lives. Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate on the CSA?
Mr. Cook: I will happily draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the

1319
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As for a debate, I can only invite my hon. Friend to join the queue, in which there are already five in front of him today.
Mr. Michael Jack: Reports in The Times today say that the so-called secret plans to split Railtrack plc into financial and operating arms have been described as unworkable by potential investors. In view of that and the fact that many thousands of ordinary people who are shareholders in the company are still totally in the dark about their position, will the Leader of the House reconsider his earlier view about the use of the Opposition day next Tuesday? That might properly be occupied by a consideration of ministerial conduct and the role of special advisers and not give a sharp focus on Railtrack. If the right hon. Gentleman's statement about commitment to the railways is to become reality, we need to probe the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions thoroughly and carefully in the light of those reports. Can we have a special debate on the subject?
Mr. Cook: It is not for me to devise the Opposition motion, nor do I imagine it would be welcome were I to do so. [Interruption.] I am grateful for that confirmation of my view on the matter. It is open to all Members of the House within the rules of order to take advantage of that debate to explore the issues that they regard as most germane. For many of my colleagues, one of those issues will undoubtedly be how Railtrack a company on the brink of bankruptcy, nevertheless in the course of the past 12 months has paid hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders, which could have been there for the safety of the travelling public.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: We heard earlier about the calamitous consequences of 11 September for the airline industry. My question is about aerospace. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Rolls-Royce, which is a major employer in my constituency, is expected to announce between 3,000 and 4,000 job cuts? Does he agree that now is not the time for a high-tech company to make panic cuts? Will he invite the secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House tomorrow and make an urgent statement about the unfolding crisis in the airline and aerospace industries?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is following these matters with great care and great energy. I fully understand the importance of the impending announcement to the constituents of my hon. Friend and I also understand how important it is that, because of a short-term emergency, we do not disperse skilled teams that work together. I hope that we can all work together so that in the long term there will be healthy airline and aerospace industries in the United K Kingdom.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: May I support the call for a debate on the airline and at aerospace industries in the crisis resulting from the attacks in 11 September? In Northern Ireland, we know that Shorts in particular proposes to lay off thousands of workers as a result of the crisis. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 261.
1320
[That this House deplores the fact that British Airways have chosen to use the 11th September terrorist attacks as justification for withdrawing from the Belfast/London Heathrow route; condemns the refusal by British Airways to release slots at Heathrow Airport which could be used by other airlines for this route; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide support to ensure that this level of service can be maintained given the dire consequences of this decision on the economy of Northern Ireland.]
The decision by British Airways to use the terrorist attacks of 11 September as justification for withdrawing from the Belfast International-London Heathrow route has caused great dismay and concern in Northern Ireland, and has removed Belfast and Northern Ireland as a region from the British Airways timetable. Can consideration therefore be given to an early debate on these matters?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety on behalf of his constituents who are employed at Shorts. In the long run, we must face the fact that the only way we can recover both the viability of the airline industry and the order book of the aerospace industry is by getting the public back travelling by air. That is why it is so important that we address our minds to what we can do to improve aviation security still further, to provide that confidence to the travelling public, and that is why it is important that the House deals urgently and sympathetically with the Bill that we have introduced, to ensure that we carry it through expeditiously.
Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central): Does my right hon. Friend agree that when considering alternative methods of choosing Select Committee members, priority should be given to two criteria? First, any system should be independent of Government, and secondly, it should be transparent and open. Does he also agree that unless all the names of hon. Members who are applying for membership of Select Committees are published, neither the House nor the public can be confident that the most appropriate hon. Members have been selected?
Mr. Cook: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the criterion that we must meet is that the body which puts names before the House is independent of party influence and transparent in its accountability. That is what the Modernisation Committee will seek to achieve. I am not sure to what extent it would be practical to publish the names of all those applying for membership of Select Committees, or whether such a system applies in the case of all the parties in the House. However, I can share with my hon. Friend our commitment that we will meet his standards of independence and transparency.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a DEFRA Minister to come to the House at an early date to make a statement about the serious delays in the issuing of movement licences under the new animal movement licensing scheme? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the need for farmers to move livestock before the winter. It is therefore important that the House knows what measures DEFRA intends to put in place to ensure that the system runs much more smoothly, in order to allow those much needed movements to take place.
Mr. Cook: My colleagues from DEFRA left the Chamber less than an hour ago and I am not sure how

1321
willing they would be to come back straight away. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the importance of the autumn movements. I have already discussed it with her, but shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to her attention.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate, or be guaranteed an early statement, on the serious situation in Northern Ireland? There are new possibilities in connection with decommissioning, given the general position on terrorism, and there is the problem of the resignation by Ulster Unionists from the Executive. Discussion of those matters should not simply be tacked on to general debates about the wider terrorist situation because the issues are important in their own right and hon. Members should have a chance to debate them.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is assiduous in raising this issue, and I imagine that he will have opportunities to ventilate his concerns in the future. I share his hope that the current international climate and the additional impetus that has been given to finding a resolution to areas of conflict that breed terrorism may bear fruit in the case of Northern Ireland as well. That is certainly what the Government are working for.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Could we have a statement on the guidelines given to special advisers? I am thinking in particular of the concern reported in the press today and previously about civil servants who have been instructed by special advisers to perform political acts. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm a report on the BBC this morning that only Jonathan Powell and the Prime Minister's official spokesman have been authorised to give any instructions at any time to civil servants?
Mr. Cook: I can happily confirm to the House that there is no provision for special advisers, or indeed anybody else, to instruct civil servants "to perform political acts". There are clear codes for both special advisers and civil servants, and both professions stick within those codes.
Mr. David Kidney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a slight delay in the general availability of the Auld report since its stated publication date, but that it should be widely available from today? Given that the report proposes root-and-branch reforms to our criminal court system, the Government have rightly announced a period of public consultation until the end of next January. Can my right hon. Friend find time during the consultation period for this Chamber to debate those proposals?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cook: I see that my hon. Friend's point has resonance in other parts of the House. The Auld report is an important, fundamental review of the court system and offers us a substantial improvement to our criminal justice system. It should be dealt with, at all stages, with the importance that it deserves.
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon): Is the Leader of the House aware that in the continuing dispute at Friction
1322
Dynamex in my constituency the workers have been out for the past five or six months and their only reward so far has been dismissal? May we have a statement from the DTI on the efforts that it has made to resolve that long-running dispute?
Mr. Cook: I am not familiar with the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I shall draw it to the attention of my DTI colleague and invite him to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Paddy Tipping: The Leader of the House has already heard several pleas for a debate on the airline and aviation industry. Given that the board of Rolls-Royce is presently meeting and intends to make a statement after the stock market has closed this evening about the future prospects of the company; given the events of 11 September; and given the need to retain high-quality technical skills in Hucknall, the east midlands and across the country, may we have an early opportunity to discuss the future of that important sector?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct in that a number of hon. Members have raised that theme in the past hour, and my colleagues and I will obviously need to reflect upon it. As I said earlier, I share those concerns. We must ensure that we do not lose long-term skills because of short-term pressures.
Miss Anne Melntosh: May I add my voice to those calling for a full debate in Government time on the recovery of rural businesses? I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that farming businesses are by far the most numerous such businesses. I should like the debate to cover two aspects. The first is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the confusion and contradictory advice given by DEFRA about the issuing of livestock licences in the run-up to winter and the distress that that causes to the livestock. The second is the fact that 117 premises were affected by foot and mouth in North Yorkshire but so far only five contracts have been signed to cleanse them, so restocking cannot begin this side of Christmas.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady has placed on record the extent of the problem in her constituency. As I said, I am not unsympathetic to the case for a debate on the countryside, but I hope that such a debate would be broad and enable us to deal with the rural economy, other aspects of public service in the countryside and the way forward, and not only the crisis of the past few months.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): May I associate myself entirely with the remarks made by the shadow Leader of the House about the postponement of the debate on drug policy that had been scheduled for this Friday? Will my right hon. Friend find time to read the British crime survey, which was published last month? He will find that not only has our drugs tsar come and gone without making a jot of difference, but our Government have not got a snowball's chance in hell of meeting their targets on reduction of crime. Clearly, the current policy is not working and we need to revise it. May we have an urgent debate?
Mr. Cook: I rather anticipated that my hon. Friend would raise that subject and I commend him for the vigour

1323
with which he repeatedly does so. He would not expect me to assent to every proposition that he advances, but, as I said, we did have a commitment to a debate on drugs, it remains a commitment and, at an appropriate time, we will try to reschedule the deferred debate that was due this Friday.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. McWalter.
Mr. Tony McWalter: For a moment, Mr. Speaker, I feared that you were about to call time.
As we are on the edge of the most dramatic improvement in real resources for the health service that has ever been seen, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said at the Labour party conference that some managements in the health service are plainly incompetent, will the Leader of the House try to ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to explain what he will do about the problem so that the huge increase in resources is not frittered away? Furthermore, will he treat my request with some urgency? In Hemel Hempstead hospital, massive closures in provision are about to be made by an incompetent manager, so I have a particular interest in ensuring that the matter is dealt with rather quickly.
Mr. Cook: I think that we have just heard a headline in the Hemel Hempstead newspapers. I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed earlier this week in his speech on public services the importance of bringing all those services up to national standards. Indeed, he outlined how we intend to go about that task in the health service.
I thank my hon. Friend for enabling us to conclude this session of business questions on a vote of consensus by congratulating the Government on the largest building programme ever in the history of the NHS, doubling the increase in investment in the NHS, and providing an additional 3,000 nurses since the last general election was declared.

Points of Order
1.44 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will agree that the use of anthrax against the elected representatives of the United States constitutes an attack on the heart of democracy. Do you agree that this House, which is at the centre of our democracy and is widely respected here, in the United States and abroad, should send a message through you to your opposite number in the United States to offer our support at this difficult time? I remind you that it is only 60 years since this House had to be temporarily closed. Afterwards, democracy not only returned but went from strength to strength around the world. I suspect that a suitably worded message of support from you would be very well received in the United States at this difficult time.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I shall certainly send such a message. It may be helpful for the House to know that, after the terrible events of 11 September, I wrote to Speaker Hastert and Mayor Giuliani. I explained the solidarity that Members of this House feel with their American colleagues and the close bond between this House and democratic institutions in the United States. I have noted that Ambassador Farish has been present in the House to hear our debates. I have invited him to Speaker's House, where he will have an opportunity to meet hon. Members from all parts of the House.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and some clarification. Earlier this afternoon the mechanism was used of a written question being extended beyond Question Time to enable us to have a statement from a Minister. My colleagues and I very much welcome that despite the confusion over the lack of information. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for using this mechanism on a number of occasions recently because it enables the House to get a statement from a Minister very rapidly. However, there are two major problems on which I seek your guidance, if not now, then on some future occasion.
First, unlike when a normal statement is made, Members on the two Opposition Front Benches do not get prior notice of the contents of this kind of statement and that caused some confusion today. Secondly, and more formidably, at the moment it appears that the mechanism can be triggered only by a Government Back Bencher and a planted question. Clearly, Opposition Members should also have that opportunity. Will you reflect on that and see whether we can find some way in which this mechanism can be used more widely?
Mr. Speaker: I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and come back to the House on the matter.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You often advise hon. Members and Ministers to give rapid or at least brief answers. Today we only got as far as Question 10, and, without mentioning any names, you may be aware that a particular Minister gave excessively long answers. I wonder whether you could write a gentle note or, wherever you meet

1325
Ministers from time to time, have a gentle word with particular Ministers. I realise that this is becoming a rather long and lengthy point of order; nevertheless long, lengthy answers, although they may be helpful, prevent Back Benchers from asking questions.
Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should try to get through the Order Paper, but to get further down the Order Paper I need the co-operation of the House. I would not single out Ministers who give lengthy replies as some Back Benchers ask very lengthy questions. In my opinion, the short, sharp question often gets a short, sharp reply, but I am happy to put it on record that I am very keen to get down the Order Paper.

BILL PRESENTED
  PROCEEDS OF CRIME BILL
  Mr. Secretary Blunkett,supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mrs. Secretary Liddell and Mr. Bob Ainsworth presented a Bill to establish the Assets Recovery Agency and make provision about the appointment of its Director and his functions (including Revenue functions), to provide for confiscation orders in relation to persons who benefit from criminal conduct and for restraint orders to prohibit dealing with property, to allow the recovery of property which is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct or which is intended to be used in unlawful conduct, to make provision about money laundering, to make provision about investigations relating to benefit from criminal conduct or to property which is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct or to money laundering, to make provision to give effect to overseas requests and orders made where property is found or believed to be obtained through criminal conduct, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 31].
Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Finance) Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  1.47 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This Bill will enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the new own resources decision which amends the arrangements for financing the Community budget. These financing decisions were agreed at the Berlin European Council in March 1999.
  The decisions made at that European Council represent an important step forwards for the European Community and for the United Kingdom. The Council made several important reforms, preparing the EU for the challenges of enlargement, and it was a negotiating triumph for the UK, securing no increase in the own resources ceiling, maintaining the UK abatement and bringing EU spending under control.
  The new own resources decision that we are considering is little changed from the 1994 own resources decision, and any changes made to the decision are financially neutral for the United Kingdom. Our net contribution to the EU budget will not change as a direct result of what we are considering today.
  It is important that all the issues of concern to hon. Members on this short but significant Bill are properly scrutinised and the further time allowed for Third Reading will enable us to do so.
  Some interesting points were raised and addressed on Second Reading and in Committee. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked several questions about windfall gains and requested additional information and clarification on various detailed points. I wrote to him on 16 July and have recently written to him again on the points that he raised in Committee. Copies of both letters were deposited in the Library of the House but perhaps I could reiterate some of the points that I made in my most recent letter.
  First, I should like to clarify the question of whether the cumulative value of the windfall gains forgone might have been greater than the value of the abatement received. I can assure the House that the value of windfalls forgone has been only a small fraction of the value of the abatement. That will continue to be the case.
  The average level of windfall gains over the period 1989 to 2001 has been £107 million per annum, whereas the average level of the abatement received over the same period has been £2.2 billion per annum. It is therefore clear that the Government were right to insist on retaining the abatement at Berlin.
  It was also right for the United Kingdom to agree to the windfall adjustments, just as earlier Administrations had. We sought a fair agreement at Berlin, and that is what we achieved. I hope that my reassurances have allayed the hon. Gentleman's fears.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Economic Secretary for her letter of 10 October,

  1327
  which clarified an issue that was of serious concern to me. I also thank her, on behalf of the House, for asking her officials to spend some of their summer recess making the necessary calculations. I assure her that the figures that she has given today and in her letter answer my question in a substantive way.
  Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It was an enlightening experience for all involved.
  Another point raised during our earlier debates concerned the Berlin reforms of the common agricultural policy. The Berlin summit saw the most radical reform of the CAP since its creation. There were significant cuts in the prices of cereals, beef and milk, which brought cereal prices close to world levels for the first time. As a result of those reforms, consumers in the United Kingdom will be about £70 a year better off. Although we will continue to push for further reform, the Agenda 2000 reforms constitute a significant victory for the UK. Berlin also introduced the CAP second pillar, which focuses on rural development and the environment. That was a significant step in the move from market-distorting production-based subsidies.

  The Bill ratifies part of the Berlin agreement which secured no increase in UK contributions and safeguarded the abatement. That was a good outcome for the UK, and I commend the Bill.
  1.52 pm
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): It is a pleasure to joust for the first time—I hope that it will not be the last—with the Economic Secretary.
  This is an important measure. Although, as was said on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill is short, its implications are substantial. It is therefore necessary and desirable for us to engage in not a leisurely but a proper and comprehensive debate on Third Reading.
  That is also true when we put the debate, and the proposed Act, in the context of the size of the European Union budget. When we talk about what this country contributes to the European Union, it seems extraordinarily difficult to arrive at an agreed figure. Estimates vary greatly, and it is important to distinguish between the gross contribution that the United Kingdom makes to the EU budget and the net contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—who, sadly, is not present, but who contributed to our proceedings with distinction earlier—has calculated that this country sends approximately £1.2 million every hour. From that, the Economic Secretary will readily deduce that the sum sent it each day is some £29 million, and that therefore more than £200 million per week goes from the United Kingdom taxpayer to the European Union.
  I stress the words "from the United Kingdom taxpayer to the European Union" because Governments do not, of course, have any money. There is no question of the personal largesse of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) going to the European Union; we are talking about hard-pressed British taxpayers, and the net contribution appears to be more than £4 billion a year.
  It is worth noting how the European Union budget is spent. There has, for example, been a marked change in the last decade or so in the proportion of EU funds
  1328
  allocated to structural assistance. I think that the figure in 1988 was around a sixth of the EU budget, whereas it is now nearer a third.
  The Economic Secretary, who is never knowingly understated in trumpeting the Government's alleged achievements, was bold on Second Reading and in Committee. Regrettably, today she has already repeated a phrase that she used at an earlier stage. She talked about how the Government accomplished a negotiating triumph. Allowing for the almost inevitable and instinctive tendency to indulge in spin over substance, that was a bit rich and I hope that she does not repeat the claim.
  Quite properly for consideration of this important matter, we have a packed House and hon. Members will be aware of the four bases of own resources: agricultural and sugar levies, customs duties, VAT-based contributions and gross national product-based contributions. The Economic Secretary made an entirely factual point about the shift from traditional own resources, as greater emphasis is now placed on GNP-based contributions. That is a simple statement of fact. However, her claim that the outcome of the Berlin European Council and the decisions subsequently taken in September 2000 constitute a negotiating triumph is more controversial.
  I shall argue my own case, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in his winding-up speech for the Opposition, but it is legitimate to pray in aid, if I can attract the Economic Secretary's attention from the alternative delights of talking to the Paymaster General, the verdict of a Foreign Affairs Committee report. The Economic Secretary will be intimately familiar with "European Union Enlargement and Nice Follow-up", which was published on 10 April. It is not the product of Opposition thinking, but at paragraph 18 it states:
  "The reforms agreed at Berlin may have paved the way for enlargement but further progress will be required to make enlargement a success."
  Ruth Kelly indicated assent.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for the Economic Secretary's sedentary assent to that proposition. She thinks that it makes sense. Therefore, she will immediately share my concern that the issue has not been raised since Berlin, despite no fewer than four opportunities to do so, and that CAP reform has not featured on the agenda. Four countries have held the EU presidency in the intervening period, but none chose to highlight the subject. If she agrees with the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats that further reform is needed, it is not unreasonable to ask when she thinks that it might feature on the presidency agenda.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I agree that the Bill, like the summit that debated CAP reform, does not go far enough and the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the Liberal Democrats want further, much greater CAP reform, but how far did the Conservative Government go on CAP reform during 18 years in office? Their many failures in negotiations with the EU have left us with today's appalling CAP inheritance.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who can always be relied on to prove himself a steadfast

  1329
  supporter of the Labour Government when they are on the rack. If he continues in that vein, the entitlement to Short money that the Liberal Democrats enjoy on account of their status as part of the Opposition will quickly be called into question. However, I shall happily answer his point.
  The hon. Gentleman thinks that we are playing a game of table tennis and that my natural response will be to say what a splendid job the Major Government did on the matter, but I am about to disappoint and perhaps even surprise him. We did something on CAP reform, but nothing like enough. Progress has been modest, but the difference is that I am not claiming dramatic, wholesale reform during 18 years of Conservative government. The Economic Secretary, on the basis of a fairly modest achievement, of which more anon, made a far bigger claim. Although the hon. Gentleman likes to be a helpful contributor, I hope that he will not do the Government's work for them, especially when they are doing their best to advance a rather poor case.
  I try to be fair-minded about these matters, but I know that Labour Members may not necessarily take it from me that the outcome of the European Council was modest rather than distinguished. I hope, however, that the Economic Secretary is interested in and inclined to show her respect for the verdict of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). It pains me that he is not here today. It is in order in his absence to pay sincere and fulsome tribute to him for his contribution to our earlier debates. He speaks with some authority on agriculture, and, on Second Reading, in relation to the CAP, he said:
  "it is certainly possible to overstate what was achieved."
  He went on helpfully to point out:
  "Some modest and welcome steps were taken, but modest is certainly the word. The gentle progress towards free-market prices was incomplete. Most commodities traded within the CAP area are substantially more expensive than those in world markets … The agreement will not be a rational basis for defending agricultural policy in the forthcoming World Trade Organisation round."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 188.]
  I will not dilate further on the subject because I do not want unduly to embarrass the hon. Gentleman when he reads my remarks later. Suffice it to say, he said that he was shocked that there had been no progress on the liberalisation of the sugar regime or on the need to reform what he described as the "ludicrous" milk quota system.
  In the circumstances, it seems that the hon. Gentleman's verdict is more closely related to the facts than the Economic Secretary's claim for the Government's achievements. Put another way, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was being fair when he said that what the Government secured was not outstanding, but
  "arguably not an unreasonable deal." —[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 222.]

  Can the Economic Secretary do something about the prevailing tendency in Government for spin to triumph over substance, optimism over reality and fiction over fact? She will recall that on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) reminded the House of the commitment made in the Labour manifesto, which boldly asserted:
  "our contributions are falling to similar levels as France and Italy."
  Yet, the net contributions show no sign of falling. I refer the hon. Lady to the 1999 Court of Auditors annual report, which showed that France was contributing annually
  1330
  £766 million net to Community coffers, Italy £1.153 billion and the United Kingdom £3.482 billion. When she responded to my hon. Friend on that point she said that she stood by the claim that our contributions were falling to levels comparable with those of France and Italy on the assumption of the admission of six new members by 2006. It is a trifle cheeky for her to stand by the Labour manifesto, which made a direct and explicit claim about what is happening to UK contributions, when what the authors of the manifesto meant was that if certain events transpired and if the projected outcome of those events was as it is currently expected to be, there would be a comparable level of contribution. The expression ifs and buts, apples and nuts readily springs to mind.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) may be satisfied with the answers that he has had on windfall gains, in which he takes a special, detailed and intelligent interest, but I am not so readily reassured. On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary, with an air of some impatience because the subject had been regularly raised, said that she wanted to set
  "straight once and for all"— [Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol.371, c. 229.]
  the position in respect of windfall gains relinquished or forgone.
  In answer to my colleagues, the Economic Secretary said that the estimated loss to this country as a result of forgoing the windfall effect was approximately 220 million euros, which, if my arithmetic serves me correctly, roughly equates to £150 million. The difficulty with that answer was not that it was untrue but that, as with so much of what the Government lob in our direction, it was only half true. What she did not say, but, I believe, has recently confirmed in correspondence, was that the figure of 220 million euros was not a one-off figure, one-off loss or one-off disadvantage to the United Kingdom but a recurring sum that would arise every year. If I am mistaken and she can put another complexion on the matter, I shall be very happy to hear her do so.
  I am, however, privileged to have sight of the Economic Secretary's letter, dated 10 October, to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. She talks, in that context, about how average annual windfall gains would represent
  "less than 5 per cent. of the average abatement."
  Those averages can of course be ghoulish things, often disguising all sorts of variations that could redound to our disadvantage.
  Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for confirming in writing, although she did not repeat the point in her speech today, that on her best estimate she expects that the total level of windfalls to be forgone after enlargement is a little higher£not of the order of 5 per cent. of the average abatement, but rather nearer to 7 per cent. I do not say that that is a point of dramatic significance, but it should not be dismissed. It is important to know when we are talking about a one-off figure of 220 million euros and when we are talking about a figure that will recur for a number of years to come.
  I follow with the greatest interest what the Economic Secretary says in these debates, just as I always follow what the Paymaster General says£although she is displaying a particular lack of interest in following what

  1331
  I am saying today. However, that does not in any way undermine or diminish the significance of the issues that we are raising.
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): If the hon. Gentleman put his arguments more succinctly, rather than taking twice as long to say half as much, my attention would probably be sharper.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not know why the Paymaster General is so churlish. When I think that I need communications advice from the hon. Lady, for whom I have a high regard, I will be happy to consult her. However, I do not think that that is necessary. There are good arguments to be made, and there are several examples that elucidate them. I have a little way to go, and many key points to emphasise. I am sorry that she is so frosty about it. I am not usually as disobliging to her as she is insisting on being to me.
  I should like to draw attention to the failure of the CAP and the inadequacy of its reform. If that pains the hon. Lady, I can only say to her that she has taken the offer. She is in the Government and she has to defend the position. If she is not happy about it and finds it uncongenial, she knows the options that are open to her.
  On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary said:
  "we achieved the most radical reform of the common agricultural policy since its inception".—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 228.]

  In that respect, she was echoing what the Chief Secretary had said earlier in the debate—[Interruption.]
  The Paymaster General would expect me to have done a little research into these matters. I have also had the chance to see what relevant commentators said at the time in response to the Government's achievement. It is not a question of what the Paymaster General or the Economic Secretary think, but of what other observers think. What did the Select Committee on Agriculture conclude? I can quote it with exemplary succinctness for the benefit of the Paymaster General and others. In five words, it said:
  "This is a bad deal."
  The Opposition have been much more generous and nothing like so ferocious in our criticism. We thought that there was an argument to be made by the Government. However, in the view of the Agriculture Committee, it was a bad deal. In case the Paymaster General thinks that I am inventing that, she can of course refer to the relevant report, of 29 June 1999, at paragraph 6. I feel sure that when, at some point, she leaves the Chamber—I am not encouraging her to do so—it will be because she is going to hotfoot it to the Library to obtain a copy of the report and refer to paragraph 6. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—the Whip who must be obeyed—reminds me that he was the distinguished Chairman of the Agriculture Select Committee at the time of the report, so he can confirm that what I said is true.
  Let us hear what the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union said about Agenda 2000. The task was to
  "facilitate enlargement of the Union; to develop a policy consistent with international trading agreements; better to protect the environment; and to promote rural development."
  The Committee's judgment was that those objectives were not achieved.
  1332
  What did the National Farmers Union chairman, Ben Gill, have to say on the matter? In the foreword to the 1999 NFU publication "Farming Economy", he said that the reforms of the CAP made under the present Government had left UK agriculture in an "inherently unstable state".
  The Countryside Alliance has said:
  "the recent Agenda 2000 round of CAP reform was a failure. Agenda 2000 failed to address the new pressures of EU expansion, and the Select Committee on Agriculture foresees another round of CAP talks within two years."
  English Nature said that the outcome was
  "very disappointing for the environment".
  The Food and Drink Federation was
  "extremely frustrated and concerned by the conclusions of the weakened package of reforms adopted in Berlin".
  The Tenant Farmers Association concluded:
  "the agreed package stems more from matters of financial and political expediency rather than a desire to place agriculture in Europe on a firm long term platform".
  Given the importance of reform of the CAP, which I think is agreed on both sides of the House, the fact that independent commentators are less than exultant—I put it no more harshly than that—about the outcome of the hon. Ladies' negotiating ploys should at least give the Economic Secretary and her exuberant colleague, the Paymaster General, pause for thought.
  Having dealt briefly, but with relish, with the Economic Secretary's claims about reform of the common agricultural policy, I now move on, with due enthusiasm, to stealth taxes. I do not want the Paymaster General to feel left out; I shall come to her, and she will not be disappointed. I do not want her to feel that she is excluded from my remarks today, because she will feature in choice fashion. However, I hope that she will exercise the patience for which she is renowned on both sides of the House, because first I want, properly and politely, to address my remarks to the Economic Secretary.
  Before I go any further I shall say something to the Economic Secretary that I probably should have said at the outset; I have certainly said it to her outside the House. I have always regarded her as possessing a rare combination of intellectual ferocity and personal charm, so I feel flattered to be opposing her across the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] The Paymaster General, in what I take to be a slightly more jocular fashion than that in which her earlier observations were made, says, "That's the end of a good career."
  On Second Reading, on 3 July, considerable attention was paid to article 9, page 14, of the Council decision on the system of the European Communities' own resources. The Economic Secretary will be well aware that that article states:
  "The Commission shall undertake, before 1 January 2006, a general review of the own resources system, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals, in the light of all relevant factors, including the effects of enlargement on the financing of the budget, the possibility of modifying the structure of the own resources by creating new autonomous"—
  I emphasise that word—
  "own resources and the correction of budgetary imbalances granted to the United Kingdom as well as the granting to Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden of the reduction pursuant to Article 5(1)".

  1333
  On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—sadly, he is not in his place now, although he performed earlier—argued forcefully that the article was Brussels parlance for enabling the European Union to impose its own taxes directly on the British people.
  In the course of Second Reading my right hon. Friend challenged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to strike from the document those references to the creation of autonomous resources and to seek to amend the Bill accordingly. If the Chief Secretary had been prepared to do so, or if he had even replied to my right hon. Friend's request to him to intervene, we might have had some reassurance.
  As the Economic Secretary will confirm, the Chief Secretary is no more reticent than I am. He is a regular contributor in the House, and I have always thought that among Ministers he is the veritable Dr. Pangloss of new Labour. He always thinks that the best is in evidence, and that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Yet when he was challenged by my right hon. Friend to respond to that question, he chose not to do so.
  The Economic Secretary, who is a rather braver soul, was prepared to do so, and on Second Reading she quoted a passage from the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995, which was in fact article 10 of the Council decision of 31 October 1994 on the system of the European Communities' own resources. She used the quotation to support her alleged refutation of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham had said.
  The article states:
  "the Commission shall submit, by the end of 1999, a report on the operation of the system, including a re-examination of the correction of budgetary imbalances granted to the United Kingdom, established by this Decision."
  The Economic Secretary then said:
  "That position"—
  that is, the position in the Council decision of 31 October 1994—
  "did not lead to a new EU tax then, and it will not do so now."—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 231.]
  I do not think that the argument is quite as compelling as she seems to think. She said that article 9 of the Council decision on the system of EC own resources of 29 September 2000 was broadly similar to that of October 1994, so there was no problem.
  We need to play the game—an important game—of spot the difference. The notable difference between the two articles is that that of 29 September 2000, as distinct from the one put forward six years before, refers to the creation of new autonomous resources. There is clearly a difference here. We might ask whether the word "autonomous" refers to member states' ability to raise own resources through their own autonomous powers or to the power of the European Union to raise money itself through its own direct and autonomous budgetary powers over and above, and separate from, the autonomous budgetary powers of sovereign states. "Which is it?" I might ask. I am sure that the answer is on the Economic Secretary's lips even as I pose the question.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will help to explain that point, because if she does not, she will be aware that we have been undertaking a little of our own private detective
  1334
  work to discover what we can. In that respect I am deeply indebted to one of the brightest minds helping the Opposition in this House—James Cartlidge, who has done superb work on this subject.
  At my request, James Cartlidge took it upon himself to contact the European Commission to try to get clarification on the subject, which the Minister had not offered. He spoke by telephone to a Mr. Jean-Pierre Bache, who has responsibility for the
  "Outlook for financing and budget forecasts of own resources in the Own Resources evaluation and financial programming section in Directorate B of the Budget Directorate General of the European Commission."
  If the Minister would find it helpful for me to supply phone numbers and website references, I should be happy to do so at a later date. I am always a helpful soul; if I can be obliging, I ant more than willing.
  Mr. Bache was unhappy with the use of the word "autonomous", although that is the English translation given, because he felt that it did not adequately explain the intended meaning. He felt that the phrase "visible and accountable" would have been more appropriate. The reason, as Mr. Bache explained, is that the Commission's intention is to bring EU budgetary affairs closer to the people. Indeed, one night argue that what "autonomous" means in this case is just that—bring the EU budget closer to the people by reaching directly into their pockets. In other words, autonomous EU budgetary authority inevitably leads to Brussels levying its own taxes directly on the British people.
  If the Economic Secretary does not share that analysis, she at least owes it to the House to explain what is the purport of the very particular remarks contained in the document announcing the Council decision. As Mr. Bache further explained—it is his explanation and not necessarily ours—that is not the same as the EU taking on its own tax-raising powers. Rather he argued that the new autonomous own resources measures would manifest themselves—I like this and I hope that my hon. Friends do—in more indirect forms while nevertheless achieving greater direct revenue-raising powers for Brussels.
  The example that Mr. Bache used was one in which the EU might choose to specify certain percentages of excise duty or VAT as new own resources to be paid into the Brussels budget. The Economic Secretary might argue that we have nothing to fear from article 9 because similar such articles negotiated by Conservative Governments have not led to EU taxes, but we all know that this article will result in the EU having the opportunity to propose new ways in which autonomous resources can be raised.
  Ruth Kelly: Of course, the hon. Gentleman has not had the benefit of the discussions at the Economic and Finance Council that I was privileged to be party to in July this year. In them, the very subject of a European tax was discussed and the Belgians, who placed it on the agenda, found no enthusiasm for it a anywhere in Europe. The Chancellor forthrightly put the UK case that there will be no European tax.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not find that argument remotely persuasive, for reasons that I am happy to explain. I am afraid that all the Economic Secretary has done is—
  Dawn Primarolo: Lengthened the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Bercow: Yes, she has. In view of what I said about the Economic Secretary's intellectual ferocity, I had hoped that she would come up with something better than she has just volunteered to the House.
  We know that the Chancellor of Exchequer has said that he opposes tax harmonisation but we also know that, on the continent, it is commonplace, when tax harmonisation is writ large in the tabloid newspapers in this country, to employ a different lexicon. Instead, we are told that the EU would gradually like to advance the cause of tax co-ordination. We can then involve ourselves in a semantic debate on the difference between harmonisation and co-ordination.
  We know that taxes come in a variety of forms and through a series of disguises. The Economic Secretary has made her point about tax intentions and she will be aware that the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has called for a direct EU tax. He thinks that that tax should be levied on all citizens and he is backed by the Belgian Finance Minister and, importantly, by the European Union Commissioner for the Budget, Mrs. Michaele Schreyer. She suggested that the tax should be in the form of an imposition on savings, and Minister, will also be aware of the verdict of Hans Eichel, the German Finance Minister, who argued for an EU-wide tax on 14 June this year.
  It is no good the Chief Secretary simply saying that
  "any change to the tax regime in Europe is a matter for unanimity … we do not accept the need to introduce new taxes." —[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 43.]
  If that is so, will the Economic Secretary explain why the Government agreed without criticism to the insertion in the decision announced in September 2000 of the words that, at the very least, open up the possibility of autonomous revenue-raising powers for the EU?
  We know that a tax is not simply just something that is called a tax. If the Economic Secretary is in doubt about that, we can refer to what the EU has said about the use of alternative instruments to affect taxation measures. I refer to the Commission communication "Tax Policy in the European Union—Priorities for the Year Ahead", which said:
  "while it remains the Commission's view that a move to qualified majority voting at least for certain tax issues is indispensable, the legal basis will, for the present, remain unanimity."
  I note the use of the words "for the present". The communication adds:
  "Given the difficulties in reaching unanimous decisions on legislative proposals, which will be compounded by enlargement, the Community should also consider the use of alternative instruments."
  The EU is perfectly capable of producing a whole orchestra on this subject to fulfil the objective of increasing the number and scope of revenue-raising proposals.
  That point is so blindingly obvious given all our experience with partners in the EU that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it. I do not know whether the Paymaster General wishes to volunteer for that description, but a danger exists and—without wishing to overstate it—it would be very foolish to ignore it.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon Gentleman confirm two points? The first is that he is arguing that charges
  1336
  could be made on the British people without the British Government having the chance to veto them at Brussels. If so, will he provide rather more substantive legal back-up than he has done hitherto? Secondly, can he confirm that his argument of the past 10 minutes has nothing to do with the Bill?
  Mr. Bercow: I am very concerned to relate my remarks to the Bill. Although the hon. Gentleman is putting in a job application to replace you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am happy to be guided by your judgment rather than his.
  The hon. Gentleman challenges me to provide a legal basis and precedent to justify my point that what is being planned is effectively a denial of the veto. He will know perfectly well that instruments of the EU can be used for a variety of purposes. I refer, for example, to the introduction of the working time directive as an EU health and safety measure, when it manifestly is not that. It was introduced on that basis, because the EU knew perfectly well that it would be not be able to get it through otherwise. Introducing it under qualified majority voting provided an alternative route.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all sorts of measures have been justified in the name of single market legislation and the greater approximation to a level playing field in matters of trade and commerce than has existed hitherto. If he is so naive as to suppose that to raise revenue we need to have what is formally described as a tax, he greatly underestimates the wizardry and sophistication of his masters in the EU. I strongly suggest that he do something about that.
  On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham drew attention to several measures that have come in already to the disadvantage of the UK, violating entirely the hon. Gentleman's cardinal principle—he would have us believe that it is his cardinal principle—of a right of a national veto on taxation. The art levy has already done considerable damage to the UK art market, and it will have a further detrimental effect. There also is the serious risk of an energy tax.
  Dawn Primarolo: To reveal all the facts, will the hon. Gentleman explain which Government agreed to the introduction of the art levy?
  Mr. Bercow: The Paymaster General is playing the party game, but I am very happy to deal with her point. I have always been opposed to droit de suite, and many Conservative Members have consistently opposed it. We regard it as detrimental, but her Government are enthusiastically pursuing it even though it was not the preference of the Conservative Government. She knows that, on that subject, she has not a leg on which to stand.
  I am conscious of what Mrs. Schreyer said on behalf of the European Commission in response to a question asked by my colleague, the Conservative finance spokesman in the European Parliament, Theresa Villiers. When, on 31 July, Mrs. Schreyer was asked about the autonomous resources that might be planned, she said:
  "An objective could be to replace the existing financing system of the European Union's budget with one or more European taxes".
  Although it is difficult to see how that matches up to what she previously said, she curiously adds:
  "without imposing an additional financial burden upon European citizens."

  1337
  If she is saying, "We are going to find a new tax, but we are going to compensate for it by a reduction in expenditure or tax-raising measures elsewhere", the expression "pigs before eyes" comes to mind. However, I would be happy to see whether she can provide an earnest of her good intentions.
  We know in any case that on taxation measures the Government's hands are not clean. My cup runneth over today, because the Paymaster General has done us the great courtesy of a visit. If the hon. Lady's record on these matters were as widely known as it should be, it would not commend itself to the electors of Bristol, South. We know, and she may be proud of the fact, that shortly after the 1997 election, a code on business taxation was established in the European Union. Shortly afterwards—I do not remember precisely when, but I feel certain that the date is imprinted on her mind—she was put in charge of an EU-wide working party on the investigation of methods to give effect to that code. Specifically, from March 1998 onwards, she was charged with the responsibility of identifying what was described as unfair tax competition.
  There is a genuine debate to be had about whether genuine tax competition can be unfair. There are those of us who believe very strongly in the desirability of tax competition, although I am not sure that the hon. Lady is among us. I have been disturbed by two phenomena of late. The first was the identification by the Paymaster General of 88 examples of tax reliefs, credits or benefits that helped the United Kingdom and which she was volunteering to give up within the European Union, to the manifest disadvantage of British trade and commerce. It struck me as an extraordinary state of affairs for her to countenance.
  Dawn Primarolo rose—
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is understandably sensitive on the point, so I give way.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am just trying to help the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he does not inadvertently say something inaccurate to the House. There were not 88 British measures. This is not the subject of today's debate, so I will not engage him any further, but I should be happy to do so at another time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We are straying rather wide of the matter before the House, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to it.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very happy to be guided by your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will focus my remarks accordingly. I will not argue the toss about whether or not there were 88 measures; we can always argue subsequently about exactly how many measures there were. That is a matter for legitimate debate.
  In the interests of having a proper debate about autonomous revenue-raising powers, which is directly relevant to the Bill, I strongly advise the Economic Secretary and Paymaster General to get hold of copies of an excellent document published by the Centre for Policy
  1338
  Studies, the author of which is the colleague to whom I referred a few moments ago, Theresa Villiers MEP. The document is entitled, "European Tax Harmonisation: The Impending Threat". It makes absolutely fascinating reading. I read it late last night and studied it very carefully, and I can tell the Paymaster General that it certainly is not a cure for insomnia. It is a thoroughly good document and it tells us the track record of this matter.
  The significance of what the Paymaster General said is that the work of the working party would "never be finalised". I presume that the hon. Lady will not deny that she said that on 10 October 2000 to the European Parliament's economic and monetary affairs committee. The Government have trumpeted as an outstanding achievement what is really a very modest deal secured as a result of the Berlin summit. It is not a great accomplishment. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire, who is a legendarily independently minded representative in the House, put his finger on it when he said that it was modest.
  If the Economic Secretary would simply say that the Government think that they have reached a worthwhile, but modest, achievement, and that the Opposition should acknowledge the progress that has been made, I would take my hat off to he but I confess that I am not holding my breath in anticipation that she will suddenly abandon the term "triumph", which she has twice used to describe the measure.
  The Government aid not achieve very much. There is a widespread and understandable anxiety on the part of a great many of our fellow citizens that there could be in train new revenue-raising and decision-making powers of the European Union. If those new powers flow from the decision and the passage of the Bill, it will be to the eternal discredit of the Economic Secretary. She has indicated that that will not happen. Many of us fear that it will. Those concerns are genuine; they are frequently expressed, and they should as a matter of course be listened to respectfully and heeded in practice.
  What we need from the Government, throughout public policy but no mom so than in European policy, is frankness and candour. Over the past four years we have had neither. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are determined to ensure that over the next four years we get a greater measure of both.
  2.35 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and I welcome him to his new duties. I look forward to sparring with him and with the Economic Secretary and other Treasury Ministers in due course.
  Over more than half an hour, the hon. Gentleman seemed to make three substantive points. The first, which took 10 minutes, was that the word "triumph", which was used by the Economic Secretary on Second Reading to describe the Bill and the negotiations that preceded it, was wrong. The hon. Gentleman would describe the Bill as modest. I agree with him, as I said on Second Reading:
  "It is a modest measure that arises from the modest decisions taken at the Berlin summit. Indeed, its modesty explains why it is disappointing."

  1339
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the fact that the decisions taken at the summit, which led to the Bill, were disappointing in that CAP reform was not a greater element. He is right, and I made the same point on Second Reading:
  "We must be far bolder in reforming the CAP."— [Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 157-160.]
  The Economic Secretary disagreed with me in that debate and defended the decisions taken at the summit. She feels that CAP reform had gone a long way, but I do not think that there has been substantial reform. We do not have a vision of how we can fundamentally reform the CAP. So far, all reform has been incremental, and the Bill is one more small step towards a vision that is, as yet, unshared and unclear. That is one of the big failures of the summit and of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman's third major point was about tax harmonisation. I do not share his concerns. I agree that tax harmonisation would be wrong, but I disagree that it is at all likely. Indeed, he seemed unable to substantiate his allegation that the Government would be unable to veto any such proposal. Not only he wrong, but the major point that he made does not relate to the Bill.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman and I may just have to agree to differ. I am sorry that he thinks that I do not have a justification for my point. I maintain that I do, both on the basis of historical precedent in relation to the identification of examples of unfair tax competition and in relation to the text of the decision. Can the hon. Gentleman, who obviously disagrees with my interpretation, tell me what he understands by the term "autonomous revenue-raising power.", which are newly to be sought?
  Mr. Davey: By focusing on that textual point, the hon. Gentleman misses the point, which is that a veto is retained by each member state. The Liberal Democrats support that veto, as do the Government and, I assume, Conservative Front Benchers. That means that the problems that he spent 10 minutes outlining do not exist.
  I am surprised that we are here, because a Programming Committee met on 18 July. I was present and so was the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the Conservative Whip. We argued that this day's debate was not necessary, but the Government persisted in vehemently arguing that it was necessary. In the end, there was a vote in the Committee. In preparing for the debate, I thought that the Conservative spokesman would keep his or her comments short. Perhaps that was wishful thinking. [Interruption.] The Conservative Whip says that by the standards of the hon. Member for Buckingham he did deliver a short speech. Perhaps he is right. Let us warn right hon. and hon. Members who are not present of that.
  The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agreed in the Programming Committee that we did not need an extra day, primarily because all the issues had been debated on Second Reading and would be covered in Committee and on Report. We decided that we could move swiftly on. Indeed, the Conservatives did not vote against the Government. I listened to the speeches by the Conservative spokesman and thought that the Bill—as opposed to some of the points raised by the hon. Member
  1340
  for Buckingham, which went beyond its remit—was relatively uncontroversial. Perhaps the Conservative Front Bench has changed its position with its change of leader.
  Mr. Bercow: I am taken aback by the hon. Gentleman. He is spending some minutes lamenting the length of the Third Reading debate on a critical matter that relates to a net UK contribution to the European Communities of about £4 billion a year. What is his problem? Is he so anxious to debate the ministerial salaries order that he wants to end this important debate, or is he missing a preprandial drink in Kingston and Surbiton?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both hon. Gentlemen are making points about how we have arrived at this stage. Perhaps we can now get on with Third Reading.
  Mr. Davey: I am more than delighted to do so.
  The Minister set out the general background to the debate on Second Reading and earlier. The nature of the debate is that the own resources decision has been reformed, and the Bill implements that change in UK law. I welcomed many of those reforms on Second Reading, as did Conservative Front Benchers, especially the switch from the value added tax aspect of own resources to gross national product, which is a much fairer system, the ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of GNP on the EU budget and the proper discipline that has been placed on EU finance. The Government should be congratulated on gaining those substantive reforms, although they are relatively modest.
  On Second Reading, I said that the Bill's major problem is its modesty. We need far more radical solutions to reform the EU budget. The Bill does not even begin to nod in the direction of those radical reforms. EU finances have rightly been criticised for many years by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps we should also take a closer look at the way in which we manage our domestic budgets, which often leaves a lot to be desired.
  Recent reforms of EU finances include putting the 2001 budget under policy headings for the first time. Right hon. and hon. Members may think that that is a minor reform, but the fact that we have had to wait until 2001 to gain such a modest change goes to show what a state the EU budget is in. The Bill fails because there is so much more to do. Why are we not setting budgets based on outcomes, outputs and activity-based management at an EU level? That would be sensible. Why are we not rationalising the whole EU budget? That would result in cuts, which I am sure would delight the hon. Member for Buckingham.
  There are too many budget lines scattered around the EU budget, too many small proposals for expenditure and too many small pots of money—the EU slush funds. They are unnecessary and do not amount to a row of beans in terms of what they produce. We and our European representatives should be arguing to strike out such pork-barrel politics. We need to focus the EU on its core competencies, which will make the budget more transparent. We need to examine key areas of EU spending. CAP reform has been discussed, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
  We also need to consider the budget for external aid. Chris Patten brought that to light and proposed many interesting reforms of the way in which the EU should

  1341
  allocate substantial sums that have been earmarked for it, but that money is often wasted. It is not spent in the right way and it certainly does not meet the objectives of the initiators of the budget lines. We need to implement a major reform of the way in which we allocate such a serious amount of money.
  The Bill and the discussions that preceded it did nothing to tackle major reforms. Despite the rhetoric of Eurosceptics, there are not many officials in Brussels. The Commission does not have an army of civil servants. As the EU budget is not focused on its core competencies, officials run around trying to administer small pots of money that have no effect. Their time is wasted by dealing with detailed application forms and monitoring and auditing the money. If we focused the budget, we could get better value for money from civil servants in Brussels.
  Mr. Bercow: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the small size of the centrally employed EU bureaucracy, but I am sure that he will acknowledge the large number of British civil servants and civil servants in other member states whose principal responsibility is to give effect to EU decisions, so he should not develop his point too far. Is he arguing for a reorganisation of EU finance, with fewer small pots and more money put into the larger ones, or is he making the bold and ground-breaking assertion for a Liberal Democrat that the EU budget should be cut?
  Mr. Davey: I am arguing for rationalisation. If that leads to cuts and frees up resources, member states might take the political decision to remit the money to member states or use it for other purposes. I would not prejudge those decisions, but I object to money being wasted on a structure that is clearly inefficient. We should be arguing that, the Government should have argued that and we should be calling for greater reforms of the EU budget.
  I have another example. Much EU spending takes place in member states, but is administered by officials in Brussels—a ludicrous process. It has to be inefficient and cannot be as transparent as a system whereby money that is spent in, for example, the UK is administered by British civil servants answerable to British Ministers. The process needs significant reform and is one reason why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is modest.
  There was not a great deal of argument about the Bill's details when we considered them in Committee and on Report. After all my research, I found only one cause for concern, to which the Minister responded in her letter to me on 10 October. The reform of own resources means that the UK Government will give up windfall gains from budget reforms due to the expansion of Europe and so on to keep the abatement originally agreed by Baroness Thatcher at Fontainebleau.
  I asked the Minister whether the cumulative effect of giving up windfall gains—they are related not solely to the Bill and the decisions that preceded it, but to discussions undertaken by the previous Conservative Government—was larger than the benefit of the abatement. She was not able to answer that factual question in Committee or on Report. I pushed her on it because I wanted to persuade her to ask her officials to consider the question and do the number crunching,
  1342
  although she was hesitant to do that at first. I am delighted that she did so because the figure that she set out in her letter to me on 10 October, which is now in the Library, provides Members with the information necessary to allow the Bill its Third Reading.
  The calculation could have shown that the cumulative effect of the windfall gain was larger than the abatement. That would have been major new piece of information on which Members could have decided whether to allow the Bill to proceed. As I and my colleagues voted to give the Bill a Second Reading, I am delighted that the calculation turned out as it did, and the abatement is indeed larger.
  I want to keep my remarks brief, as we do not need to discuss the matter in my more detail. The key substantive point that emerged under previous scrutiny has been answered by the Minister. Unlike the hon. Member for Buckingham, I thought that the letter was clear and that it answered my points. I should stress that it was the Liberal Democrats who math those points at all stages and forced the Government to provide the information that was key to the Bill's scrutiny. If there is a Division, I and my colleagues will vote in favour of Third Reading. We hope that, when the Government engage in discussions on future reform of the EU budget, they will be rather more bold and seek rather more radical change.
  2.51 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I would not try to copy the sophisticated rhetoric of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but I was delighted that the Opposition were able to include in this debate the droit de suite. I can comment only that when I last spoke on the subject, I made the great mistake of saying "seigneur" instead of "suite".
  This debate has been rather unsatisfactory; we know that we are going through the motions. It is about what was agreed at Berlin two years ago, and the nature of the Bill does not permit any sensible amendment. We are faced with a "take it or leave it" approval of the deal that was done.
  Our basic point is that the essence of the deal on changes to VAT and gross national product funding is reasonable. The VAT-based contribution is to be amended by reducing the maximum call-up rate to 0.75 per cent. in 2002–03 and to of per cent. thereafter, and member states' GNP-based contributions are to be increased.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) sought to claim huge credit for inducing the Minister rightly to make it clear that the cost of giving up our windfall gain would be cumulative. I think that most Members were aware of that. That of course means that we are not dealing with the one-off figure that was quoted. However, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that for the record. The major dishonesty of Berlin, however, was that it was supposed to be about enlargement. In a sense, it was the antithesis of that because the failure adequately to reform the common agricultural policy blocks enlargement.
  I believe that anyone who is European must want enlargement of the European Union. From visiting people in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, I know that they feel that they have been treated appallingly. The iron curtain has been down for 12 years and they have been told by the EU to do this, that and the other, but they are

  1343
  still left dangling on a string waiting for the prospect of becoming EU members. Some states have even reconsidered the desirability of becoming members. However, all those who want an open, liberal and flexible EU, rather than an inward-looking one, must want a widened membership.
  Angus Robertson: Can the hon. Gentleman reconcile those opinions—I fully endorse them; Ithink that all Members would like a rapid enlargement of the EU as soon as possible—with his party's voting record last night? The Conservatives voted against the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which will effect EU enlargement.
  Mr. Flight: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is wasting the House's time; there are different issues involved. The treaty of Nice is about going a step too far in political unification, while enlargement is the very opposite of that. A Europe of very different economies and countries cannot be a rigid and inflexible EU, hut Nice would take us down that path.
  Roger Casale (Wimbledon): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer the question that I put to the shadow Foreign Secretary yesterday, to which he was unable to reply. Were ratification of the treaty of Nice to fail, when would be the earliest possible date that EU enlargement could occur?
  Mr. Flight: With respect, the question is nothing to do with the matter before us. I am simply trying to make the point that something that was supposed to be about enlargement occurring as early as possible was actually about postponing enlargement for an unlimited period. Until there is adequate reform of the CAP, enlargement is not possible. That is well realised by countries in Europe that want to join the EU.
  I turn to article 9, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham elucidated and—dare I say—entertained the House. It is important that the French equivalent of "autonomous" has crept in. The Minister argued on Second Reading that article 9 merely repeated what had gone before, that we should not take any notice of it, and so forth. The wording has been tightened marginally.
  There is of course no point in having article 9 unless it is meant to mean something. It reserves the right to consider pan-European taxation and, indeed, to reconsider the British abatement. What is the point of Mr. Bache and his army of staff considering the subject if no one has any intent of making progress towards it? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and I pointed out on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham pointed out today, the fact that the issue is included in what we are being asked to approve should not be overlooked. The Bill puts down a marker with which we do not agree and with which I do not think people generally agree.
  There is no free lunch. The issue really was about Germany, Holland, Austria and Sweden wanting to pay less. That meant that someone must pay more or, to the extent that it might be possible to reduce the total budget, our contributions—allegedly—will not rise. However, we will not enjoy any reduction in contributions either.
  1344
  That fails to address the central issue that France, which has an economy roughly comparable to ours, pays £760 million net, whereas the UK pays £3.5 billion. We all know why; it is because of the CAP. We also all know why the CAP has been so difficult to reform. Yet again, failure to reform the CAP has hindered the debate on fair contributions and the problems for a more outward-looking Europe, and nothing has been done about such failure.
  Mr. Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the last time that the common agricultural policy was reformed was at the 1992 Edinburgh summit, where, under the Tory Government, agriculture spending was increased by 9 per cent?
  Mr. Flight: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes has already been answered—we do not claim that we succeeded in reforming the CAP. Although spending under the CAP has fluctuated, it continues to account for nearly half of the EU's total spending, and it is projected to rise from 44 to 46 per cent. in 2006—so if what he said about the last attempt was correct, the expenditure will increase yet again.
  In the debate held on 3 July, the Chief Secretary told the House that, under the current arrangements, if the EU gross national product reduced, the ceiling on EU expenditure would be automatically reduced, so EU expenditure would decrease. Although it is clear, alas, that the EU's GNP will reduce, is the Economic Secretary confident that it will be practical to reduce expenditure at the same time, as her colleague assured the House?
  In essence, the deal was done at Berlin in 1999; in no way do the Government's proposals represent a negotiating triumph. Indeed, I hate to think what might have happened if the Economic Secretary ever referred to having suffered a disaster. We got the minimum deal that was acceptable. The claim that retaining the abatement was a great achievement seems wholly bogus. The abatement was negotiated by previous Conservative Administrations, and it has saved some £20 billion. Indeed, it will save about £2 billion next year.
  As the House is well aware, we have a veto on that matter—unless a subtle wheeze is discovered to water it down. Our net position was not improved; nor was the unfairness in the net contributions made by different-sized economies corrected. As other hon. Members have said, no proper review of the EU budgetary process and what needs to be done to eliminate waste and excess was undertaken to ensure that money is spent as it should be. Yet the expectation is that EU administrative costs will rise from 5 to 6 per cent. in 2006, under the arrangements in hand.
  Before I finish, I should like to emphasise that it is not correct to claim that there was a triumph. In particular, it is wrong not to make it clear that the Berlin arrangements failed in their intended objective, which was to accelerate movement along the road by which enlargement could occur. On that score, we are unhappy with what was achieved, but, as we made clear on 3 July, the financial deal at the centre of the issue is minimally acceptable.
  Roger Casale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. It is true that previous Conservative Administrations played a part in negotiating

  1345
  previous British abatements, but does he really think that, given the Conservative party's present stance on Europe, it could negotiate any abatement on the scale that we have achieved?
  Mr. Flight: The Government have merely continued with that which the Conservative Government negotiated, and a veto exists to retain that arrangement, so the Government have achieved nothing at all. What will happen when the Conservatives come to power at the next election will depend on what is going on in Europe, but I am confident that a general clear-sighted assessment of European affairs will enable us to negotiate whatever is right and proper.
  3.4 pm
  Ruth Kelly: With the leave of the House, I should first like to say that, once again, we have had a good-natured debate. It is interesting to hear the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), speaking for the Opposition. I congratulate him on his appointment to the shadow Cabinet, and I thank him for his kind remarks. Having said that, I hope that my reputation will not take too long to recover with my colleagues.
  Perhaps I should be surprised that the hon. Gentleman has discussed a European issue at his first appearance at the Dispatch Box since his elevation. In doing so, not only has he chosen to ignore the edicts of his party leader, who has asked his party to adopt a low profile on Europe, but he has gone even further than previous Conservative Front Benchers would have chosen to do, by gracing us with his presence here today. As has been said, he must realise that his own party previously voted against the programme motion for Third Reading to take place today.
  However, perhaps I should not be too surprised, after all; the hon. Gentleman's views on Europe are well known. Indeed, if he had not been recalled to Parliament recently, he would have shared a platform at a Conservative party conference fringe meeting with Norman Lamont and the Bruges Group chairman, who stood up to applause when the panel was told that the party should campaign for Britain's withdrawal from Europe.
  I certainly maintain that the Bill represents a triumph for Britain. Indeed, the outcome is far better than the two previous Conservative Governments ever achieved. In fact, when the last own-resources decision was considered in 1992, the agreement involved a 22 per cent. real increase in the financial perspective over seven years. In 1988, the increase was 17 per cent.
  Mr. Bercow: The temptation is irresistible. The hon. Lady seeks to cast aspersions on the Opposition's position. First, this is Government business, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would expect us vigorously to oppose it, which is what we are doing. Secondly, to avoid any doubt, my position on Europe, and that of Her Majesty's Opposition, is that we are in favour of free trade, not federalism; co-operation, not coercion; and a Europe of nation states, not a single European state.
  Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for clarifying his views on Europe, although I note that he
  1346
  does not dispel my suggestion that he thinks we may have to withdraw from the EU. As he and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said, our proposals do not represent an unreasonable deal and, as I said on Second Reading, that is high praise indeed from Opposition Members.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham has indeed done his research. He gave the various figures for the gross cost of joining the EU. The gross figure that he cited was, I think, £1.2 million an hour. However, the net cost per head is £56 a year, and I believe that that is money well spent. It gives the people of Britain a right to be part of the largest European single market, comprising 370 million people, which is estimated to increase output by 1.5 per cent., and other benefits and jobs depend on our membership of the EU and the single market.
  The hon. Gentleman dwelt at length on the CAP. Of course, we recognise that further reforms need to be made to the CAP. A mid-term review of CAP financing, involving the cereals and the dairy regimes, is due in 2002. We must use that opportunity for further CAP reform. I totally agree with him that more needs to be done, but Agenda 2000 represents the most radical reform of the CAP since its inception. In fact, if we had not managed to make alliances with Sweden, Denmark and Italy, any reform of the CAP would have been extremely unlikely. We are in the vanguard of those negotiations; the Government's ability to form alliances enables us to push the agenda forward.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady teased me, so she will not mind if I tease her. Does she endorse the verdict of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) that the outcome of the Berlin Council was "modest"? Does she share his shock at the failure to achieve progress on free markets in sugar and milk quotas?
  Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman surely realises that I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), whose interest and knowledge of such matters is recognised by Government and Opposition Members. He must agree that my hon. Friend did not question what I have told the House today—that the United Kingdom is in the vanguard of reform and we are pushing for further reform. Of course, we recognise that more is needed and we intend to pursue such action. I merely point out to the hon. Gentleman, who described the Berlin Council as modest, that in the 1980s spending on the CAP represented more than 60 per cent. of the EC budget; this year, it will be 45 per cent. I am sure that he agrees that that is a great step forward. He questioned the nature of our contributions, which have come down in line with those of France and Italy, and asked whether it is right to incorporate six new member states in our assessment. I suggest to the House that it would have been misleading for us not to incorporate the most likely participants in an enlarged EU.
  We have had an interesting debate, with both Opposition parties discussing the windfall gains that the UK has forgone inline with previous practice, which was agreed when the Conservatives were in government. As the hon. Member for Buckingham noted, I have written to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and placed a copy of that correspondence in the Library for Members to read and study. The figure for the windfall gain that the hon. Member for Kingston and

  1347
  Surbiton quoted was an estimate from the European Commission itself. The amount of windfall gain to be forgone, he will realise, will vary from year to year as a result of the duties and levies collected, the effect of consumer expenditure on the VAT base, the level of the VAT base and other factors, but I will not bore the House by going through them. However, the amount is purely an estimate and not a definitive figure for the windfall gain from year to year.
  We had an interesting and entertaining discussion about the own resources decision and article 9. The matter was first raised in the House by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and I was disappointed that he was not present to hear my response. Article 9 does not represent in any way a potting of precedent, which the Conservative Government agreed. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Buckingham well knows, and as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out, that is not a critical aspect of a hidden regime in tax policy. We are absolutely determined to maintain our stance that there should be no new tax-raising powers for the EU. As the hon. Member for Buckingham will know, at ECOFIN in July we had the enthusiastic support of many other member states in that position. He will also know that there could be no new EU tax without the unanimous support of EU Finance Ministers.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is trying hard to dispel our concerns although, frankly, mine have not been assuaged. However, in the light of what she has just argued, will she tell the House the significance of the inclusion in the article of the word "autonomous"?
  Ruth Kelly: I certainly listened with interest to the results of the telephone conversation hat one of the hon. Gentleman's friends had with someone in France, I believe. I do not think that he would expect me to comment on a telephone conversation to which I was not privy, but the important principle is whether we have a veto on any new EU finance tax-raising powers. I put it clearly to the House, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done, and as my right hon. Friend the
  1348
  Chief Secretary to the Treasury did on Second Reading, that we have no intention of consenting to a new EU tax. Any such tax will depend on the unanimous consent of all EU members.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made several well-informed and interesting comments. I certainly agree that we need to address the EU budget; rationalising it is a priority. We discussed that in Committee and, as he knows, we are giving a high priority to reform, with a focus on outputs and delivery, rather than inputs. I also thank him for his comments on windfall gains; I am sure that most people in the House will wish to do so.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made some interesting comments, some of which we have already addressed in Committee, so I shall not prolong our debate by going through all of them. However, he mentioned the financing of the UK's abatement, and I would like to reiterate that any changes to it that were agreed do not in any respect affect the position of the British taxpayer. The Berlin Council addressed the problem of other large net contributors to the community budget: Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands. In future, they will pay less towards the UK abatement, but the cost of that will be met by the other 10 member states, not the UK, so the change should have no net effect whatsoever.
  In conclusion, the Bill demonstrates the huge benefits of Britain's constructive engagement with the EU. It shows that by taking a leading role in reform and by working together with other member states, we can achieve outcomes that are good for the UK and the EU. The agreement will mean stronger controls on EU spending, the beginnings of a more effective agricultural policy and no increase in the own-resources ceiling. The Bill ratifies part of the Berlin agreement that secured no increase in contributions from the UK and safeguarded the abatement. That is a good outcome for the UK and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Ministerial Salaries
3.17 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I beg to move,
That the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
The March report of the SSRB—the Review Body on Senior Salaries—on parliamentary pay and allowances was debated in both Houses on 5 July and its recommendation on Members' pay was agreed. Not discussed at that time by the House was the SSRB's recommendation No. 2 that Lords Ministers should receive an equivalent increase to that of Members of this House. The proposal was passed by the House of Lords on 23 July.
The order gives effect to recommendation No. 2—that there should be an increase in Lords Ministers' pay of £4,000 in two instalments of £2,000. The effective date of the first instalment is 20 June 2001, the state opening of Parliament. The order provides for the second £2,000 instalment from 1 April 2002 payable in addition to the automatic uprating of Lords Ministers' salaries, which takes effect from the same day.
The purpose of the increase is twofold: first, to ensure that ministerial pay remains broadly comparable to that of posts in the public and private sectors, and, secondly, to ensure that the cash differentials between Commons Ministers' salaries, including their parliamentary salary, and Lords Ministers' salaries do not widen. The SSRB thought it important that Lords Ministers' pay did not lose ground against that of their counterparts in this House. The SSRB's recommendation builds on its 1999 report which recognised that Lords Ministers' pay had failed to match the responsibilities of their work. I am sure that there will be a consensus in all parts of the House that Lords Ministers play an important part in government and in Parliament, which the order recognises.
The order also gives effect to similar rises for the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip in the Lords. In total, 26 peers will benefit from the order, so the total cost will be modest.
3.20 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I have not yet been too long in the position that I now occupy, but I am already alarmed at the extent to which I find myself in agreement with the Government and Ministers, and this is another such occasion. However, this occasion allows us briefly to reinforce the importance that certainly the Opposition give to the role played by the other place and its Ministers.
I have never had any doubt in my mind, and I have even less doubt now, that the House of Lords is a vital part of our parliamentary process. It is an institution that gives important safeguards to our people, so it is important that we recognise the role played by Members of the House of Lords and, therefore, Ministers in the House of Lords. To that extent, I welcome the order today.
There are questions that are not for today but which we would do well to consider as to whether or not or how far even the SSRB recommendations give effect to making ministerial pay broadly comparable to that in the private
1350
sector, as I think the Minister said. I have always been intrigued as to how it is that even a body as distinguished as the SSRB can set out to identify some sort of comparability between what Ministers of the Crown do and what is done in the private sector.
I have always had some doubt about how far that comparability can be stretched, but let us be thankful for what the SSRB has given us. It is has given us the opportunity to make ministerial pay generally, and in this case ministerial pay in the House of Lords, at least somewhat more realistic, and for that much we should be grateful. It is for another occasion for us to return to whether ministerial pay either here or in the Lords is sufficient.
Having said that, I have one question for the Minister for the sake of clarification. The explanatory note intriguingly states:
"The amounts specified in this Order are the maximum salaries payable. The actual salaries may therefore be less."
On what basis would the salaries be less and who would decide that they should be less? The Minister may say that the Government will decide—or more probably the Prime Minister, because he appears to decide most things—but what interests me is not so much what the Prime Minister decides for the salaries of his Ministers, but whether the Prime Minister would then decide the salaries of Opposition officeholders, as set out in schedule 2.
I ask that for clarification because, in some circumstances, it could give rise to difficult or contentious tensions. I hope that I can be reassured that my suspicions are unfounded, but I should be grateful if the Minister could expand on that delphic sentence. Having said that, we are more than happy to support the order.
3.23 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for bringing the order forward. It is deceptively short and bland in what it says and does. I do not pick any quarrel with the proposal for ministerial salary increases in the House of Lords and the bringing of them into line with those in the House of Commons. I would only pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in relation to comparability with the private sector, a point that the Minister raised and on which he might wish to elaborate.
When one considers the private sector, particularly former parts of the public sector now in the private sector, and when comparability is prayed in aid for the enormous salaries paid, one finds that, unlike in the schedule, we are not talking about five-figure numbers nor even six-figure numbers but, in many case, seven-figure numbers. I sincerely hope that the Minister does not intend to come back with further steps towards comparability that take us anywhere near such exceptional, excessive figures. Some of us do not accept the argument that comparability with the private sector should be the starting and the finishing point.
I want to say a little about the even less considered schedule 2, relating to the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Lords, which involves a total expenditure of £117,000 and some pence. I think that I am quoting the Minister accurately when I say that he said that the measure affects only 26 Members of the House of Lords and so does not cost much. This

1351
provision concerns only two Members of the House of Lords, and £117,000, by the Minister's standards, may not be much—perhaps a couple of hours' pay on the new rates that might come in with compared It pales into insignificance compared with the £500,000 paid by the Government to Her Majesty's Opposition in this place. It is certainly a modest figure compared with the amounts being paid here. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst says that it is worth every penny, but there might be several points of view on that.
Schedule 2 relates specifically to the official Opposition's role in the House of Lords and I assume that the constitutional reason for the money being paid—not the realpolitik reason—is to improve the effective scrutiny of the Government in that place and to achieve better legislation; otherwise, it is money completely down the drain. That £117,000 would be well worth it if it secured effective scrutiny and better legislation.
I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's comment with regard to those being maximum figures and asking about the possibility of lesser amounts being paid to those two Members of the House of Lords. He asked who decides what money they should have. My response to that is, "He should be so lucky." These are the only two Opposition Members in the House of Lords to receive Government support. The arithmetic and the reality of the House of Lords is that there are two Opposition parties.
I look forward on a future occasion to speaking on and voting for an order that more accurately reflects the political reality and democratic faces in the House of Lords and here in relation to the financing of Opposition parties.
3.28 pm
Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for their support of the order. I am sure that we can maintain this cross-party consensus between the two Front Benches. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is not here now, but I reaffirm what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier in welcoming him to the shadow Front-Bench team.
I am advised that the terminology that suggests that a lesser amount might be paid is because a Minister may decide not to draw the salary, or not to draw the full salary. There is no suggestion that the Government would
1352
award a salary increase to Ministers but deprive the Opposition spokespeople of either all or part of the salary increase. If the order is agreed today, it will apply across the board. [Interruption.] I hear cries of "Shame" behind me. I am losing votes rapidly, but no doubt the Opposition will be happy with that reassurance.
On securing comparability with the private and the wider public sector—a point raised by the spokespeople of both Opposition parties—the task is immensely difficult, which is why the House decided to parcel it off to the SSRB in the first place. When we discuss the reports, we need to consider the basis on which the SSRB made its calculations. Over recent years, significant progress has been made in dealing with a situation that was unacceptable. People who were taking on major government responsibilities as Ministers were not having that recognised in the salaries made available to them.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made a bid for money for those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in the House of Lords. Clearly, that is not covered in the order, but it is a contribution that could be made to the continuing debate on the future character of the upper Chamber.
Mr. Forth: I hope that in any review of such a matter, the Minister and his colleagues will judge how far the Liberal party is a party of opposition or an adjunct of the Government. That would largely inform the extent to which it might be worth paying Liberal Members in this House or the other as pseudo-Ministers or an inadequate Opposition.
Mr. Twigg: I do not believe that there is any question of the Liberal Democrats joining the Government as Ministers in this place or the upper House. I will not be drawn into that discussion, or I may lose the limited support that I still have from Government Back Benchers.
The measure is a sensible one, implementing a proposal from the SSRB. To complete my answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, it is important that the increase applies to the two Members from the Conservative Opposition in the other place, to allow effective scrutiny and debate. The proposal is modest, it will not cost a great deal, and I hope that we can agree it this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

Christopher Rochester
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Stringer.]
3.32 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the case of my late constituent, Mr. Christopher Rochester. Christopher was a young man of 24, born and raised in Chester-le-Street in my constituency. Like thousands of young people every year, he travelled to the island of Rhodes in June last year for a summer break.
Christopher travelled to stay with his brother Keith, who had been working on the island. He was a bright, intelligent young man, educated at the Hermitage school and New college, Durham. He had all to live for. He travelled to Rhodes from Newcastle airport on 7 June last year, waved off by his mother. He telephoned her the following day to say that he had arrived safely, the weather was lovely and he was happy to be with his brother Keith. He told his mother that he loved her and promised to ring on Sunday 11 June.
Christopher never made that telephone call. By then, sadly, he was lying dead in a Greek hospital mortuary. The call that his mother received was from his brother—a heart-breaking call, with the devastating and shattering news that Christopher was dead. Early that morning Christopher had been found at the foot of the balcony of the apartment in which he was staying in Falkari. He had fallen from the balcony on to the concrete patio below.
What followed for Christopher was a slow, painful, lingering death in the Andreas Papandreou hospital in Rhodes, and more than a year of appallingly cruel and tortuous treatment of his mother and family in their attempts to get answers as to why Christopher was allowed to die.
After being found lying bloodied and broken on the patio, Christopher had to wait 40 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. Still conscious and being comforted by his brother Keith and friends, he was, in his brother's words, "shuffled" on to a stretcher and placed in the ambulance. Despite Christopher's complaints of severe back pain, no attempt was made to immobilise him or protect his neck. When he arrived at the Andreas Papandreou hospital in Rhodes town, he was received in the accident and emergency department and seen by a junior doctor. The doctor attended to Christopher's head wound and ordered x-rays to be taken of his back.
Christopher was in constant agonising pain, pleading to be given water to quench his thirst. His brother responded to his pleading by running backwards and forwards, his hands cupped full of water from a tap at the end of the room, while two members of staff stood by, casually smoking.
The x-rays were taken and a possible fracture to the coccyx was diagnosed. Christopher was admitted to an orthopaedic ward, still in severe pain, with a continuing deep thirst, and, by now, a large swelling on the lower part of his back. His brother Keith was told to go home. His friend David agreed to stay with Christopher. David sat next to his bed. Christopher was given an injection for his pain, but his thirst continued and again his pleas for water were ignored. It was left to his friend David to ferry cups of water from a water fountain in the corridor.
1354
Pitifully, Christopher kept repeating to David that he thought he was going to die. David tried to reassure him that everything would he all right. David drifted off to sleep, only to be woken abruptly half an hour later by a nurse in an agitated state asking him to leave the ward. In his heart, David knew that something was seriously wrong.
The curtains around Christopher's bed were drawn. A female nurse emerged minutes later to tell him that Christopher was dead. David, grief-stricken by events, had the terrible task of telling Keith that his brother Christopher was dead. Keith then had the unimaginably difficult job of ringing his mother to tell her that her young son was no longer alive.
I have briefly described events that would have been traumatic for any family to cope with, but what I am about to tell the House aids to them in the most cruel and inhumane way. No compassion was shown to Christopher's brother Keith. Having been told that his brother was dead, he had to identify the body. He was shown into the hospital mortuary by an attendant who spoke no English. The attendant removed three bodies from their cabinets until, on the fourth occasion, Keith was shown his brother's body—a traumatic experience for someone already suffering the shock of bereavement.
Next, Keith was interviewed by the local police, and made to wait for two and a half hours in the kitchen of a police station, having had little or no sleep for the past 24 hours. The interview was aggressive and was conducted through at interpreter, a retired tour guide who spoke only broken English. The statement was written out in Greek and no attempt was made to translate it.
A week later, Christopher's body was flown home, having been released by the local Greek undertaker only after his mother, Pam Cummings, had borrowed £2,500 from the bank to cover the costs of transportation. Christopher, like so many, had no travel insurance. The body was taken to the University hospital in Durham. There the pathologist undertook a post mortem and discovered that Christopher's left kidney was missing. It had been retained by the Greek hospital. Distressed by this news, Christopher's mother contacted my predecessor, Giles Radice, who, with the invaluable assistance of the British consulate in Rhodes, got the Greek authorities to send the kidney back to the UK via the consulate in Rhodes.
When the kidney arrived at University hospital in Durham, for some unexplained reason Mrs. Cummings asked the local coroner to have it DNA tested. That was refused. Undaunted, she paid to have the kidney tested privately. To her horror, her suspicions were proved right: the kidney was not that of her son, Christopher. Now, more than a year on, Christopher's family still waits for answers, frustrated by the Greek authorities' refusal to respond to the most basic requests for information.
In an editorial on 15 January this year, the Newcastle Journal newspaper summed up the main questions that remain unanswered first, did Christopher receive the correct treatment for his injuries; secondly, why was his kidney removed, and where is it now; and, thirdly, what action has been taker against those involved? On the first point, there is clew evidence that Christopher did not receive the proper treatment that we would expect in a modern European country.

1355
Professor Redmond, who drew up a report for the local coroner in Durham, said:
"The management of the patient in this case fell far short of the very basic principles and constituted what I regard as gross medical negligence".
In his report, he criticised the Greek hospital authorities for ignoring the most basic of procedures. He said that, although the advance trauma life support procedure is used and recognised in Greece, it w as not followed in this case and that, despite Christopher's being under the influence of alcohol, no attempt was made to conduct a thorough examination. Instead, it was used as an excuse for doing nothing. Christopher's thirst was clearly a sign that he was in shock and losing blood but it was ignored. According to Professor Redmond,
"This was negligent. The patient was clearly desperately thirsty. He was in shock. He was bleeding to death and being ignored."
The negligence continued right tip to the end. No attempt was made to resuscitate Christopher, even though, as Professor Redmond said,
"had resuscitation been instituted, even at this very late stage, he might have survived."
Clearly, the staff on duty that night at the Andreas Papandreou hospital in Rhodes displayed the most appalling negligence. For me, the most telling point from Professor Redmond's report was his conclusion:
"Had this patient been treated in this country then the likely outcome would have been that he would have survived".
No plausible explanation has been given as to why Christopher's left kidney was removed and retained in Greece. It would have been a vital piece of evidence in determining the cause of death and its omission has clearly hampered the pathologist who carried out the examination of Christopher's body in the UK. Mystery still surrounds the identity of the kidney sent to the UK and the whereabouts of Christopher's kidney. The only response from the Greek authority is that the correct kidney was given to the British consulate in Rhodes, implying that somehow it must have mixed it up with the no doubt large number of kidneys kept at the consulate. What a ludicrous notion.
On 25 and 26 July this year, an inquest was held in Durham into Christopher's death and the verdict given was accidental death contributed to by neglect. At the inquest, certain documents appeared for the first time. A report by the Papandreou hospital into the case names those responsible for the terrible treatment of Christopher. It says that Sergios Pavlidis, the trainee doctor on duty, failed to seek out the duty doctor or specialist doctor to look at the patient and that Dr. George Karavolias, the emergency ward duty doctor, was in bed and left no instruction that he should be notified if an emergency was admitted. It also said that the two nurses on the orthopaedic ward failed to inform the duty doctor that Christopher had been admitted to the ward.
The same individuals were named in a second report produced at the inquest, this time by the public prosecutor's office in Rhodes. It had the telling words on the front cover, "Homicide as a result of negligence".
What has been the outcome? In short, we do not know. The family's attempts to get answers have been met with a wall of silence. I wrote to the Greek Ambassador on 3 September this year, but to date I have not even received an acknowledgement of my letter. Stephen Hughes, the Durham MEP, has made representations to the Greek health and justice ministers, but to date has had no replies.
1356
The case that I have outlined is truly appalling. Respect must be paid to Mrs. Pam Cummings, Christopher's mother, and her family for the way in which they have tried with dignity to get answers but have been thwarted by a lack of co-operation from the Greek authorities.
According to the House Library, more than 2 million UK citizens visited Greece in 2000. Christopher Rochester was just one of those. Unlike others, he did not come back. Greece is not a third-world nation; it is a modern country and a member of the European Union, and we should expect decent health care if we fall ill while visiting. From the experience of Christopher Rochester, health care on Rhodes is clearly not adequate, and one would question whether it is safe for UK citizens to visit the island. The UK tourist trade to Greece in 1999 was worth £938 million. There should be an onus on both the Greek Government and UK tour operators to ensure that local medical services are of a higher standard than those on Rhodes.
Mrs. Cummings, a proud lady, knows that nothing will bring her son back, but if by highlighting this case she can prevent another mother from going through the torment that she has experienced, some good may have come out of Christopher's death. Clearly, the family wants answers to the questions that I have raised this afternoon. Any representation that the Minister can make on behalf of the family would be greatly appreciated in trying to bring this unhappy story to a close and finally allowing Christopher to rest in peace.
3.47 pm
Mr. Tom Watson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for allowing me time to contribute to this debate on an issue that is of great personal interest to me. I lost a close friend and employee on the island of Rhodes this August. Dominic McElroy was 26 years old and well known on the Labour Benches and within the Labour party as a lovable, charismatic, and tough-talking Yorkshireman.
At times of bereavement, family and loved ones enter a state of shock and are at their most vulnerable. In a different country and culture, they need as much guidance and support as they can get, not just from our officials abroad but from the travel companies that organise their package holidays. From my experience, I can only praise the role played by British consulate staff in Rhodes, whose behaviour was exceptional. They showed great sensitivity and tact in dealing with the bureaucracy involved with repatriating a British citizen.
The same was not true of the travel and insurance companies through which my friend had purchased his holiday, however. Dominic had booked his package holiday through Golden Sun Holidays, which I believe had a responsibility to deal with matters in the immediate aftermath of his death. His friends were obviously in a state of shock and grieving, yet they were not offered alternative accommodation and the bed sheets in the room in which Dominic stayed were not even changed. The standard of service that those young people, who were clearly in a state of shock, received was frankly not acceptable.
Dealing with the death of a close friend and having to go through the painful process of informing the parents are burdens enough in themselves, but then to deal with an unknown bureaucracy in a foreign country with a foreign language is simply too much for people to cope with when they are at their most vulnerable.

1357
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will help to put pressure on the travel industry to create an industry-wide set of guidelines that can be given to all holidaymakers who suffer such a tragic loss abroad. Cannot we establish a code of conduct to which holiday companies can subscribe, to help to unravel the complex procedures that are involved in repatriating a deceased British citizen? Dominic's friends had not only to talk to the British consulate, but to deal with the travel company and its representatives, the insurance company, insurance underwriters, undertakers, airports and local police. They also suffered an interrogation on Rhodes that was similar to the one my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described.
It is simply not acceptable for the industry to allow grieving people to fend for themselves in unfamiliar territory. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider with our colleagues in Europe the establishment of an EU-wide set of guidelines to which the travel industry can subscribe. There have been many instances in which unnecessary bureaucracy has slowed down the burial of British citizens who have died abroad and prohibited families from grieving as they should in such tragic circumstances. It could be argued that the ability to bury one's loved one is a basic human right. I hope that he will take that point on board when he responds.
Dominic McElroy was a great man who was lost to his family tragically early, at the age of 26. They deserve so much more from the travel company from which he purchased his holiday. I hope that we can work to ensure that other people in such tragic circumstances do not have to undergo the pain and misery that Dominic's friends suffered last August.
3.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important topic. It is an indication of his commitment to his constituency that his first such debate is for the benefit and peace of mind of a family who live there. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) on his contribution. I was pleased to hear his comments about the professionalism of the British consulate in Rhodes. I am not aware of the details of the case that he raised, but I shall certainly take on board his point about the need for EU guidelines for the travel industry in respect of bereavement cases. Sadly, I am not responsible for the travel industry, which is dealt with by another Department, but I point out that the Foreign Office produces a booklet called "Dealing with Death Abroad", which is distributed by embassies.
We were all disturbed to hear about the tragic death of Christopher Rochester in June 2000 and the ordeal of his bereaved family since then. To lose a young life is bad enough, but when it happens overseas and the circumstances are unclear, it must be much worse. On the death of a British citizen overseas, consular staff offer as
1358
much assistance as they can. Their primary role is to act as a liaison between the authorities in the country where the death has happened and the bereaved relatives, who are usually in the UK.
If a close relative is present in the country where a death has occurred, our consular staff do their best to assist them in making arrangements for local burial or cremation, or the return of the deceased to the UK. One rule prevails: the welfare of the bereaved relatives must always be paramount.
Let me turn to the specifics of Christopher's case, in which the unusual circumstances and developments overtook the regular pattern of consular activity following a death. Fortunately, as we have heard, Christopher's brother Keith was present and was able to act as a witness for the family. Christopher was returned to the UK relatively quickly and the coroner promptly drew the family's attention to his concerns about Christopher's treatment in hospital and to the findings of the Greek coroner in relation to the cause of his death. It was unusual for the British consulate to be asked to send on the kidney produced by the Greek authorities. Such matters would normally be the responsibility of international undertakers. To then find that the kidney did not belong to Christopher was as shocking for our consulate as it was for the coroner, and was devastating for the family. Our consulate in Rhodes and the embassy in Athens have passed on all messages, relayed questions and unofficially translated documents with great haste.
I am sorry to heal about my hon. Friend's difficulty in getting a response from the Greek ambassador in London. If he would like to speak to me about the matter after the debate, I can pass the message on to Baroness Amos, who is responsible for consular matters. I am sure that she will look into the matter for him.
By encouraging the British and Greek coroners to speak to one another, we hope that at least the question of the missing kidney will be resolved. Our consulate is continuing to press Mr. Stefis, the Greek coroner, to take the matter further, professional to professional, with his British counterpart, Mr. Tweddle. The British coroner has given his verdict of accidental death contributed to by neglect. We understand that, as we have heard, the family are proceeding with their case through the courts. We believe that the Greek police investigation papers have been passed to the public prosecutor. Our embassy in Athens will keep a careful eye on developments. Our consul met the public prosecutor and Mr. Stefis on 17 October, which is yesterday, to discuss progress on the case. Mr. Stefis awaits further photographs from the British coroner, Mr. Tweddle, and the public prosecutor expects to release his report on the allegations of malpractice at Rhodes hospital by the end of November. It is encouraging that the Greek Minister of Justice has also taken a person al interest in the case. He recently telephoned the public prosecutor to make inquiries.
We all hope that the case can be brought to a resolution as soon as possible. To prolong the distress of Christopher's family, especially at a time when bereaved relatives are very much in everyone's thoughts, would be unthinkable.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Four o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Early Years Education
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000–01, HC 33; the Government response thereto, in the Committee's Fourth Special Report of 2000–01, CH361; and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Education Sub-Committee on 25 April and 2 May 2001, HC 438-i and ii.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on the Select Committee on Education and Employment's report on early years. I am especially pleased because I assumed the chairmanship of the Education Sub-Committee late in the previous Parliament, and this report was the first produced under my chairmanship.
I did not write the terms of reference, which were already established when I became Chairman; my able colleagues had already worked hard on that. However, I made one small contribution to the terms of reference. We were to concentrate on the years three to eight, but during initial discussions and the seminar that we initiated to discuss how we would develop the inquiry, it became obvious that it would not be wise to concentrate on ages three to eight because a child's development starts at birth: if we intended seriously to examine early years education and the early years environment, it was clear that we should start from birth. Others might have argued that we should discuss what sort of music should be played close to a pregnant woman's stomach and so on. We treated such suggestions seriously, but we decided that birth to eight was the right framework.
I start by confessing that the fascinating aspect of good Select Committee work—our Committee worked very well on the report—is that one learns so much as one goes along. My background is that of a university teacher, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you are one of my former students; I taught you a long time ago, and you were a highly successful student. I am a specialist in higher education, and when I was a Labour Front-Bench spokesman, I worked on policy for the 14 to 19 age group.
It was a delight to me to learn about early years. I had to rely on wonderful colleagues and experts who knew far more than me, and I was surprised by the sheer quality of both academic practitioners and practitioners in the field—those who are doing the job. There is a richness of voluntary organisations and non-Governmental organisations of peerless quality. There was absolutely no problem in learning what was going on from that range of experts. Had it not been for wise advice from three women—Professor Christine Pascal, Mrs Rosemary Peacocke and Professor Kathy Silva—who were special advisers to the Committee, our report would not have been of such high quality, so I thank them for their good work.
308WH
The range of evidence given to the Committee required us to get out of the rarefied atmosphere of the House of Commons and see what was happening on the ground. We pursued that course vigorously in Oxford, Bristol, London and many other places. We visited many early years settings and learned a great deal about what was happening in the field. First, we held a seminar in which we shared knowledge, then we got out and looked at good practice; in addition, we did what all good Select Committees do—obtained written and oral evidence of high quality.
We received positive responses from the Government, some of which I shall mention this afternoon. One never gets all the responses that one wants from any Government—if one does, it means that the report is not very good: one should always ask for things far beyond what one knows that the Government will give, certainly in the short term. However, the framework and background of this report were a Government who, when they entered office in 1997, were very committed to early years education. They boasted about how much cash they had committed, and despite arguments about the exact sums, there is no doubt that a lot of money has been ploughed into early years. It is the Select Committee's job to make sure that that money has been a good investment for the taxpayer.
We expect Governments to trumpet their track record and what they consider to be successes, but the Select Committee, as a body that represents Parliament, must determine whether the Government have stuck to their manifesto pledges. If they said something in their manifesto and the electors voted for them on that basis, we should be part of the tracking mechanism to find out whether they have kept their promises. Moreover, it is all very well throwing money at a problem, but if that money is wasted an opportunity is missed and no one will be very impressed.
As we went around the country and took evidence, we saw that some very good things are happening in the pre-school sector. Welcome developments are enabling children to have half-time education at four, and there is a gradual trend towards providing that at age three. All of us who know anything about the subject—I am no expert, but having had four children I have gained some practical experience of early years education—know how important it is to give children the right environment for early years development.
I have missed out one aspect of our unique inquiry. We heard from a senior student from one of the university of London's research institutes—I will later correct the record in terms of which college, although I think that it is University college. That PhD student was researching the development of the human brain in the early stages and the appropriate education for—[Interruption.] I think that that came from outside, Madam Deputy Speaker. To resume, it was important to hear from an expert on the development of the brain as it enabled us to examine what stimulation is appropriate for a child in his early years.
Any good Select Committee realises that its inquiry has not been a full job. Although we extended our period to nought to five years, and then to nought to eight, to be honest we did most of our work on the three to five period, even though we made up in part for that when we extended back to birth. However, because of that expertise on early brain development, we uncovered

309WH
interesting areas that we should further examine. I believe that a Select Committee that does its job well does not simply carry out an inquiry—for example, into early years—and then say that it is done. Many people would say that on its completion a report can be put on a shelf and allowed to gather dust, but that is not right. We should return to the subject within a short time, revive it, add to it and keep on going back to it. The report deals with such a vital period of education and with such an important sector that we should not walk away and forget about it. It should be returned to as source material and built upon. I hope that special attention will later be paid to the period from birth to three.
One of the more self-evident of our recommendations, albeit one that needed saying, was to urge the Government and everyone else in the sector to take parents more seriously. The involvement of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who is sadly no longer on the Committee, was strong on that issue. He felt, as did we all, that parental involvement is essential. That may be self-evident, but the early years often seem to exclude the parent. Committee members were keen to involve the parent from the early stages of assessing a child and understanding what the child needs in terms of stimulation. Another recommendation was not to be obsessive about the age at which a child begins school, or pre-school, but instead to be obsessive about the school having the right environment, conditions and stimulation for the child; that is more important than a fixed age.
We felt it important to treat the parent as the key person in the development of the child. We wanted to say that we understood how crucial the period from nought to three is to a child's development. However, that period is also difficult to influence. The sure start programme has triggered massive investment in projects across the country, especially in more deprived areas. It is, without doubt, an interesting innovation, but during the period in which we carried out our inquiry most sure start initiatives were in their early days, so it was too soon to draw conclusions. We found that those who often needed help most were families at home, especially mothers at home who normally spend the most time with a child aged nought to three. We felt that if parents were to be reached out to, they must understand the importance of early stimulation.
At an early excellence centre in Oxford, or perhaps it was Bristol, we saw some fascinating work that brought parents into the centre even when the mother was pregnant and later when the child was tiny. Parents were taught about the importance of things that many people take for granted, such as play, nursery rhymes and other activities that stimulate children in their early years. Getting through to parents is a delicate operation—a balance has to be struck.
Later in my speech, I will make some harsh comments about the Government, but I am pleased to see that Professor Lesley Abbott, who has an extraordinary reputation in this field, has been seconded from the wonderful establishment of Manchester Metropolitan university to the Department for Education and Skills to devise a curriculum for the under-threes. That is a wonderful idea. In the past, people might have thought
310WH
that a dreadful development, but I think it is a step forward which the Government took because they were encouraged by our inquiry. The issues are sensitive and I hope that the whole Chamber will understand the delicacy required in providing early stimulation for a child. The work following our report must be about how to strike a balance.
We went to Denmark, which is not particularly exotic but very pleasant. We went not because we wanted a trip, but because we wanted to see what is considered the best practice in Europe for early years. We learned a lot. One of the wonderful things about getting away from one's own country and looking at someone else's practice is that it enables one to reflect on domestic practice. I came away feeling that I did not want to recreate the Danish system in the United Kingdom, even though the Danes pour money into it and there is much to recommend it. In many cases, Danish children that are just weaned leave their families to go to some form of care at 7 o'clock in the morning, reappearing at home at 5 o'clock—a pattern that persists throughout their young lives. They see their parents only at weekends and after 5 o'clock in the evening. I would like the Danish resources but I am not sure that I would want such an all-embracing service—nor, moreover, would most of my constituents like to face 50 per cent. income tax and 25 per cent. VAT to pay for such a system. Nevertheless, it was interesting to see what the Danes are doing, and there is no doubt that they invest considerable money, resources and care in early years.
That leads me to the second part of our core recommendations. I know from our oral examination that the press have picked up on this point, but it bears repeating. Most people in this country would not get someone who is unqualified and untrained to fix an appliance such as a washing machine or dishwasher, even if the person were recommended or appeared in the Yellow Pages. However, many people leave their children in the care of unqualified people who are paid the minimum wage, or sometimes less when the rules are bent.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: That is breaking the law.
Mr. Sheerman: Yes, but I am trying to be a realist.
In terms of quality of training, the pre-school care system in Denmark, which covers up to age seven, was astonishing. All staff are graduates and properly trained, and on average they earn only about 10 per cent. less than qualified teachers. According to evidence given to our Committee, pay and training in this country are worst in respect of the ages of nought to three, five and eight—probably the most sensitive period in a child's development.
Mr. David Chaytor: I accept that training is crucial, but does my hon. Friend share my concern about the Government's response to the report's recommendations on training? They tended to focus on the need to get more child care workers with qualified teacher status and more graduates in the profession. However, discussions with the Bury early years development and child care partnership in my constituency lead me to believe that the real priority is to get more unskilled and unqualified workers who have

311WH
basic training. We should get more people through NVQ level 2, because that is the level at which need is greatest. Will my hon. Friend comment on that, and perhaps suggest that the Minister discuss the need for more NVQ training in his winding-up speech?
Mr. Sheerman: I am sure that the Minister heard what my hon. Friend says. That voice from Bury is very welcome, but I want to have my cake and eat it: I want basic training, as our report strongly recommends, but I also want a graduate-trained teacher in every setting. Indeed, having our cake and eating it is what good education policy should be about.
It is early days for sure start. Although we welcome the programme, concern persists—here comes my first piece of hard news for the Government. As is usual after producing a Select Committee report, we have stayed in touch with the special advisers who gave evidence to the inquiry—some of whom are not a million miles away from this debate—and we hear on that wonderful grapevine about what is going on. There is concern about a slowdown in the rollout of sure start: the figures reveal a big underspend, and there appears to be a bottleneck obstructing the next tranche. Evaluation of best practice in the early stages of sure start may not be taking place or being communicated fast enough. That is the view of many people who took part in the inquiry. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
Sure start is welcome because it will break through the cycle of deprivation, underachievement in education and social exclusion. It is vital to tackle poverty between the ages of nought and three, so anything that may prevent sure start from being successful is a cause of great concern. Most members of the Committee saw sure start as a great cross-departmental opportunity to break into the cycle of deprivation and underperformance that marks so many families and children.
Here is good news for the Government—my old colleague the Minister will be pleased. Most of us thought that what I call the early years partnerships—they are really called the early years development and child care partnerships—had the raw potential to act as energisers that would bring together, with leadership and at every local authority level, all the people and groups interested in early years education. I am disappointed that in my local authority of Kirklees leadership still comes from the local council. We recommended that the chair of early years partnerships should, if possible, come from the independent sector, because too often one could see the signs of the local authority being reluctant to let go. If we could clone Rosemary Peacocke, who chairs the partnership in Oxford and was one of our special advisers, and scatter copies of her around the rest of the country, what a formidable group of chairs we would have. We need independent chairs because if early years partnerships are to be successful they must provide leadership and be bold: they must set the agenda. However, some of the evidence suggests that they are not energising as quickly as they should.
I want to link training and pay to a practical problem. Our report strongly recommends that as we gain the real plus, celebrated by most, of more children being able to get into pre-school, paid for by the Government, at four and now three, we should not push them through the
312WH
system into formal learning too early. Pushing them into reception classes before they are ready does children more damage than not giving them the education at all. Many experts are saying that four-year-olds are being put into reception classes. What next—three-year-olds?
In practical terms, that means that we lose adult-child ratios of 1:11 and 1:13 and instead get a ratio of 1:25, which entails formal learning where children sit in little rows and learn by rote. That is not what we want for our children in their early years. We urge the Government to take action. It cannot be good to ratchet down the start of formal learning to the point where it comes too early and too quickly. Our report flags up that danger, which we identified by keeping our ears to the ground and talking to informants. On the ground, it is a more significant concern than it was six months or a year ago—we published the report a year ago come December. The Government and Ministers must be careful. We do not want children in the wrong setting and atmosphere for learning: that must not happen. We must also be careful to ensure both that staff are appropriate and that staff pupil ratios are right.
Throughout our report we said that early years has historically suffered from the divisions among education, social services, health and, if one is honest, the Benefits Agency. Joined-up government can make a significant difference with integration. The Government stated yesterday that they are keen on integration, and the early years partnerships help to achieve that, but we still need commitment and leadership from both Ministers and a single Department to ensure that that happens and does not go by the bye.
There has been good progress, but I must tell the Minister that the word on the street, or at least the word from some people on some streets in some towns, is that the Government are losing their interest in early years—that having produced the Green Paper and the White Paper they consider that they have done early years and they have decided to move on to post-11 education. The former Under-Secretary Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who has moved up, was answerable to the House of Commons and passionately involved in her work. I am sure that the new ministerial team is as committed, but I remind the Minister that the word is that there has been a fashion shift: perhaps the commitment to sure start—and to a great deal else besides—has decreased. I do not say that as Chairman of the Select Committee. A voice—not a loud voice, but a little voice—is asking the Government, "Have you lost interest? Is there less interest than there was?" We will need strong leadership from the Government if the process is to continue. We need to care continuously about this issue.
When we took evidence, one thing that shocked members of the Committee was the uneven distribution of early years settings around the country, which meant that some people had few options in terms of early years care. In other areas, there was little integration of the marketplace, which meant that children were carted around to many different settings. One piece of evidence revealed that some families were taking their children to as many as six settings in a week, which cannot be good. Children were walking—we hope that the children were walking because, as we said, it is an outdoor activity that is good for them—to six settings.

313WH
I shall end my remarks—I am sorry that I have taken so long—by stating that although the Government have done some excellent things on early years it has been suggested that some backsliding has occurred. We hope that the Government will not backslide. It will be necessary to continue to invest considerable resources in early years provision if the Committee's ambition, that all the nation's children should be able to realise their full potential, is to be achieved. It will be achieved—along with further successes at ages seven, 11, 14 and 16—and accompanied by a subsequent increase in the number of entrants into higher education only if early years education continues to be of paramount importance to all Governments, now and in future. Working on the early years report has taught the Committee that there is only one education system, which integrates upward and downward. Early stimulation is vital. Imagination and creativity must be awakened in children when they are very young, because the cost and difficulty of doing that becomes greater as children get older. It is therefore essential to get it right at an early stage.
I have spoken for long enough, but I emphasise what my remarks have already made clear—every member of the Committee felt that working on the report was not only interesting and stimulating, but highly enjoyable. Members learned how to understand early years education. I realised that, although I have been visiting schools for many years, I had not been doing the job properly. I was taught for the first time how to look at a classroom—how to interpret the paintings and artwork on the walls and the other schoolwork. Therefore, I should like to add as a postscript that if working on the report educated me at my stage in life, it must have been a celebratory experience for every other member of the Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The number of hon. Members who are present indicates that there is considerable interest in the debate. I hope that many, if not all, will be able to catch my eye. It will be helpful if hon. Members keep their contributions brief.
3.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I apologise for the fact that I shall have to leave at 4.30 pm for a meeting of Standing Committee D and will therefore not be present for the conclusion of the debate.
I understand that there is a tradition that members of the Select Committee are more likely to catch the eye of the Speaker in debates such as this, and I am grateful for that, although I do feel a bit of a fraud because I was not involved in any of the deliberations of the Committee that produced the report. I am also not qualified to speak because, unlike the Chairman of the Committee, I have no children, nor do I have experience of early years teaching. My limited experience has been gained in my constituency and from serving on an early years partnership on behalf
314WH
of the London borough of Southwark. That partnership was independently chaired, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) suggested that it should be. The chairman was none other than the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), whose chairmanship was certainly independent of the council.
My speech has two parts: I shall offer three general observations, then make a few remarks based on my local and national experience. The first of my three observations is that there is a tendency to over-bureaucratise the development of education; the early years sector suffers from that. Secondly, there has been a tendency to diminish the role of parents compared with that of professionals; the report fully recognises that. Thirdly, funding and accountability of early years education is overcomplicated, which can lead to waste, duplication and further complexity.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that we must take parents more seriously, and in paragraph 10 the report states:
"Parents are the first and most enduring educators of their children."
There is a danger of patronising, undermining or deskilling parents by treating them as though they know less and have less appropriate instincts than the professionals who are involved in early years development. In The Times today, the head of policy of the National Family and Parenting Institute says:
"Experts are undermining the confidence of parents in their own ability to bring up happy, healthy and well-adjusted children."
The article continues:
"A survey of 1,391 parents found that despite their deep concerns about their role and the wellbeing of their children, a substantial proportion—48 per cent.—felt that they did not require outside help from parenthood experts. When they did want help or information, parents were likely to turn first to family and friends and then to local services, such as their doctor, local school or playgroup"
rather than to national or Government information sources. It is entirely healthy for parents to look to local expertise, whether it is qualified, as in the case of doctors; part qualified, as in the case of early years settings; or totally unqualified, as in the case of family and friends. I am pleased that the report places such emphasis on involving parents in the daily activities of their children's settings. The report states in paragraph 13:
"more important than the mother's educational qualifications is what the mother does with the child."
We should all have that text before us.
There is a national shortage of child minders, and I wonder whether that is getting better or worse. Is the shortage associated with increasing demands on child minders to register, to attend courses and conferences and to obtain qualifications? Is a shortage that is based on such causes more beneficial, even if it leads to fewer places for youngsters, than providing more places with less qualified child minders would be? I am worried about the bureaucratisation of the profession.
In illustrating the bureaucracy, I am indebted to Sandra Snell of the Bethel pre-school and nursery in my constituency, which was established by the Bethel Christian fellowship. She told me about the massive effort required in a relatively small nursery for such things as the creation and writing of policies: there are

315WH
30 pages of policy in a document for a setting that takes only 60 youngsters. What can we do to slim down the requirement for policy documentation and the provision of standards on which to base those policies?
Mrs. Snell welcomes Government action to amalgamate the work of the Office for Standards in Education and social service inspections so that inspections are not duplicated, but she is worried to discover that an Isle of Wight kitemark is to be established, apparently at the behest of the Government who say that every setting must be accredited by a kitemark. Isle of Wight council is setting up a kitemark, as are other local authorities and some national bodies. That is getting rid of duplicate inspection with one hand, and creating it with another. There is little point amalgamating two nationally required inspections if the Government or local authorities invent another. That adds to the burden on a setting and its management.
Mrs. Snell mentioned her concern about the availability of capital resources, especially in a church setting. It is sometimes difficult for her to obtain funding because her playgroup is based in a church building, which is used for religious purposes at weekends. She was concerned about the shortage of revenue to pay sufficient and sufficiently qualified staff. Even on the Isle of Wight, where unemployment among women is high, it is difficult to obtain and pay appropriately her unqualified staff, let alone the qualified staff whom she hopes to employ in her nursery. Mrs. Snell would like a reliable income stream and to have effective measures against non-payers.
Mrs Snell drew to my attention the possible scope for financial abuse: for example, in order to claim the working families tax credit, parents put their children in the nursery for a fortnight or three weeks then withdraw them but continue to receive the money. Concern has been expressed that some local education authorities declare that all children are needy children for the purposes of receiving money for early years education. They claim the money, but cannot then provide the children to fill the places that have been created with that money. LEAs insist that children move too early into reception classes in primary schools, telling parents that there may not be a place available for their children if they are not moved into reception classes—a point that I am glad was mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. They say that a place may be available at four, or rising five, but not at five, with the result that children are moved out of the nursery into reception too early. The EYDCP, which is composed primarily of providers, is not necessarily as accountable as it should be to those who pay the bills. I hope that the Minister can deal with those matters.
I have not been uncritical of the Government's policy or the report. I congratulate the Government on their efforts to meet perceived need, but the report needs to cover the key question posed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, which is whether we are receiving good value for the money that is spent on such an important service. Are all children benefiting from early years provision, or are we providing more than commensurate benefit to the education of young children? Perhaps we should deal with that matter on a future occasion.
3.12 pm
Valerie Davey: I was pleased to be a member of the Education and Employment Committee that drew up the report and proud to take its members to see the quality of nursery provision in Bristol. We in Bristol have a good record: we set up one of the first nursery nurses colleges after the war and our early years provision is of remarkable quality. I was also pleased that, during the Committee's visit, the Reggio exhibition was being held in Bristol, which meant that we could enjoy international flavour from the Italian village that has prided itself on the way in which music, dance, painting and sculpture have been motivating factors in early years education. Taking members of the Committee to see that exhibition was an important part of sharing with my colleagues what was happening in Bristol.
I shall focus on the last of the matters that the Committee examined, which is at what age formal schooling should start. It was not long before the then Under-Secretary with responsibility for early years education said, in a robust response to the Committee, that there was no point querying the statutory age at which children started school. In fact, she said that the argument was redundant.
In another context, some of us went to Switzerland to see the range of early years provision there. We recognise that children in many countries in Europe start statutory education at a later age than children here, and we share many convictions on the subject with those in other countries. However, the former Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), is an astute politician and recognised that as education for children in this country has started at the age of five since the Education Act 1870, there is no question of changing that age.
None the less, it is worth considering a little more carefully what we mean by that starting age. The law states that children start statutory education the term after their fifth birthday. Most parents recognise that—certainly, the parents of my generation took their children to school once they were five to join the reception class, in which they learned in a range of ways to be social and creative. Little formal education clicked in until the following year.
Many parents still have difficulty understanding the terms used in early years. The Chairman of our Sub-Committee rightly pointed out that early years can mean three to five plus, nought to five or, as the report finally defined it, nought to eight years. We carefully defined what is now meant by a reception class, bearing in mind the age at which children join it. Today, it is not as I knew it: it now means children who have reached their fourth birthdays and will go on to become five in that year, whereas year 1 is five rising six.
Those ages are important to remember when considering the statutory requirement for children starting school, which starts at year 1. We have somehow slipped in a year almost surreptitiously, as there was an important period in which rising fives were encouraged to enter school. I was a member of a county council at the time, and the way in which rising fives were encouraged to come to school and have all the benefit of, initially, an extra term in education was brilliant. If my twins, with their July birthdays, had been rising fives, they would have started school at Easter.

317WH
The report contains a useful table that shows the range of early years provision. Children arrive in year 1 at anything from exactly five years old to five years and 11 months. We must recognise the fact that children at that age should not be put into year compartments. As any parent knows, half a year makes a huge difference. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is right to say that the emphasis must be on the culture, the provision made, the staffing levels and the whole remit of education provided for the children according to their stage of development rather than their age.
We carefully stated that education in early years needs to be provided according to the child's stage of development, and no one knows that better than professional teachers. That is why the Committee was concerned to ensure that highly qualified professional teachers were responsible at every stage in early years. We were not prepared to equivocate about that
We made it a firm recommendation that the teacher-pupil ratio in reception should be 1:15; in fact, we were a little more generous and said the adult-child ratio, and the Minister graciously accepted that. However, we also said that it should be 1:15 in year 1. In other words, the foundation stage, which the report recognised covers children aged three to five-plus, with all their wonderful characteristics, should cover reception and the first part of key stage 1, in year 1. We are talking about personal, social and emotional development in the foundation stage, communication in language and literature, mathematical development, knowledge and understanding of the world, and physical and creative development. Those are clearly key subjects for the foundation stage, but they are also important for year 1 and the beginning of key stage 1. I meet teachers in infant schools who celebrate with us the introduction of the foundation stage and who welcome the training that teachers are being given to develop it. That is not happening in isolation; it is being linked with development in key stage 1. In that way, teachers will anticipate and understand a child's development from three, four and five right through to the end of key stage 1.
Teachers at schools in Bristol that I visited again this September told me, "Our professionalism comes up against Ofsted." Ofsted is examining not only the literacy hour in year 1, but the development of the formal stage of education in the reception year. There are some very careful words in the report from people at Ofsted and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, who tried almost to fudge the fact that the curriculum stretches back into the reception year and can be judged by Ofsted in terms of curriculum. I shrink in horror from the Chairman's tentative recommendation that there should be a nought to three curriculum. I do not want the curriculum that Ofsted monitors and regulates to stretch back into the early years. I want the Reggio concept of the creative spirit and the creative nurturing of the child to develop through the reception year into year 1 and as far up the system as possible.
The cry "too formal, too soon" comes persistently from the trade unions and the professional bodies. I want to underline the report's view that we need to ensure that there is a less formal approach in the
318WH
foundation year and into year 1. We should question Ofsted about being too strict in its observance through year 1. We need to recognise teachers' professionalism. Children do not legally have to enter statutory education until year 1. In many cases, it genuinely represents reception. I celebrate nursery education.
I end by underlining the most important of the report's recommendations. I want an adult-child ratio in year 1 of 1:15, with one of the adults present being, of course, a professionally trained teacher.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair):Order. Many hon. Members want to speak. Madam Deputy Speaker suggested that brevity would be essential if all those who wanted to be called were to catch the eye of the Chair. I understand that the Front Benchers would like to begin winding up at 5 o'clock.
3.24 pm
Bob Spink: I welcome the increased attention given to early years policy and practice in recent years. I congratulate the Committee on its report, although I had no part in its preparation: although I am now a member of the Committee, I was not a Member of Parliament during its production. The report makes many good recommendations, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) I have a couple of reservations. In particular, I share his concern about increasing bureaucracy in early years provision. That is unnecessary and to be deplored. However, I shall not repeat his comments about that.
The key responsibility for the education and care of children must lie with parents and the wider family. It is in that context that we should study the report and think about policy development in the future. Development of child care and early years care and education is increasingly necessary because of changes in the way in which families are structured. There are many more families in which both parents need to work and many more one-parent families these days. As my hon. Friend said, we must do nothing that dilutes the responsibility, experience and skills of parents, or to undermine their duty or ability to care for their children in their own way.
3.26 pm
Ms Meg Munn: I shall address my remarks mainly to issues relating to early years centres and joint working between health, education and social services, and to the recommendations for years 9, 10 and 11. My working background before becoming a Member of Parliament was in social services.
In the 1980s, when I worked with young people, there was often huge frustration about the fact that many teenagers' problems could have been predicted when they were young children first entering school. The importance of their previous experience and what had happened to them in the first years of their life to determining what would happen when they were older seemed to me to have been overlooked. I am not here as an expert witness or to give evidence, so I shall not go into great detail about my academic experience of this sphere, but we know that the way in which early years

319WH
issues are tackled by parents and children as the children go through the toddler stage and become more independent of their parents is to some extent repeated when young people reach adolescence. If those issues are dealt with well in the early years, fewer problems are likely as a young person reaches the teenage years.
I welcome the Government's approach to early years and the current level of investment. It is long overdue. The benefits are seen in research that has been available for years, some of it done in America and some of which is quoted in the Government's response. The response to recommendation 12, on page 7, states:
"In one case, for every £1 spent on Early Excellence Centre services for family support, £8 was saved on alternative services."
We should note the money that can be saved when young people do not become involved in offending and crime and when the devastation that results from young people being out of control is avoided.
I welcome the parenting orders introduced by the Government, which are linked to youth offending. However, how much more effective would it be if parents were given support when they first become parents? I note that in both the Select Committee report and the Government's response—I am referring to recommendation 4—it is recommended that
"there should be more support given through the health, social services and education services working together to provide assistance to parents. We recommend that the Government should work with BBC Online and other innovative providers to produce appropriate programmes on parenting."
I do not decry such initiatives, but as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said, most people looking for help on parenting are more likely to go to a local source, involving people they know. Such is the advantage of the joint working that is being developed through programmes such as sure start and early excellence centres. Local authorities, education and social services and health are working together. Health visitors are well placed to help parents—their whole approach is one of prevention and support for parents. The removal of the stigma that is often associated with being given advice on how one should parent one's children is hugely important. That is why I am a strong supporter of the sure start initiative.
From the point at which I was selected as a parliamentary candidate, I was anxious to secure a sure start project in my constituency, so I welcome the fact that the Gleadless Valley area is in the process of establishing such a project. We know that the investment will not reach all areas, but we can develop joint working between health, social services and education without having sure start centres in every community.
I would like us to go even further and consider a more imaginative approach such as the one that we tried to implement at an authority where I used to work. If we regard the local school just as a school, it can be quite off-putting to some parents who did not have a good experience of education and do not wish to go to a school to get advice. If, however, from an early stage—I am not talking about a formal curriculum for nought to threes—the local school were regarded not as a school but as the local family centre where services were provided, parents would have a positive experience from the start. By the time that the child started formal
320WH
education, the barriers would have been broken down and there would be every opportunity for help and support to be given.
On the whole, I welcome the report and I welcome the Government response. However, I want us to get the benefit from it and for that benefit to be spread throughout schools and communities.
3.33 pm
Charlotte Atkins: Early years education has undergone a sea change since 1997. Pre-school education is not now only for the very poor or the well off. The Government's planned approach to early years development has changed all that.
An example from my constituency illustrates the Government's approach. Staffordshire education authority wanted to move some school nursery places from a school in Leek to a more deprived school just up the road. I involved the then Minister for early years education, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and the end result was a net increase in nursery places. Beresford school, in the most deprived area, received its extra nursery places and that nursery was opened this term, but All Saints school in Leek maintained its places—they were not transferred. Indeed, All Saints, too, opened its new nursery this term, so there has been a net expansion of places. Peter was not robbed to pay Paul because the Labour Government are about expanding quality provision, not closing it down. They are creating partnerships to provide the flexible provision most suited to both working and non-working parents.
Early years education and child care are too vital to leave to chance—the chance that parents will be rich enough to buy good quality private provision or poor enough to qualify for good, free state provision. Since 1996, 126,000 new, free early education places for three and four-year-olds have been made available, and an additional 80,000 new early development places for three-year-olds will be created in the coming year. It is the first time that any Government have made funding available for three-year-olds.
As we move towards universal provision, funding is inevitably and rightly targeted at the most deprived areas—those in most social need. However, that has created some problems in my constituency. Those who live just outside the targeted wards and who are not eligible for free provision have complained that they are being discriminated against. In fact, the reaction of some parents has been extreme: they would prefer that no one received free provision if they cannot have it. That strikes me as the politics of envy, which I do not support. On the positive side, however, it at least demonstrates that parents now recognise the need for early years education, as it provides the essential, quality start for the children. I would be interested in the Minister's reaction to that, because I am sure that the problem exists elsewhere.
In the past, parents did not encounter such problems. Nevertheless, I have met the same problem with education maintenance allowances. Under the previous Government, there were no such allowances for post-16-year-olds, nor was there any expansion in the number of early years places. We have had to live with the legacy of the divisive nursery voucher scheme, which led to

321WH
competition between playgroups and schools in the provision of early years education, but no expansion in the number of places: the Tories did not have to face that problem. From September 2004, all three-year-olds will have access to a free place, and I am pleased to say that the problem will ultimately disappear. However, in the meantime, local education authorities such as Staffordshire's are trying to meet the Government's tough challenge of expanding quality provision in early years education and in child care.
In my area, private day nurseries are flourishing, which demonstrates that the Government's approach of partnership across the private, voluntary and state sectors is right. Thirty-one potential new nurseries are awaiting registration by Ofsted and 38 are in the process of completing their applications. Child minders are decreasing in number, but I am glad to say that the startup grant is working well. Last year, 136 new child minders were registered in Staffordshire; that would not have happened but for the start-up grant. The trend is continuing this year, with 40 child minders awaiting Ofsted registration. Another 100 are completing Ofsted registration forms and 90 begin their pre-application training next month. That is encouraging.
Since April 1999, Staffordshire has had nearly 5,000 new out-of-school child care places and nearly 1,300 new full day care places for pre-school children. However, there is one cloud on the horizon—delays caused by Ofsted. Since it took over on 1 September, no new facilities have been registered. That situation may persist until March and could result in the loss of many potential providers, because those people will not be able to wait for very long. Is the Minister aware of these problems, and if so, what is he doing to tackle them? Although I recognise the value of registration—we must ensure that the quality is right—it is important to be aware that in a very low income area such as Staffordshire, people who decide to become child minders or to open early years provision cannot wait for six months on no income for registration.
My constituency has secured a rural sure start pilot project. I campaigned for it, and I was delighted that we got it. However, I was amazed by the reaction of local Conservative councillors—one of them said something to the effect that there is no poverty in rural areas because all the children have bicycles. The reality is different—the challenge in rural areas is to make sure that we can bring early years services to small and isolated communities with poor transport and few community facilities.
After a slow start, the early years team is now working extremely hard. It is involving parents from the beginning, so that the right services are delivered. It is employing a bank of trained staff to serve an area, rather than leaving each village to develop its own staff. That is important because as its children grow up, a village's needs can change—for example, from early years provision to a youth centre. The next issue is to improve venues. Buildings such as church halls, which are used for a multiplicity of purposes, are not necessarily easily adapted to meet the needs of very young children, those aged nought to three. The team is developing sure start venues attached to community halls, which can perform that specialist function. The other vital area is the
322WH
provision of low cost community transport that can be used by families who do not have their own car. We all know that local bus services are a joke.
I hope that we shall learn from the experience of this rural sure start project and others around the country. They are vital and greatly appreciated. For too long, rural areas have been the poor relations of towns and cities in terms of services, yet their needs are just as great as, if not greater than, those of towns because of the current rural crisis and the isolation that it has created. Many farming and other rural incomes have been badly hit, so many families are on very low incomes—despite the views of some local Conservative councillors. In that respect, the working families tax credit has been a real boon, providing a basic family income and help with child care costs if the parents work.
The local sure start scheme has generated a tremendous amount of enthusiasm, but some disappointment, because some areas were not able to be included. I was especially concerned about one of my most deprived areas, Biddulph East. I was delighted when I discovered recently that it has been included as a small sure start project in the fifth wave. I am grateful to the Minister for having allowed that to happen.
Early years education and child care developments must rate among the Government's biggest success stories, but there is still a long way to go to expand capacity, to provide more training and to create further quality partnerships with early years providers right across the independent, voluntary and state sectors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) said, the introduction of a foundation stage combining nursery and reception into one curriculum has been a big step forward. The concentration on providing appropriate high-quality curriculum learning opportunities for early years children, whatever the setting, has alleviated concern about the right age for children to start school. That argument has gone off the boil; if we can provide quality early years provision, there is not such a problem about young children being forced too early into school. The nature of the curriculum and the appropriate way in which to deliver it ensure that children are happy and learning.
More must be done. We must ensure that parents are fully involved, whether they live in rural areas, working class areas, or anywhere else. By parents I mean mothers and fathers, as it is essential that fathers, too, are involved in early years activities. Just the other day, a father told me that his son was not as focused on learning as his daughter. That situation develops because boys do not have role models in early years or primary school who would encourage them to believe that learning is important.
The early years development and child care partnerships that dot not meet in public must be made to do so. How can they be accountable and open to scrutiny if they do not meet in public? Those that continue not to meet in public must begin to do so, and the advisers appointed by the Government must ensure that they are helped in that process. We must ensure that staff in the reception years are not pressurised to provide an education structure that is too formal. Many of them feel, either because of parents or because of Ofsted, that they must provide a formal setting. We must give them support to enable children to learn at their own pace and to explore and develop their own skills.

323WH
Most of all, however, we must ensure that early years staff are sufficiently well trained, paid and motivated to encourage more high-quality people—men and women—to come into the sector. Those staff should, like teachers, have access to professional development as of right, as the report recommends; otherwise, how can we ensure that we can develop—and, more importantly, maintain—the diverse, innovative and effective early years sector that we so badly need?
3.47 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton: My first experience with early years came as a parent, 18 years ago, when I was a parent-governor. The reception class contained 40 children every afternoon, but I was told that it was perfectly all right for children's formal work to be done in the mornings and that they could play in the afternoons—as if formal work and play could be separated for children of reception age. I took advice from lecturers at Manchester Metropolitan university, which was then Manchester polytechnic, and the British Association for Early Childhood Education. I developed an interest in that age group, which, as a secondary school teacher, I had not encountered before. More recently, I have been chair of social services in Stockport.
I read the Select Committee report with great interest. The decision to extend the age group covered down to birth is an excellent one, and further work needs to be done in that area. The suggestion that parents need to be taken more seriously is wise. My son and his wife live in a sure start area and their baby is having the benefit of that programme, which I commend to anyone. However, it is clear from the report and my experience that training is one of the most important and necessary aspects of improving the work that is done with children in that age group. It is not good enough to leave children of that age to untrained staff.
Ofsted's expectations tend to formalise the curriculum for the age group. We in this country have a lot of obstacles to overcome. Victorian attitudes of strictness with children prevail and, at times, it is almost as though kindness is an aberration to be eradicated. It is essential that everyone involved in early years education understands the importance of play. I applaud the recommendation that children below compulsory school age should be taught informally and I think that it should go further Some people think that the word "informally" means anything goes, but anyone who has ever been in a nursery class or group knows that it means anything but anything goes.
I applaud the money that is now going into early years—as I said, my son, his wife and their baby are beneficiaries of it—but it does not go far enough. My constituency of Cheadle is in Stockport, where more than half the poverty and need lies outside the four wards designated as being in most need. If we focus on those four wards, children who desperately need support will not receive it. I go further and say that inappropriately formalised assessment, to which the report refers, is leading children to believe that they are failures at an early age. That applies to children not only from deprived areas but from areas that are clearly not deprived.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: If assessment is not carried out at key stages—even early key stages—how can a parent, teacher or anyone else involved in the education of small children know how much the children can do, so that difficulties that must be addressed early can be picked up?
Mrs. Calton: Of course assessment must take place—it is important. The problem is formalised assessment, especially when it is based on formal teaching methods and learning.
The report mentions insufficient physical exercise. I firmly believe that young children need play that involves big movements, not just small movements or little pen-writing movements. They need to be able to use their arms and bodies and to roll over and over. They need to take part in physical activity with other children, but that cannot happen if children are sitting in small places. They must have more space in which to let off steam and to learn how their bodies work. Too often, outdoor play is funded solely by parental fundraising—it is treated as though it were an optional extra that can be added later, but outdoor play is vital because children learn big physical movements first and fine motor control comes much later.
As an ex-teacher, I have had my own share of Ofsted and the stress that it causes is extreme and rubs off on children. To my mind, there is nothing worse than a young child being subjected to a teacher who is frightened and stressed by the idea of Ofsted. In my experience as a chair of social services, the model wherein the social services inspectorate works with social services departments and social workers is far better because it is consultative and informative. There is no use of the big stick. It is much better than the education model.
During the 18 years that have elapsed since I was a parent-governor, understanding of how young children learn has greatly improved. Sadly, that knowledge has not got through to all the places where it is needed, which extend far further than deprived areas. All our children need the work of the report.
3.55 pm
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I congratulate the former Select Committee on its excellent report, which has played an important part in the education debate as well as in influencing the Government's education policy, which, from the Committee's point of view, is more important.
One example of that is baseline assessment, which is an important way of benchmarking children in primary education. The report recommended that such assessment should take place in year one, and I understand that pilots are taking place for that. Each local authority area has a different baseline assessment, which is something to which we need a formalised approach. However, if we have baseline assessments at the beginning of year 1, they should not be published and become another league table—in this case, detailing how children are developing on the basis of one year's experience at school.
The report has been well received by practitioners in the field. I have spoken to many people who have read it, and they support its recommendations. I have briefly

325WH
been in the luxurious position of being able to associate myself with the praise that it has received. Furthermore, when I speak to people who disagree with its findings, I can say, "Of course, I was not on the Select Committee when it was written." This is the one time when I can have it both ways. Practitioners have welcomed the report, and I am grateful to the early years staff at Medway council whom I met recently to discuss parts of it.
The report begins:
"A quiet revolution has been taking place in the education of children".
It certainly has. In the Medway towns in 2000, there were 291 pre-school places for three-year-olds; now there are 2,366. That is an enormous change that has delivered for families who are my constituents. The focus has been on tackling deprivation. The early years programme should not be about light touch; it should be about intervention. Such intervention to help parents is not patronising. I am of the Heseltine school of thought—let us intervene at the breakfast club, the lunch club and the tea club. That is the support that parents say they want. They want to be involved in shaping early years facilities, programmes and services.
We should assist parents in learning both new ways to develop their relationships with their children and different ways of play. We know from the research that was presented to the Committee that such relationship-building is critical to the social and educational attainment of youngsters, and particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Finding the right keys to engage parents in new ways of caring for, and playing with, their children is not easy—it requires practitioners to show innovation and skill—but it can be done. Great strides have been made, not least with the sure start programme.
I am delighted to have a sure start programme in Chatham, and I recently met some of its staff. They mentioned one of the innovative ways in which they were encouraging parents to touch their children. They had organised immensely popular baby massage classes. Some parents had never experienced such touch with their baby. Such engagement can sow the seeds of better relationship building. It can progress to help with reading. If parents can engage their children in such ways, their education and social development are likely to be improved.
Not every area has the benefit of a sure start programme, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) mentioned. We have to find other ways to support parents and provide finance in regions outside the sure start area. A brief from the Royal National Institute for the Blind examined how parents of children with disabilities from a very wide area could access the specialisms and benefits that come from the understandably targeted sure start programmes. The challenge is not easy, but I am sure that the Minister will address it when he winds up.
Getting parents engaged early with their children does not have to be rocket science. Research from the Bookstart programme that Sainsbury's supported—sadly the funding for it for the next couple of years has hit the rocks—demonstrated that giving books at the
326WH
nine-month health-check that parents have with their children led to more parents taking their children to libraries. There was improved quality in the relationship between parents and their children. Such things are fundamental to tackling issues that arise from deprivation.
Increasing the quantity of child care provision must go hand in hand with improving its quality. I will later discuss child minders and the inspection process, which is now under the auspices of Ofsted, or Oftot, as it is sometimes called. However, I will first mention that to create diversity and quality in child care, we have to meet some of the challenges set out by the Daycare Trust. It is important that pay, qualifications and therefore status are raised for those who provide this service to children. For too long, it has been seen as "women's work" and been poorly paid. That is still largely the case. We need to encourage more men into the service. Only 1.5 per cent. of all pre-school leaders and 3 per cent. of nursery nurses are men. Only 17 per cent. of primary schoo1 teachers—a group that, perhaps, Members of Parliament have had more experience of—are men. For many children, that means a lack of positive role models.
Mr. Sheerman: Male role models.
Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for interrupting me. It is important that children have positive male role models, especially when they are from backgrounds in which they have experienced domestic violence, or there has been no male role model at all. The Government could send messages to the gatekeepers—the colleges and careers tutors—about communicating the possibility of child care as a career for young men.
Mr. Andrew Turner: An obstacle to young men taking part in education, especially that of very young children, can be fear. That extends throughout the education system, but in the case of young children, there can be unnecessary fear and an inappropriate suspicion of motives.
Mr. Shaw: That is a reasonable point. In recent articles, some people have talked positively about how parents react to seeing a young man in the day care centre, but others say that they have been physically threatened, by fathers who perhaps feel undermined, and accused of being child abusers. The way to get over that is for male carers to become more common, rather than the exception that they now are. The more men in child care and early years, the better. That will break down some of the prejudices.
Ofsted is now responsible for the inspection and registration of nurseries, playgroups and child minders. During consideration of the Care Standards Bill, I expressed the worry that we would remove an important informal network from the social services and child protection system. I repeatedly asked the Minister for Lifelong Learning whether inspection officers would work in isolation—a point that greatly concerned the trade unions at the time—but she did not give a clear answer. However, it is clear from talking to staff from Medway and other local authority areas that inspection officers are indeed working in isolation. That removes an informal network of social workers and teachers that is important for child protection.

327WH
There has been a shortage of child minders, but the new set-up grant has led to a considerable increase in numbers, certainly in my area. Moreover, it is bringing together child care networks and enabling nursery funding for three and four-year-olds. That is good for child minding, and also offers diversity and choice.
The Government have made great strides. There has been a revolution and the feedback from my constituents is certainly positive. During the general election campaign, free child care and the working families tax credit proved an enduring theme. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will not rest on his laurels, and we will chase him to achieve even better standards in early years care.
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): For clarity, let me say that I intend to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson at about 4.50 pm. Although Front Benchers do not of course need to stand to catch my eye, other hon. Members do.
4.8 pm
Angela Watkinson: I want to introduce the issue of special needs in early years, and I begin by reading a paragraph from the response from the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers to the report:
"The early identification of special educational needs is essential and must be accompanied by adequate resources that will enable those needs to be fully met, ensuring appropriate provision and intervention, in order to enable all children to make the best possible progress. Not all children will be able to 'catch up' and many will have severe and complex learning needs that will require long-term support. There are also implications for the demands on other qualified professionals working in areas providing that support."
These days, most reception teachers will identify in their first term at least half a dozen children with special needs. Some of those needs derive from a lack of the normal home and family experiences. Such children may come from homes that do not have books. Perhaps they have not been exposed to children's literature, from Little Red Riding Hood to Harry Potter. They may not have had nursery rhymes sung to them. They may not even have been exposed to normal conversation sitting round a table and eating with the family, so they have poor development of language and other social skills. They may not have had the normal counting games that parents usually introduce to their children when they are dressing, such as counting shoes or buttons. Those children will be able to catch up once they go to school and experience the whole range of things that teachers put in front of them.
Other children have learning difficulties and may never be able to catch up. For example, they may have chronic illness that has taken up much of their early years in hospital visits or has made them unable to join in robust forms of play with other children owing to their being more protected, thus delaying their development. They may have physical or mental impairment that necessitates special educational provision. There is a wide spectrum of need: the one thing that one cannot do with special needs children is generalise about them. We need to offer them a wide choice of provision. There is a case for introducing as many such children as possible into mainstream, with
328WH
the proper support. However, some will never be able to survive in mainstream schools, so I make a plea for the retention of the special school in the range of options available to parents.
I have deep concerns about a policy of total inclusion. Inclusion may be appropriate for some children—if not at the beginning of their education, at some time subsequently—but some will always need the protective environment of a special school. I should like to tell hon. Members about a child at the school where I spent many years, who had brittle bones—a very fragile but quite intelligent child, who, after many years in a special school, was transferred to mainstream at her and her parents' request. I am going back to the 1980s, when the policy of putting special needs children into mainstream school with support was in its infancy. The child had acquired a large measure of independence in her special school, and when she went to mainstream the other children and the teachers were so overprotective that she lost some of that independence. It is a complex matter: each individual child must be looked at carefully and the appropriate provision chosen.
I was concerned recently to learn that a special needs nursery in my constituency which usually had about 20 pupils referred to it each year had no children referred to it this September. This morning I heard that a consultation procedure is in progress for the closure of the nursery. It is ironic that in the same area a sure start programme is in preparation. I hope that the consultation procedure will take account of all the objections that arise.
I end by quoting a paragraph from a letter by the special children editor of the Teaching Times:
"There is still a great deal of confusion about what 'inclusion' means: for some people, the term is synonymous with mainstreaming, for others it signifies the consideration of a child's specific needs and how best to meet them, by using a wide range of provision. For policy-makers and senior managers, it often comes down to what is practicable within the existing system and budgetary constraints."
We are faced, as ever, with the compromise between idealism and reality. I leave hon. Members with that thought.
4.14 pm
Judy Mallaber: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. I am Mr. Pike, not Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Judy Mallaber: My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and I were just having a debate about that, Mr. Pike: I am glad that you have put us right. She put it to me that you would not mind being promoted to Mr. Deputy Speaker, but might be offended if you were wrongly called Mr. Pike—and we got it wrong. We now know for future reference.
I, too, welcome the report, its recommendations and the positive tone of the Government's response. I would not be doing justice to the wonderful work done in Derbyshire, if I did not speak in this debate. Much has been achieved, and we are exceeding many of the recommendations in the report and many of the

329WH
Government's targets. That is not to say that more is not needed, but we have done enormous amounts of work and the early years sector is being transformed.
I have one quibble with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman): I have attended the meetings of our early years partnership and they are lively, energetic and imaginative. Those at the meeting cross all sectors, and are active and supportive. Its chair is one of my local county councillors, who is inspirational. I am glad that Ministers have backtracked slightly and that people are not being excluded because they are county councillors. Similarly, the excellent early years and child care unit in the county is based at the county council. Its work is outstanding. Although concerns are understandable, we should not dismiss the fact much has been achieved through co-operation.
My one party political point is that during this year's county council elections, our county council Labour group made much of the work and the £11 million spent, while the Conservatives completely forgot about it—they did not even mention it. I cannot remember how much the Liberal Democrats said, but it was not a noticeable amount.
Some of the most interesting projects that I have been involved in have been associated with early years. I visited Alfreton nursery, which is now a beacon nursery, and talked to the person running it about her work with parents to identify and assess all the children as they arrived at nursery. They could identify problems children might have, their weaknesses and where problems might develop later when they start to learn to read. It was inspirational to see that wonderful work.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) might have been less worried about child minders being put off training had he been in Chesterfield with me a couple of years ago when I gave awards to a huge roomful of child minders who had achieved accreditation when Derbyshire became the first area to have a nationally accredited network for child minders from the National Childminding Association. Our child minders do some great work, and they took pride and pleasure at receiving recognition for their work, at being recognised as professionals with expertise, and at being given further professional support and help. It was wonderful to see.
Our child minders receive much help, such as training that exceeds the Government recommendations. They get support from qualified early years teachers. We now have 34 accredited child minders who receive grant funding for their work with three and four-year-olds. They also have a toy library. We have a flourishing child minders network, although there is always more to be done.
Some issues are relevant to both child minders and other early years practitioners. We have made progress with early years, at national level and in areas such as my constituency. We must not lose impetus on the practical issues and we must further improve in future. Our child minders have the same access to any training courses advertised in the county's training directory as all early years practitioners in the county. Locally, I think that the budget for training is regarded as generous but, in a spread-out rural area, the costs of administration to
330WH
make training accessible are greater than the 5 per cent. allowed in the budget. We found that people were not attending courses and that there were many cancellations owing to travel problems. Courses have now been set up in places where people want them, such as local village halls, and they have been inundated with requests from early years workers. However, that costs money to organise in a wide geographical area.
During the past year in Derbyshire, teenage mothers have been entitled to 20 hours of child care, and receive an allocated carer before birth. That was implemented in advance of recommendations and pilots from the Government. I have not been able to check whether we receive funding for that, although I suspect that we lose out because we were ahead of the field. I ask the Minister to examine that.
A further matter has been raised with me about qualified teacher involvement. A 1:10 ratio is recommended, and early years partnerships were asked to examine how that could be done. In Derbyshire, the involvement of qualified teachers, which was extended broadly, means that our level of satisfactory or better than satisfactory Ofsted reports in all sectors is above the national average. For example, more than 96 per cent. of Derbyshire's private day nurseries receive a satisfactory or better than satisfactory report compared with the 88 per cent. national average. In playgroups, our level is 83 per cent., compared with 79 per cent. nationally.
The 1:10 target for qualified teacher involvement is welcome, and we wish to achieve that. Unfortunately, the support is not ring-fenced, and if an area suffers as we have because of our education standard spending assessments and how we do not do as well as more prosperous counties—we hope to win the arguments yet—the money must be obtained from other sources. I hope that the Minister will examine that, too.
On sure start, I echo the thanks to the Government from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands. We argued, during the early period, that spread-out areas did not meet criteria that could be met only in urban areas. We were pleased, in round two, when there was an extension to rural areas and we were given the ability to link villages. That enabled us to extend the scheme to Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire, as well as Chesterfield, which is more urban. This year, we will extend to Amber Valley and Erewash, and we have pilot small schemes in High Peak and South Derbyshire, one of which involves only one estate. Where there are pockets of deprivation, our schemes must fit what is needed, not the original programmes. I am pleased that Ministers have responded to that.
A further problem is the sustainability of projects. The report said little about out-of-school clubs and breakfast clubs, although they affect the early years. In Derbyshire, we have done outstandingly well at an early stage, and received £3 million from the new opportunities fund for 1,000 places. However, two clubs in my constituency would fit the criteria to move, for sustainability, from one-year to three-year funding. However, as the clubs went in too early they were past the seven to eight-month period during which they could access funding. We have had to scrabble for funding to maintain excellent breakfast and out-of-school clubs in my area, in the most deprived places. I visited a breakfast club in my constituency, and the head came

331WH
out to tell us the wonderful effect of the club on children's learning when they get to school, because they have had their breakfast and they settle down. We must not be penalised because we were ahead of the game, and I appeal for that not to happen.
Owing to expansion, one of the main difficulties and pressures is how to get sufficiently qualified staff. I ask for further emphasis to be put on the learning and skills councils about the ambitious targets that they were set for NVQ 2 and 3 training. It is difficult to find sufficient people to meet the expansion that is required in the sector. It ties into pay and conditions, and I welcome recommendation 33, which concerns equitable pay. One of my local early years development workers put it to me that the main barriers to recruitment in the child care work force is lack of status and low pay: it is often possible to earn more working at Sainsbury's than in the child care sector. Many hon. Members are familiar with the problems that playgroups have faced in managing to meet even minimum wage levels. That matter will be addressed in the future, as things develop.
I have not raised those points to criticise, but to emphasise that they must be examined, and that they will need to be tackled if further progress is to be made.
Practical problems are arising in involving the private sector in neighbourhood nurseries when income is not guaranteed. For instance, it might be desirable and appropriate to establish a neighbourhood nursery in an area that already has an infants school with an attached nursery class, and therefore that school is already receiving some of the funding for children aged between three and four years. That is another matter that must be addressed.
The report is excellent and progressive and I think that all hon. Members will welcome its recommendations. An enormous amount has been done. Like many other hon. Members who have spoken, I have found early years education to be an inspirational area with which to be involved. The Committee has addressed a number of practical problems, but at every place that I visited, I encountered a win-win situation. That holds true for all early years settings: there is always real achievement and real progress, with children doing wonderfully well, and adults committed to their work, and that provides a fantastic foundation for the lives of our children.
However, the impetus must not be lost. The recommendations must be implemented. The practical problems must be taken on board and dealt with, and it is important to ensure that hon. Members and the general public raise them with Ministers. If that is done, it will provide a wonderful stepping stone for even more progress to be achieved in the future.
4.27 pm
Mr. Gregory Barker: In the interests of openness, I want to start my speech by declaring an interest: I have three children aged between seven months and six years, so children's early years are dear to my heart.
I welcome the work that has gone into producing this comprehensive report and the cross-party consensus regarding the importance of the pre-school years and environment. However, I do not underestimate the disappointment that is felt by parents and families up
332WH
and down the country about the unadulterated failure of the Labour party's million-place pledge, made in 1998–99. During that year, child care provision fell: compared with the figures for the previous 12 months, 45,800 places and 12,900 providers were lost. The report's ambition should not cause hon. Members to forget the reality of the situation, which is that there is an increasing scarcity of good-quality child care.
My role as a father has taught me the value of preschool activities. My son has been extremely lucky: when we lived abroad, in Moscow, he attended an international kindergarten, and he was the only English child in his class. That gave him a unique window on the world. It was an important learning experience and opened his mind to possibilities outside his own little world. When he returned to England, his handwriting was less good than that of his London-based peer group, but that was of little consequence when measured against the rewarding experience of making friends of so many nationalities, and of opening up his mind. He is now six, and his handwriting has caught up, but the advantages of experiencing that special environment at an early age will never leave him.
I commend the remarks of the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) about the importance of male role models. When my son returned home from his first day at school, I asked him how it had gone. He said that it had been terrific, and that his teacher was like Action Man. It immediately engaged his interest to have a male teacher. I have encountered some remarkable vocational male teachers, and more of them are needed.
Having seen my child in an unusual pre-school environment, I am absolutely committed to diversity and parental involvement in the pre-school environment. All too often, uniformity—especially if it is imposed from the centre—can be the enemy of creativity in very young people. We must do all that we can to keep off the straitjacket of uniformity.
By far the most important qualification that we can look for in those to whom we entrust the care of our young children is enthusiasm and an affinity with their charges. We must remember that early years education is not only a stepping stone to primary school or later life but a period to be enjoyed, relished and cherished by both parents and young children. Our most important wish for those who provide such care as well as for our children is that they be happy and confident.
I want briefly to warn against the causes behind the sad and depressing fall in the number of day care places. Much of the Government's failure to provide more places is due to the fact that private provision is decreasing. Regulation upon regulation, red tape and bureaucracy, which afflict all small businesses and increasingly the hard-pressed voluntary sector, are making the provision more difficult to operate.
Clearly, a balance must be struck between giving people operational freedom and monitoring those who are in charge of young people. Guidelines on smacking, smoking, sharing best practice and involving parents in such activities and targeting areas of social exclusion, all of which are contained in the report, are greatly welcomed, but I cannot but recoil at the notion of a curriculum for the under-threes as suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).

333WH
In our determination to drive up opportunities and standards, we must be careful that this constructive debate does not send out a wrong message to the brilliant and dedicated pre-school teachers in this country. We are extremely lucky to have so many people involved in looking after young people. We need more, but I recognise that great teachers do not necessarily have NVQs or formal qualifications and that the ability to teach, to care and to stimulate young people is a vocation. It should be nurtured, appreciated and, at all points, talked up.
4.33 pm
Jeff Ennis: I thank you, for giving me the opportunity to contribute in this afternoon's important debate Mr. Pike. I wish first to remind hon. Members of the nature of my constituency, because that moulds my views on early years issues. My constituency has the lowest level of gross domestic product per capita of any in the United Kingdom. That is a direct consequence of the forced closure in the early 1990s of our one staple industry, coal mining. Barnsley and Doncaster councils are still coming to terms with that and are doing everything in their power to regenerate the local economy. It is no wonder that both Barnsley and Doncaster form part of the wider South Yorkshire objective 1 funding area.
There is no doubt that the impact of deprivation on a child's life chances, particularly in the early years, can be enormous, and should not be underestimated. What must be welcomed in the report on the expanding provision of early years education is that it must be based on quality, with greater emphasis needing to be placed on better training and enhanced qualifications. That has been particularly welcomed by the relevant trade unions. Many recommendations in the report refer to the central role played by parents in a child's educational development. Positively engaging parents throughout the whole of a child's school life is the key to improving educational standards at all levels. That is important particularly in the early years. Many parents physically take their children to the nursery or child care unit each day. We must make the most of that early direct contact with the parent and try to maintain it throughout the child's school life.
Many people are only now beginning to recognise the crucial role that early years and child care can play in trying to regenerate places such as Barnsley and Doncaster. The national child care strategy is a key aspect of regeneration, with twin aims. The first is to raise standards of attainment in schools by the provision of high-quality pre-school or nursery education for all children, and the second is to increase the quality and quantity of child care available, which would enable parents to re-enter the employment and training market. Both those aims are crucial, and especially relevant to Barnsley and Doncaster.
Nursery provision in Barnsley and Doncaster, in common with many metropolitan councils, has always been good in the maintained sector but relatively weak in the private and voluntary sectors. Using single regeneration budget money, two new maintained nurseries were built in Barnsley between 1997 and 1998
334WH
to ensure universal provision for all four-year-olds. However, in recognition of the imbalance between sectors, the Barnsley early years partnership agreed that all future expansion should be targeted outside the maintained sector to encourage choice and diversity—a strategy that I fully support.
Low levels of attainment in the work force are constantly cited as a major barrier to attracting employment to the Barnsley borough. However, standardised scores of children entering reception classes show that Barnsley children consistently score above national averages in key areas that correlate highly with subsequent performance. Widespread nursery provision in Barnsley and its high quality are therefore having a demonstrable impact on standards.
More than a third of the work force in Barnsley have child care responsibilities, yet fewer than 5 per cent. can access a registered child care place. Such a shortfall in child care availability clearly represents a considerable barrier to parents accessing employment. Many parents can therefore access only low-paid shift work to fit around their partners' work patterns, which has a direct effect on economics and the social well-being of all families. The Barnsley early years partnership has set the target of doubling the provision of places to 10 per cent. by 2004, which is realistic.
In areas of chronic deprivation with high levels of social exclusion, child care should be used to enable capacity building of communities, especially the former mining communities. Such programmes must be viewed and funded differently so that parents can develop the skills and confidence to enter the employment market
Provision of child care must be viewed as supporting other regeneration activity rather an as an end in itself. Early years partnerships must be steered by key initiatives such as objective 1 and the neighbourhood renewal strategy to develop appropriate child care in response to local need and emergent economic growth. As yet, insufficient links exist to ensure that. In Barnsley, the early years partnership acts as a subgroup of the Barnsley learning partnership, which is one of the four strategic goal groups feeding into the Barnsley forum, the local strategic partnership. The infrastructure exists to ensure the links, but they need further development. That is true of areas other than Barnsley and Doncaster.
The SRB 3 programme in Barnsley delivered several high-class programmes, such as right start, to support parents in their role as primary educators. Such programmes empowered parents as educators, but also provided them with a key gateway to return to education and training. New funding regimes, such as objective 1, will not fund those programmes in the future. Fixed-term regeneration funding should be used to fund programmes to bring about fundamental change in the short term. The balance between core and externally funded activity must therefore be reviewed. It is unfortunate that objective 1 cannot be used for sure start programmes in areas such as Barnsley and Doncaster.
Coincidentally, a local newspaper, the Barnsley Chronicle, has produced a 20-page colour supplement entitled "first class", which supports the local

335WH
partnership in furthering the objectives of the early years partnership. An article entitled "Setting out on the path of learning" states:
"Starting school is a milestone for every child and family.
In the last few weeks, hundreds of children have stepped over one of the most important thresholds of life.
No doubt they found it exciting to wear their school uniform, meet their first teacher and open their first school book.
Also to feel something special when asked to carry out their first school task.
Starting school is another part of the growing up procedure."
On the opposite page, a big advertisement states that the early years development and child care team would
"like to hear from you if
You are thinking of setting up any kind of childcare provision
You want to work with children
You are already working with children, and wish to access training".
It then gives the national freephone number. It is nice to have the support of the local media on issues that involve partnership.
The report is excellent. I commend the Committee for it, and I hope that the Government will accept many, if not all, of its recommendations
4.42 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I commend the report. I was on the Committee for one day, so I obviously had a huge impact on the outcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) reminded me of my early years with my seven children. I have probably changed more nappies and wiped more noses than anyone else in the Chamber. He was right about bonding for fathers—it is critical. I remember bathing my children and often getting in the bath with them, although that is not very PC nowadays. Those were joyous times: there was lots of fun, lots of splashing about and lots of telling off from my wife afterwards because of the mess in the bathroom. Never mind, it was good stuff, and it is vital for fathers and their children.
All the policy and educational reasons for concentrating on early years have been well rehearsed by hon. Members who are more expert than me. I want to highlight two examples of excellence from my constituency. The first is a new nursery class, which opened at the school to which all seven of my children went. There was no nursery then, and I bitterly regret that they did not have the advantages that children do now. The head teacher, Yvonne Hawkes, beavered away for years to get a nursery class. She put in bids again and again, which were rejected. However, one was recently accepted and the nursery class was built and is now working perfectly. My only regret is that my children were not able to attend it. It is already making a big impact on the school and the local community.
My second example is the St. Albans children's centre, which is one of only 18 such centres of excellence in the country. We are proud that we got the money for it. I cannot say that St. Albans, which is the fourth wealthiest town in the land, is deprived, but we have areas of deprivation, as every town does. It is important that that was recognised and the centre was built.
336WH
The centre is unique because all the agencies are represented there: education, health and social services. The centre has a full range of facilities: paediatricians, child psychologists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists and many others. There is also the Muriel Green nursery school, which is thriving and full. One innovation is the setting up of the St. Albans opportunity class, which is a specialist nursery for children with difficult needs who cannot go into any other nursery provision. They need one-to-one relationships, with one child to one helper. That system works well, and those children could not be catered for in any other location. Our Government put the money in, drawing on the budgets for health and social services.
There are also 90 child care places, providing care for neglected children in our community—that, too, is working well. Early years provision is working well in my constituency. It is an investment in our children that is worth every penny.
4.45 pm
Chris Grayling: I start by paying tribute to the Committee for producing such a comprehensive report. There is general consensus throughout the Chamber that this area is hugely important and that the work of those who perform the various roles in early years education is enormously valuable. I have seen that in my constituency and am sure that other hon. Members have seen it in theirs. That consensus on early years has been noticeable in the initiatives that both this Government and the previous Conservative Government created, albeit from different political perspectives, to strengthen the provision of early years education in this country.
I want to add a cautionary note about the dangers of over-bureaucratising early years education. All too often, in the primary and secondary school sectors, we have seen the consequences for the management of schools and for the ability to recruit teachers of imposing too many bureaucratic guidelines, too much paperwork and too much of a structure on those who run educational organisations. In many cases, early years provision is run on a shorter shoestring than full schools, so it would be a mistake to attempt to impose too many rules and regulations.
One example of that tendency is the trend towards certification of those who work in early years education. It is clearly desirable that those who look after the youngest of our children should have educational qualifications, when possible and appropriate. However, there is a great army of volunteers who may not be in that position. My wife has spent several terms with four-year-olds in schools, helping them to read and learn about computers, and other mothers throughout the country have done the same. It would be a shame to lose the services of the gifted amateur in early years education because we over-regulate for certification.
There is a danger of over-legislation in several areas. The Select Committee Chairman at the start of this debate referred to the need for joined-up government. We must ensure that the consequences of legislation intended for different matters do not force out of existence pre-school groups of whatever kind.
Mr. Andrew Selous: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the provision of child

337WH
care has a zero rating for VAT, the erection of nursery buildings does not? Given what he said about joined-up government, should not Customs and Excise liaise with the Minister's Department to remedy the situation?
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about the need to ensure that different Departments provide the right support to this sector.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the need to avoid getting children to do too much, too young. Many other countries do not start children's formal education until they are six years old. In this country, all too often, children who are barely beyond their fourth birthday are in mainstream schools. For some that is a success—some flourish in that environment, but some do not. I have seen that at first hand. We must be careful about formalising education for the young.
Charlotte Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that children do not have to be in a formal setting simply because they are in a mainstream school? It is perfectly possible for a reception class to provide the appropriate lack of formality that exists in other settings.
Chris Grayling: I agree with the hon. Lady. Some local education authorities manage a well-thought-out system, in which there is a staggered intake. Children may start the term after their birthday and work only in the morning, going home at lunchtime. In other LEAs, that does not happen. I would like there to be informalisation both for pre-school and reception to meet children's needs. That is tremendously important. We must not get children to do too much, too young.
One cautionary note that I would sound about the reports is that I have read too little about the role of parents. The Select Committee rightly points out the importance of the contribution that parents make to the education and development of their children. When I read the Government's response, I was concerned that it was about parental contribution to the assessment of pupil needs and so forth but perhaps did not acknowledge the fact that parents' role starts in the home. Parents are often the most important pre-school teachers. I should like to see much more done—through all aspects of our legislation, our tax system and our benefits system—to ensure a balance between the clear and obvious needs of those parents who both have to go out to work and who need pre-school support for their children, and those in families where one stays at home to develop the children in their early years. Will the Minister please ensure that that balance exists in future legislation?
Mr. Shaw: In his list of scenarios, the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the single mother or the teenage mother living in a bedsit. Many Labour Members have referred to the sure start programme, which engages such people, who might not have had the positive parenting experiences that have been referred to. Does he welcome the aspects of the report that are covered by sure start, and my other remarks?
Chris Grayling: I recognise the diversity of parents' needs. All too often, support goes to those who need to
338WH
go out to work and there is not enough directed towards those who choose to stay at home with their children. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am saying that there is often a dimension missing.
I began my political career, and my family life, in the London borough of Merton, where, some 20 years ago, the Conservative party was a pathfinder in managing the introduction of nursery places for all pupils in the borough. That has been a tremendous success, and my own children benefited from it. Those benefits should be shared by children elsewhere. This is a crucial area. Governments and political parties of all persuasions need to continue to invest effort in finding ways to improve such provision in this country.
4.52 pm
Paul Holmes: Although I am a member of the Select Committee, I am speaking today on behalf of the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who was called away on urgent business.
The Select Committee's report is very good. I can say that without fear of being accused of bias, because it was produced before I even entered Parliament, let alone joined the Committee. It highlights many of the problems in the Government's strategy for the early years and provides some excellent comments and suggestions for improvement. If only the same could be said of the Government's response.
That is not to say that the Government have not done much good work in the area. The expansion of early years education since 1997 has done much to meet the Liberal Democrats' often-stated goal of access to free, high-quality education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents wish it. Note the use of the phrase "high-quality". I shall return to that in detail. We still have some serious concerns about the quality of provision. We support the replacement of the desirable learning outcomes with the early learning goals and the establishment of the foundation stage—and in particular, its applicability to all children in the reception year. We are glad that the Government are putting in place resources to fund in-service training of practitioners although, once again, there are issues about the effective targeting of such resources and the implications for primary schools of the foundation stage.
Liberal Democrats welcome the establishment of the early years development and child care partnerships. We have long argued for the integration of care and education for children under five, and the partnerships are proving, as we thought they would, an effective vehicle for movement towards that integration.
However, the Government should be aware that there are considerable problems in the operation of some of the partnerships. My information is that local authorities are not always enthusiastic in their support for partnerships. In many cases, there is not enough funding to support the infrastructure for an effective early years and child care policy. How many hon. Members know, for instance, that lead partnership officers often have to cope with more than 40 funding streams for the implementation of their plans? How many of those people have been driven to the point of a nervous breakdown by the load being placed on them?

339WH
I do not wish to criticise the principle, because it is a sound one, nor do I want to criticise the enthusiastic implementation by the Department for Education and Skills, whose efforts are widely appreciated. However, I criticise the complexity of the burden and the lack of resources, which will hamper its successful implementation. If an unenthusiastic local authority is required to set up and maintain the bureaucracy from its rate support grant, it will do so unwillingly and with as little cost to its budget as possible. Evidence suggests that that is the case in far too many authorities.
With my background in education—I have been a teacher for the past 22 years and a local government councillor for 11 years—I am sympathetic to the plight of councils with overstretched budgets that are under ever increasing pressure. As a Liberal Democrat, I am loth to argue for more centralisation, but a strong case can be made for increasing the central grant for the funding of early years development and child care plans to enable much better implementation throughout the country. That is not to say that there are no success stories. A willing local authority can work wonders. I know that excellent work is being done in Oxfordshire, in Brighton and Hove and in West Sussex. I am sure that many other authorities could be included in that list, but too many do not have the will and the service suffers as a result.
Another related matter impinges on the problem. The partnerships are under a duty to produce the plan, but it is the LEA's job to fund it. That produces tensions that can sometimes lead to severe curtailment of the plans and a reduction of morale among the partnership support officers. They often feel caught between two stools—between the partnerships and the authority. That situation must be clarified if progress is to be made. The partnerships are representative of virtually all the interest groups in the area, but they have no democratic base—representatives are appointed by each interest group and by the authority—which can result in a clash between the democratically elected authority and the non-elected partnership. That principle must be revisited in order to clarify the responsibilities of the partnerships and the authorities.
The most glaring abdication of responsibility in the Government's response to the Select Committee report has been touched on only once today. I refer to smoking and smacking. The Committee was clear in its view. It stated:
"We recommend that no childminder should be allowed to smack any child in their care".
Again, the Committee said:
"We recommend that no childminder should be permitted to smoke in the presence of any child in their care".
What was the Government's response? They retreated behind the defence of public opinion. I shudder to think what sort of society we would have if every time a moral issue had to be considered we acted on what we perceived to be public opinion. For a start, we would be hanging those convicted of capital crimes.
In any case, there is no consistency in the Government's stand. It is a criminal offence for a teacher to smack a child of statutory school age. Why, therefore, is it not the same for very young children, who are probably more at risk? No teacher is permitted to smoke in front of children. Indeed, many schools,
340WH
including the one where I last worked, do not allow anyone to smoke on the premises. Why should we allow smoking to take place in the presence of those very young children, who are even more impressionable and whose health is more vulnerable?
Many parents actively want teachers to use physical violence on their children—or they would not object if it were to take place, as I was often told at parents evenings at the three schools in Derbyshire where I taught. However, the law does not allow it. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), another Derbyshire Member, will know that that local education authority was one of the first to abolish corporal punishment in its schools in the early 1980s, some years before the Conservative Government made it national policy. Why then allow physical violence against the very young that cannot be inflicted on older pupils? We would strongly oppose any move to reintroduce corporal punishment in schools or to allow teachers to smoke in front of their pupils. We oppose the Government's response just as strongly, as it completely ignores the Select Committee's recommendations. At best, the response is ill advised; at worst, it is moral cowardice. It must change.
I want to deal with the quality of provision of care and education for the very young. Quality was always going to be a problem when such a rapid expansion took place. It was never going to be easy to deal with that problem, but if we do not get the quality right in the early years we risk doing irreparable damage to countless young people. It is vital that attention be now focused on ensuring that the quality of all provision is above a fairly high threshold, as soon as is humanly possible. The previous Ofsted standards for nursery education were not high enough. I know several registered nursery inspectors who said, "I have to pass this setting as satisfactory, but I wouldn't send my own child there." The new Ofsted early years directorate is apparently of the opinion that those standards are adequate for the new form of inspection shortly to be introduced.
I applaud the establishment of the early years directorate in Ofsted, although I do not applaud, I hasten to say, the push towards a much more formal curriculum at too young an age. It was high time that some system was set in place to ensure that minimum standards were set across the country. However, if the standards set centrally are too low, it will do positive harm. I understand that Ofsted is committed to reviewing standards in 2003, but the review should be going on now for the sake of the children already in the system.
The partnerships have precious little in the way of regulatory powers to ramp up the quality in their areas. If Ofsted says that a setting is satisfactory, by definition the LEA has to accept that, even if it knows that that judgment is flawed. There are stories of settings getting by during an inspection, sometimes by foul means. Often, the LEA knows what is going on, but is unable—
Charlotte Atkins: Has the hon. Gentleman visited his own early years unit? I would be interested to know his views on the standards maintained there.
Paul Holmes: My point was about the inspection of particular settings in various parts of the country. A setting in a certain part of the country may not meet the required standards, but settings in the same town or city may do so. The point was about the standards applied by Ofsted when it inspects those settings and about the lack of powers to force settings to come up to those standards, not about any particular group in any particular constituency.
If an LEA wants to ensure that all its settings—not most, or some, but all—exceed minimum standards, if it really cares and wants to do better, the regulations do not allow it to enforce standards in the last resort. Its only weapon is encouragement, and if a setting refuses to improve above the, in my opinion, unacceptably low minimum standard, nothing can be done. There is, of course, a lot of good practice. There are many successes, such as the locally devised and agreed charter marks. However, if a setting or a group of settings chooses to ignore such standards and there is a continuing shortage of alternative high-quality places, there is nothing to be done.
I am tempted to say that if we cannot get the quality right, we should not bother at all. That is indicative of how strongly the Liberal Democrats feel about the issue. However, that would be to deny the excellent work being done by many early years settings. The Government must act quickly to raise the minimum standards and to allow local partnerships and authorities to set their own aspirations.
One way of raising the quality of the education of our young children would be to put resources into in-service training for practitioners, particularly at the early learning goals and foundation stage. I appreciate that much good work is going on already, but more needs to be done. I not sure that all primary school head teachers have taken on the implications of the foundation stage for children in their reception classes. Many have, but many still need to understand fully what this means in terms of different teaching and learning strategies, staff training and the deployment of resources.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for the appointment of supernumerary early years specialist teachers in primary schools to take on the whole of the early years agenda, to train and support staff in the school and to work with the feeder early years settings in the area. I have heard of one authority that is actively considering that, but as usual it is finding the funding a problem. If we value the importance of the best possible education for our youngest children, we should be fully committed to supporting the improvement of quality in that way. It would make a significant difference to the situation in schools and would actively support the many, mainly voluntary, early years settings in achieving the higher standards to which I referred.
I know that there is a commitment by the Government to increase the number of teaching assistants in primary schools by 2002, but there is a danger that these words could be seen as weasel words. What is meant by "teaching assistants"? What qualifications should they have? Where should they be deployed? We are unequivocal: we say that all those teaching assistants in mixed reception and in year one classes should be qualified to at least NVQ level 3 in early years and that the guidance from the Department for Education and Skills should make it clear that the
342WH
increase in teaching assistance should be targeted at the foundation stage. Achieving such an increase in suitably qualified people will present short-term problems, but they are not insurmountable.
I commend the Government on their sure start and early excellence centres initiatives. There is no doubt that they are contributing greatly to the provision of high quality services for the under-fives in areas where they exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) said that up to 50 per cent. of needy pupils in her area do not have access to that because they do not live in concentrated wards.
I am concerned that there are not enough early excellence centres. The Government should be unequivocal in their commitment to ensure that there is at least one early excellence centre in every LEA area. I say at least one, because large authorities will need more and unitary authorities will often need considerable support to establish and maintain an early excellence centre in their areas. Those centres are the best possible way of demonstrating best practice and the provision of combined care and education for very young children. They and future generations deserve nothing less.
A number of years ago, early years education in this country was a model for the rest of the world. There were many examples of nursery schools being exasperated by the number of overseas visitors coming to learn from the very best practice. Previous Tory Administrations allowed those standards to slip, and although we are pleased and gratified that the Labour Government have taken on so much of our longstanding policy on early years, much remains to be done. More needs to be done urgently to bring this country back to the pre-eminent position it once held in early years education.
5.6 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and his Committee on producing an excellent report, much of which, surprisingly, I agree with. However, there are a few points of contention to which I shall refer.
I note that there is a lot of interest in this debate today, and it is good to see so many people in the Public and Press Galleries because the subject is important and all too often there is not much interest in what is said in Westminster Hall. We have heard many excellent speeches from Back Benchers.
I was concerned that I might have to declare an interest in the debate today, but I do not think that that is necessary officially. I am chastened by the thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has today been prevented from speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on the subject of agriculture on the grounds that he is a farmer and knows what he is talking about. I do not pretend to know what I am talking about, but I am the mother of a small child and wonder whether, on the same grounds, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards might

343WH
chase me to say that I should not speak from this position on early years education. I shall plough on anyway.
Judy Mallaber: We congratulate the hon. Lady on the recent addition to her family. She definitely has an interest and it should be declared.
Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind wishes.
I thoroughly endorse what has been said today about child care. It is a very difficult job and anyone, anywhere, who is involved in child care deserves a medal. I can think of many jobs that are much easier.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield rightly began by considering when learning begins. An interesting part of the report deals with evidence taken from Miss Rosemary Roberts of the Peer early education partnership who posed the theory that a child learns in the womb. I am not sure whether I can corroborate that, but when my little baby was crying yesterday afternoon, I switched on the television for Prime Minister's questions, and as soon as he heard the usual "Hear, hear, hear," from the Chamber of the House of Commons, he immediately calmed down and started to watch. There might be something in that, or there might not. I merely offer it as empirical evidence, but clearly he likes it, and I have found a way of keeping him quiet for at least half an hour a week.
I have some points of contention, to which it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response. The Government want to provide education places for three-year-olds. I accept the importance of beginning education at the earliest possible stage, but I question whether the right way to spend the education budget is to give school or nursery places to three-year-olds. Does that not blur the distinction between education and child care?
I appreciate that paragraph 33 of the report clearly says that
"education and care are inseparable",
and I am sure that the Committee gave that matter adequate consideration. They might be inseparable, but in terms of who pays for what, a distinction must be made. I am not entirely comfortable with money from the education budget, which is scarce enough, being taken to provide for child care, which should perhaps be provided for from elsewhere. I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments. Every pound spent on a three-year-old is another pound not spent on a 12 or 16-year-old.
Concerning qualifications, I think that a sufficient standard for child care training is reached at, say, NVQ level 2. It is the least expensive option, and is achievable, so will make the greatest difference. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Huddersfield wishes to see graduates going into this field. However, if we make the qualification level too high we might make it impossible to achieve. I think that standardisation here is the enemy of development.
There are many difficulties in that area. Training is good, but if the requirement of certain qualifications is a barrier to involvement in early years education, we are producing an inconsistency. Many people in the Room have mentioned the importance of parental
344WH
involvement. I certainly endorse that. Too many parents have said, "My child is now of school age and not my responsibility any more. Let the school teach them everything." That is certainly not the way for a child to receive the best education, but where do we draw the line? Parental involvement, although important, by its very definition means the involvement of the amateur, not the qualified person. If a parent wants to help in a nursery or other early years school, is he or she to be prevented from helping with other children because he or she has no qualifications?
I see that the hon. Member for Huddersfield is saying "no", and I appreciate that. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's opinion and the Government's policy on where one draws the line. I am afraid that if we require too many and too high qualifications, we will end up with even fewer teachers and carers in this field and make it even more difficult to achieve what we want. I would give further examples, but I appreciate that I must leave enough time for the Minister to answer.
It is interesting to note that the debate continues about how children learn to read, and what professional expertise is needed to teach a child to read. I know that I learned to read before I went to nursery school. De facto, I must have learned from my father, because I had never met a teacher. It might have been from my mother, but I think that she was too busy being a mother. Only fathers have time to do things like teaching. It must therefore be possible for a child to learn in such an informal environment. If we require qualifications from too many people, we will be taking away the informality through which many of us must have learned.
The number of nurseries and early learning schools or establishments that have recently closed concerns me. We all want more provision in that area because it is good for children and communities. Early years provision is a good start to anyone's educational career, but sadly it is not happening in practice.
I should like to ask the Minister about a letter that I wrote in June last year to the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is now the Home Secretary. The proprietor of a nursery in my constituency brought to my attention the way in which business rates are applied. It appears that in January 2000 the former Secretary of State said:
"Nurseries have raised the issue of rates they pay on their premises and their wish for a level playing field between private and local authority providers. These rates should reflect the fact that childcare providers in the private sector who offer nursery education in similar premises to those in the public sector should not be disadvantaged".
I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to answer the point now, but it is important. His Department refused to answer it last summer, but passed it on to another Department, which has not even tried to answer. It is an important matter of educational policy and I hope that he will take it on board and answer it in a letter.
We want to see the best possible education for children in Britain for a variety of reasons, which include children's personal development, our country's economic development and the good of everyone in the community. However, I warn that repeating the word "education" again and again and again does not show commitment to it. Commitment to education is shown not by what the Government say, but by what they

345WH
actually do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) said, the number of places available to children is falling, not rising. We all want more children to be able to go into early education and better quality provision, and we should like to know how the Government propose to achieve that.
5.17 pm
The Minister for Schools (Mr. Stephen Timms): I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who opened the debate, and to the members of the Select Committee who produced a thorough and informative report. A great deal of time, effort and energy was devoted over an extended period to that work, which involved taking a wide range of evidence from, as my hon. Friend described them, "peerless experts" who were all committed to making improvements. I also pay tribute to those who have contributed to the debate, which has been interesting to listen to. That reflects the high level of interest in the House in making progress in this area.
The report rightly highlights how crucial the early years period is in a child's development. I am glad that it supports the Government's approach and that it acknowledges the enormous investment that we have made in developing services for children and families, and ensuring that those services are accessible. In broad terms, we were spending £1 billion a year on this area in 1997, and that has increased year on year so that it will be £2 billion a year by 2003.
I should like to pick up on the point made by the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker). It is not the case that the number of places is falling. There has been a net increase of 221,207 child care places between the beginning of the financial year in 1997 and the beginning of the present financial year. We are on track for the current figure to rise to 1 million by 2004, as pledged. We are absolutely on track to deliver on the commitment that we have made, reflecting the substantial investment that we are making and a very large increase, year on year, in the number of places available.
Mr. Barker: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I really cannot, unfortunately, because of the time. I must respond to the points that have been made.
Early years development and child care partnerships are now operating in every local education authority area, doing excellent work in planning local services, closing the child care gap, providing nursery education places for three and four-year-olds and working to ensure a supply of suitable and appropriately trained staff. Many of those partnerships are excellent—my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) gave a good example. They often work with local regeneration partnerships, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) pointed out. Where there are problems, we are working with the partnerships to improve their performance. We have in the Department partnership advisers who are able quickly to identify the weaker partnerships and to provide them with the support that they need.
346WH
For the first time since September 1998, we have been in a position to offer every four-year-old a free early education place in a range of pre-school maintained school settings. We are investing a total of nearly £1 billion to extend that entitlement to all three-year-olds by September 2004 and to support related initiatives. Some 55 per cent. of three-year-olds are already accessing a free place and we are on target for 66 per cent. by next March. That is a very impressive expansion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) said, and there will be universal provision when we hit the September 2004 deadline.
We have introduced the foundation stage, which was widely welcomed in the debate, as a new distinct phase of education with early learning goals, which sets out clearly what we expect children to achieve from the age of three to the time they complete their reception year. The foundation stage emphasises the importance of education during children's formative years. We want children to enjoy high-quality experience during that time, supported by competent adults.
I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and other hon. Members about the dangers of too early a start to formal education. We are watching with interest the development of the evidence base on that, but at the moment it is still inconclusive: there are only a small number of studies. However, the research has demonstrated the great importance of the quality of what is provided, whatever setting it is delivered in. We are very much taking that message to heart.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) talked about special educational needs. Early years development and child care partnerships are working towards specific targets to improve the identification of special educational needs in early years settings and equipping the staff in those settings with the skills that they need to support children with special needs or disabilities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, who was mentioned several times during the debate, has put an enormous amount of work into that, for which I pay tribute to her. She outlined the targets to the Select Committee on 2 May.
The early excellence centre programme, which was welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), is promoting the benefits and raising the standards of integrated early years education and child care. There are 49 such centres offering high quality services, and we want to double that number by 2004. The first year evaluation of the programme shows clear evidence not only that there are cost savings to be made by bringing together and streamlining services, but that it is having significant benefits for children, families and practitioners. We recently issued another invitation to join the programme, and we are especially keen to receive expressions of interest from early years and child care partnerships that do not yet have an early excellence centre in their area.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the commitment in the White Paper that we will legislate to free school governors to run a wide range of family and community

347WH
facilities and services, including child care, in schools. We hope to take forward that commitment in the forthcoming education legislation.
Sure start has featured prominently in this debate, and rightly so. It is another excellent, widely acclaimed example of integrated provision aimed at nought to four-year-olds. The emphasis is on early identification and early support to prevent problems, or to tackle them before, as a number of hon. Members have said, they become too difficult to solve. To achieve that, service providers will need to consider innovative ways of working more closely together, and with parents. We have doubled the size of the programme, and are well on our way to meeting our targets of establishing 500 local programmes and reaching a third of all children under four who live in poverty by 2004.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that there is no weakening in that commitment. Contrary to the word on the street in his area, the target has not been watered down. Some 437 local programmes have already been announced, and of those, 197 are approved and at various stages of implementation. In the next nine months, 177 fifth way programmes will develop plans to begin delivering their services from next summer. I can therefore assure him that this is a determined programme of delivery of the various very ambitious targets that we have set.
It is early days, but initial qualitative research suggests that sure start is beginning to make a significant difference to the lives of the young children and families who use its services—a point to which a number of hon. Members have drawn attention in respect of their own constituencies. A study of a small group of parents in eight of the trailblazer programmes found that sure start had given both parents and children more confidence. Parents felt that one key benefit was the way in which children had learned to interact with other children.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands mentioned, in July we announced a package of £22 million over two years to support the development of 50 small sure start programmes in pockets of disadvantage in rural areas and smaller towns. We aim to reach a further 7,500 children through that programme.
348WH
The Select Committee's report was clear in its message that learning begins at birth, and that nought to five should be viewed as the first phase of education. I agree, but I also recognise the points that were made about undue early formality. In our Green Paper, we signalled our intention to develop a framework that supports the development of children from birth. That is what the work of Professor Lesley Abbott is contributing to. Her objective is a framework of effective practice, rather than a curriculum. Great work is being done through early excellence centres and sure start. We need to build on that and to draw on existing expertise and experience.
The Select Committee report and several contributions to the debate emphasised the vital role of parents, and I welcome that. Parents will always be their children's first and most important educators. They shape children's lives more than any other influence. Research on the impact that parenting can have on later attainment, social skills and productive adulthood is compelling. We know that learning and development activities experienced by the very young have a highly significant effect. Investing in young children and their parents may well yield the biggest payoff in long-term social and economic returns.
In the light of our plan to continue this big expansion of early education and child care places, we need to attract thousands of new workers by 2004. They must be the right kind of people, with the right skills to work with children. We have therefore launched a major four-year national recruitment campaign for the sector. Its aim is to raise the profile and to help recruit suitable new workers. I am happy to report that by the end of August the campaign's national helpline had received more than 67,000 calls. Some 10 per cent. of those callers were men, which is encouraging in the light of some of the points that have been made.
A number of issues were raised that I have not had a chance to comment on, but I have taken careful note of them all. We have come a long way. What we have achieved so far is excellent, but we know that there is a good deal more still to be done. I conclude by expressing again my thanks to the Committee, to those who supported it and contributed to its work, and to all who participated in the debate, for helping to take our thinking—
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sustainable Agriculture
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further initiatives she intends to introduce to encourage more environmentally friendly agriculture. [R] [4678]

  Alun Michael
  The Government are committed to developing a more sustainable agricultural industry. Improving the environment is one element of sustainable agriculture and we have an expanding programme of measures in place.

  We know there is more to do and expect that the independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food will propose new and innovative ideas to develop a more sustainable agricultural industry.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many compensation claims for foot and mouth disease are outstanding in respect of farmers in Chorley. [4679]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has no outstanding claims for compensation for slaughtered livestock from farmers in Chorley.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the foot and mouth crisis. [4684]

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on foot and mouth disease [4699]

  Margaret Beckett
  For almost two months, cases of foot and mouth disease have continued to occur but have been confined to two "hotspots" in Cumbria and Northumberland. However there is no room for complacency and farmers should continue with the biosecurity measures issued by the Department.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the long-term economic impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on mid-Wales farming and other rural businesses in mid-Wales. [4689]

  Alun Michael
  The outbreak is having a considerable impact on farming and a range of industries throughout the UK and this is certainly reflected in the impact in mid-Wales. It is not possible, at this stage, to make a reliable estimate of the longer-term economic consequences. Work is in hand to complete a national assessment, the details of which will be made available to the public.
  1266W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of foot and mouth disease on rural small businesses. [4694]

  Alun Michael
  Foot and mouth disease has had a massive impact on the rural economy including tourism and other non-farm businesses, even in areas with few FMD cases. The Rural Task Force was set up to advise on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy and the report reflects the way in which a variety of interests have been willing to work together to tackle the problems.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on her Department's handling of the foot and mouth epidemic. [4695]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Department has received representations from an extremely wide range of interested parties on all aspects of the foot and mouth outbreak. Since the start of the outbreak, we have regularly consulted a wide range of stakeholders and worked closely with them in the development of our disease control polices.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the economic impact of foot and mouth disease. [4703]

  Margaret Beckett
  I am 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 this stage, to make a reliable estimate of the longer-term economic consequences. Work is in hand to complete a national assessment, the details of which will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many footpaths have been re-opened since the outbreak of foot and mouth. [7698]

  Alun Michael
  The precise success in re-opening footpaths has been measured in percentage terms rather than in terms of the number of footpaths, which is less meaningful and could be established only at disproportionate cost. The latest available figures from the Countryside Agency (11 October) show that 92 per cent. of the footpath network in England is open again. This corresponds to over 109,000 miles out of a total of 118,248 miles. A list breaking down by local authority the progress made in re-opening footpaths since early July has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Most of the remaining closures are in the Infected Areas in the north of England where foot and mouth disease is still active, and where farms are subject to restrictions for disease control purposes. Elsewhere in the country, individual paths may remain closed across farmland that is still subject to "Form A" restrictions, until full cleansing and disinfection procedures have been completed and clearance to re-stock has been given. There

  1267W
  may also be a few paths closed where there is assessed to be a greater risk from foot and mouth disease, such as pig units, or for the protection of specific rare breeds of susceptible animals.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support her Department is giving to the Youth Hostels Association consequent upon the restrictions on countryside access imposed to combat the spread of foot and mouth disease. [8179]

  Alun Michael
  We are well aware of the impact that foot and mouth disease and the measures to control it have had on the Youth Hostels Association's finances. I have met representatives of the YHA to discuss their difficulties and possible sources of help, and the Minister responsible for tourism is due to meet them shortly. We are considering, in the light of the recommendations of the Rural Task Force published yesterday, what further help might be made available to the YHA.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the cost of hiring privately owned land to incinerate slaughtered livestock during the foot and mouth crisis. [7760]

  Mr. Morley
  The cost of hiring privately owned land which has been used, at least in part, for incineration of slaughtered livestock during the foot and mouth epidemic is £741,905. Some of this was farmland with payment to the farmer.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to place further restrictions on the transportation of live animals. [4680]

  Mr. Morley
  There are extensive controls on the transport of livestock. Any further restrictions must be developed and applied on an EU-wide basis. We are pressing the Commission to bring forward proposals for further improvements.

  Regional Issues
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regional issues are her responsibility. [4681]

  Alun Michael
  DEFRA sponsors the Regional Development Agencies' rural programme, which this year is contributing £75 million to the rural economy of the English regions, including £39 million to help deal with the effects on rural businesses of foot and mouth disease.

  Rural White Paper
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from North-East Bedfordshire in respect of the Rural White Paper. [4685]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has not received any representations recently from North-East Bedfordshire in respect of the Rural White Paper.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she proposes to retain and enhance hedgerows. [4686]

  Mr. Meacher
  The current combination of expanded agri-environmental incentives, good conservation advice and legal protection for important hedgerows is intended to ensure that we increase and improve our stock of these valuable countryside features.

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tons of fruit and vegetables were disposed of in the EU in the last financial year; and what the totals were for each item. [4687]

  Margaret Beckett
  Provisional figures indicate that some 1.3 million tonnes of fruit and vegetables were withdrawn from the EU market between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001. Just under 10,000 tonnes of this were withdrawn in the UK, 10 per cent. of which was distributed free or used for animal feed. Information on the quantity of individual products will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Product

  Tonnes withdrawn in EU

  Tonnes withdrawn in UK

  Cauliflowers

  47,777

  7,779

  Tomatoes

  153,717

  —

  Apples

  269,145

  161

  Grapes

  59

  —

  Apricots

  15,043

  —

  Nectarines

  118,354

  —

  Peaches

  255,628

  —

  Pears

  91,082

  1,977

  Aubergines

  1,802

  —

  Melons

  14,435

  —

  Water melons

  10,610

  —

  Oranges

  229,980

  —

  Mandarins

  3,562

  —

  Clementines

  90,595

  —

  Satsumas

  6,663

  —

  Lemons

  9,474

  —

  Non-food Crops
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what work programme she has approved for the forum on non-food crops. [4690]

  Margaret Beckett
  The forum on non-food uses of crops has been set up to provide strategic advice to Government and industry. Its current work programme is focusing on case studies including biopackaging, fibre for the car industry and wool. Full details are on the forum's website www.defra.gov.uk/farm/gifnfc.

  Recycling
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom targets for packaging recycling. [4691]
  1269W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are currently consulting on recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste in 2002.

  Landfill Sites
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will introduce measures to discourage the transport of waste to landfill sites and incinerators. [4693]

  Margaret Beckett
  The proximity principle set out in the Waste Strategy 2000 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 requires that waste should generally be disposed of as near as possible to its place of production, because transporting waste itself has an environmental impact.

  The Waste Strategy 2000 also sets out the many steps Government are taking to encourage diversion of waste to recycling.

  Animal Welfare
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take further steps to encourage the market in meat produced to high standards of animal welfare. [4698]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government recognise the importance of standards of production for consumers and the market. We therefore welcome all industry initiatives to enhance further welfare standards and to highlight those standards to consumers. Financial assistance towards such initiatives is available through the England Rural Development Programme. It includes schemes which assist improved processing and marketing of quality products from welfare friendly systems, and related training for farmers

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her plans to minimise animal welfare problems in south Cumbria. [7517]

  Mr. Morley
  Our priority is to win the battle against foot and mouth disease. But we have provided for various animal movements schemes in order to overcome welfare problems. And in extreme cases, the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme remains in place.

  Farmers' Incomes
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the change in farmers' average incomes since 1997. [4701]

  Margaret Beckett
  Average total income from farming per average full-time person engaged in agriculture has fallen by 41 per cent. in real terms from 1997 to 2000.

  Fishing
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ensure the future sustainability of the fishing industry in England. [4704]

  Mr. Morley
  It is a key DEFRA objective to promote the sustainable use of fish resources. We will do this in particular by improving the management of fish stocks 1270W
  and by bringing the capacity of the fleet into better balance with fishing opportunities. We will play a full role, in partnership with the industry, in the forthcoming EU review of the Common Fisheries Policy and in further work on stock recovery plans.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the European Commission Green Paper on the reform of the common fisheries policy. [4705]

  Mr. Morley
  We welcome the analysis contained within the Commission Green Paper. The Commission correctly identifies many of the significant weaknesses in the current operation of the CFP; sets out those existing elements of the policy, such as relative stability and access restrictions in the six-twelve mile zone, which should be continued; establishes a convincing case for revising the objectives of the CFP; and outlines a number of useful new ideas which must be carefully examined in the course of the Review. Our formal response is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Grass Lets
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to offer compensation to farmers who have lost their income from grass lets. [4706]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials are in touch with the Arthur Rank Foundation and with industry bodies about the work of the ARF's National Fodder Bureau and Government match funding for this charitable work. This involves the purchase of farmers' surplus fodder and brokerage to those with more animals than anticipated (due to foot and mouth disease movement restrictions).

  Climate Change
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her participation in international negotiations on climate change. [4707]

  Margaret Beckett
  I attended the resumed Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn in July and I will be attending the Seventh Conference of the Parties to be held in Marrakesh in November.

  High Hedges Bill
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to reintroduce the High Hedges Bill. [8219]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 15 October 2001, Official Report, column 884W.

  Salmon Farming
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for reducing the waste produced from salmon farming; and if she will make a statement. [5282]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  This is predominantly a matter for the devolved Administration in Scotland. I understand however that a range of initiatives are underway to ensure that salmon farming is undertaken sustainably, with regard both to economic benefit and effect on the environment.

  Rural Taskforce
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the report of the rural taskforce will be published. [9041]

  Alun Michael
  The report is being published today. Arrangements have been made for copies to be placed in the House Library.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government have taken to promote renewable forms of energy in the United Kingdom in the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [8085]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the last three years my Department has taken a number of steps to promote renewable forms of energy in the United Kingdom. Renewable sources of energy have received support of around £208 million over the last three years under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) arrangements. As of 31 March 2001, 366 NFFO projects had been commissioned, representing an installed capacity of around 934 MW (declared net capacity). In addition, my Department's Sustainable Energy Programme has invested a further £36.9 million into R&D activities. Indeed, the period from 1998–2001 saw my Department's budget for renewables rise from £9.7 million to £18 million in the current financial year.

  We are now looking to continue to accelerate the development of renewables across a wide range of sources and technologies. We are about to introduce the new Renewables Obligation which will oblige all licensed electricity suppliers to supply a specified and growing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Our target for the Obligation is that 10 per cent. of licensed electricity supplies will be generated from eligible renewable sources by 2010.

  The introduction of the Renewables Obligation will create a long-term market expected to be worth over £1 billion per year by 2010. Direct government funding for the financial years 2001–2004 will be worth over £260 million and will fund a range of initiatives including my Department's R&D programme, extensive capital grants for offshore wind and energy crops, and a photovoltaic demonstration programme.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve flood defences; and if she will make a statement. [7772]

  Mr. Morley
  I plan to reduce risk of flooding by investing in effective flood warning arrangements and in flood defences in the highest risk areas. Funding for the Department's programme is increasing from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04.

  This Department provides funding to the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards for capital flood and coastal defence works that meet certain criteria. Responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with the operating authorities.

  Flood Alleviation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on farmers access to funding when they present their land for use with flood alleviation. [8538]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department encourages a strategic approach to management of flood risk through the preparation of Shoreline Management Plans for the coastline and Catchment Flood Management Plans for rivers. These enable the identification of sustainable flood management options, including the possible use of farmland for flood alleviation purposes. In circumstances where quantifiable beneficial use arises, for example acquiring land for the construction or maintenance of defences, payment of compensation is possible. In specified circumstances land may be considered for payment under agri-environment schemes.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress towards flood alleviation in the lower Severn area, with specific reference to the introduction of the new computer model to assess risk. [8535]

  Mr. Morley
  We understand that the Environment Agency's Severn Estuary computer model is essentially complete, except for verification of results and some refinement to assets options for flood defences at Gloucester. The initial results are confirming the previous understanding of the levels of protection provided by existing defences. The results will be used to develop the Agency's Tidal Severn Strategy and to feed into feasibility studies foe any proposed flood defence works.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the proposal made in the latest report of the Independent Scientific Group on bovine tuberculosis regarding a suggest on that farmers should be seeking insurance against bovine tuberculosis breakdowns. [8542]

  Mr. Morley
  The third report of the Independent Scientific Group noted both compulsory insurance and compulsory levies as two possible future policy options available for transferring the cost of disease compensation from the public purse to the livestock industry. Neither was a proposal.
  1273W
  They were identified by the group to allow as full a range of potential future policy options as possible to be considered when designing the scientific research programme necessary to underpin consideration of future policy on bovine TB. The chairman's introduction to the report made this clear.

  Consideration of whether or not these or other policy options are appropriate for the control of bovine TB will take place when lessons learned from foot and mouth. CSF and the recommendations of the Government Industry Working Party on compensation have been fully evaluated.

  National Forest
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if there is a wider application for the introduction of a tendering process for farmers who wish to plant woodlands, as currently exists in the national forest. [8537]

  Mr. Morley
  The tendering approach used in the National Forest Tender Scheme has already been applied to other challenges run under the Woodland Grant Scheme including the South West Forest, new native woodlands in national parks, and reversing the fragmentation of ancient woodland.

  The Forestry Commission and DEFRA are currently conducting a review of woodland creation grants and will consider as part of this whether the tendering and challenge approach should be used n more widely.

  Waterways
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will introduce a waterways agency in her review of waterways management to improve accountability. [8211]

  Mr. Meacher
  The review under way covers the navigation responsibilities of the Environment Agency. The Agency, British Waterways and the Broads Authority manage nearly three-quarters of the navigable inland waterways and are already publicly accountable bodies. There are no plans to review the status of the remaining navigation authorities.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she has made in reviewing the structure of the management of waterways; and when she plans to report on the review. [8210]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following the publication of the report of Stage 1 of the Environment Agency Financial Management and Policy Review, I have met the Chairmen of the Agency and British Waterways to discuss the future of the Agency's navigation responsibilities. A decision will be announced shortly.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely effects of the waste incineration directive on the UK biomass industry, with particular reference to the thermal recycling market. [2537]
  1274W
  Mr. Meacher
  A series of Regulatory and Environmental Impact Assessment reports on the then proposed Waste Incineration Directive were commissioned from consultants. Copies of the reports (dated 1999 and 2000) are available in the Library of the House and were circulated to the industry associations which were consulted during the seven years of the Directive negotiations. These reports include assessments of the estimated costs of compliance with the Directive relating to the waste biomass combustion industry.

  The following figures (including the footnote) are taken from various parts of the October 2000 consultants' report.

  £000/per annum

  Plant type

  Number of plants operating or under construction in the UK

  Number of plants surveyed by consultant

  Estimated costs of compliance1

  Poultry litter and straw

  5 IPC Part A

  2

  50–355

  22000+ others

  —

  —

  Coffee grounds

  1

  1

  26

  Waste-refuse derived fuel

  3

  2

  150–1,000

  Paper and board

  1 IPC Part A

  1

  30

  No data on others

  —

  —

  Wood

  23,350

  0

  3—

  1 1998 prices

  2 Estimate

  3 In this sector, companies burning treated wood are expected to respond to the proposed Directive by switching away from combustion and towards disposal e.g. to landfill. Negligible cost impacts are expected.

  Note:

  IPC: Integrated Pollution Control under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

  The Directive just applies to the incineration of waste, and Article 2.2(a) excludes from the Directive's scope incinerators or co-incinerators which treat only certain biomass waste, namely:
  vegetable waste from agriculture and forestry;vegetable waste from the food processing industry, if the heat generated is recovered;fibrous vegetable waste from virgin pulp production and from production of paper from pulp, if it is co-incinerated at the place of production and the heat generated is recovered;wood waste with the exception of wood waste which may contain halogenated organic compounds or heavy metals as a result of treatment with wood preservatives or coating, and which includes in particular such wood waste originating from construction and demolition waste;cork waste.
  We will be consulting in due course on proposals for the transposition of the Directive.

  The EU Directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal energy market classifies only the biodegradable element of waste as a renewable source. The Government have recently consulted on the Renewables Obligation and electricity generated from biomass (whether energy crops or waste in origin) will be eligible.

  Litter
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were prosecuted in each of the last five years for litter offences. [8328]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of the number of people prosecuted in each of the last five years for which figures are available in England and Wales for litter offences are given in the table. Details for 2000 are not yet available.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates court and convicted at all courts in England and Wales for litter, 1996–99

  Offence

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Environmental

  1996

  626

  468

  Protection Act 1990

  1997

  505

  352

  Section 87

  1998

  494

  377

  Depositing litter

  1999

  501

  390

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contribution nuclear power has made in helping the United Kingdom meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocols; and what meetings she has had with representatives of the nuclear industry on the matter. [6629]

  Mr. Meacher
  Nuclear output was about one third higher in 2000 than in 1990. Because of this increase, UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 were between about

  Percentage

  Target

  Quality

  Percentage of single Employment Tribunal cases to a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt

  75

  Minimum to be achieved by all offices in relation to above target

  65

  Percentage of Employment Tribunal decisions issued within four weeks of the final hearing

  85

  Percentage of Employment Tribunal users satisfied with the service offered by ETS

  85

  Percentage of appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal registered for a preliminary hearing ready for listing within six weeks

  90

  Efficiency

  Real terms reduction in Employment Tribunal administrative costs

  5

  The first two figures represent a slight reduction (10 per cent.) on last year's targets. I have made this reduction in recognition of the Service's resources and the anticipated demands on the Service to be made this year.

  The targets will be published on the ETS website www.ets.gov.uk.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the effectiveness of the Code of Practice on the relationships between supermarkets and farms. [4692]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Director General of Fair Trading consulted with the major supermarkets and over 100 representatives of suppliers on the drafting of the Code of Practice on supermarkets' relations with their suppliers.
  1276W
  1 per cent. and about 2 per cent. lower than they would have been if nuclear output had not increased. The future contribution of nuclear power will depend on how the industry develops, but we expect nuclear power to make a contribution to meeting the UK's current commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. I met representatives of British Energy to discuss this and other issues on 31 January.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on the changes to parental leave. [9360]

  Alan Johnson
  We received 46 responses to the consultation, all of which supported our proposals to extend the entitlement to parental leave. I am today publishing the Government's response to the consultation and will place copies in the Libraries of the House and on the Department's website and lay the amending regulations before the House.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what performance targets she has set for the Employment Tribunals Service for 2001–02. [9361]

  Alan Johnson
  I have set the Employment Tribunals Service the following performance targets for 2001–02:

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has also received representations from supermarkets and supplier organisations on the draft Code. She is currently considering the Director General's advice on the draft Code.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money the Government spent on promoting the generation of electricity using wind power in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; and how much it plans to spend in the current financial year. [7327]

  Mr. Wilson
  The table shows spending on wind power through the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), the Scottish Renewables Order and the DTI's Sustainable Energy Programme.
  1277W

  £ million

  Year

  NFFO

  Scottish Renewables Order

  DTI's Sustainable Energy Programme

  1997–98

  36.8

  3.9

  1.6

  1998–99

  35.1

  5.4

  1.4

  1999–2000

  7.3

  6.2

  1.2

  2000–01

  6.8

  5.3

  1.3

  2001–02

  11.8

  28.9

  22.5

  1 Spend to end June 2001

  2 Estimate only

  An up-to-date estimate on the current year's financial expenditure on NFFO should be available following a re-profiling exercise which is currently being undertaken by the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency (NFPA). Spend on wind power will, of course, only be one element of our total spend on renewables. 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, which will offer at least £49 million for the early deployment of offshore wind.

  Small Business Council
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish a response to the Small Business Council's annual report. [8278]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government will be responding to the Small Business Council later this year and will make their response public.

  Manufacturing (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help she makes available to manufacturing industry in rural areas. [8581]

  Alan Johnson
  Manufacturing companies in rural areas benefit from the policies we are pursuing to help the manufacturing sectors. The Department's support is wide-ranging: from schemes to t encourage technology transfer and collaboration with the science base, to work with specific sectors on targeted programmes to enhance their competitiveness, to providing exporting services and regional and local assistance. In certain circumstances it is also possible for manufacturing companies in rural areas to benefit, along with other sectors, from the Regional Development Agencies' Rural Development Programme.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the proposed de-merger of BT with MmO2 and BT wireless. [8582]

  Mr. Alexander
  The corporate structure of BT is a matter for the company and their shareholders and not for the Government. However the DTI and the 1278W
  Radiocommunications Agency remain in close touch with BT on the proposals and any regulatory concerns that may emerge.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the proposed roll-out of broadband into rural areas. [8583]

  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.

  Consumer Complaints
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints her Department has received (1) about(a) The Mortgage Group, (b) i group and (c) Ocwen. [6635]

  (2) about the company trading as Crazy Georges. [6633]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the Department does not comment on whether or not it has received complaints about individual companies.

  This is because to do so could prejudice the outcome of any investigation into a complaint and any legal proceedings which might result from an investigation.

  Gas and Electricity Suppliers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 584W, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), on energy, if she will ask the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to compile a report on the doorstep selling practices of gas and electricity suppliers. [8075]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) monitors the performance of gas and electricity suppliers in all areas of marketing and sales, including doorstep selling. Where necessary it will take formal action against individual suppliers. However, in comparison with the high volume of transfers, consumer complaints about direct selling are relatively low. Between January and June 2001, the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council—Energywatch—received an average 0.67 per cent. complaints per 1,000 gas supply transfers and 0.63 per cent. per 1,000 electricity supply transfers. Nonetheless, given the distress that mis-selling can cause, I will shortly write to gas and electricity suppliers setting
  1279W
  out my concerns about the negative impacts that mis-selling can have, both on individual customers and on the competitive market as a whole.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to inform Parliament about the Government's future negotiating position on the General Agreement on Trade in Services. [R] [6471]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Parliament approved the objective of sustainable development through progressive liberalisation under the General Agreement on Trade in Services as part of its support for the results of the Uruguay Round. The DTI has been consulting on the current GATS negotiations since 1998. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the results of negotiations.

  SMART Development (Hull)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms in the Hull area have received SMART development money over the past five years; and if she will indicate the companies concerned and the amounts involved. [7099]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The following businesses in the Hull Travel-to-Work Area have been offered Smart or SPUR awards since 1 April 1996:

  Financial year/name of business

  Type of award

  Value of grant offer (£)

  1996–97

  Ion Coat Ltd.

  SMART1

  45,000

  Newlands Technology Ltd.

  SMART

  45,000

  Nucleus

  SMART

  45,000

  Electronic Automation Ltd.

  SPUR2

  123,985

  Colt Industrial Services Ltd.

  SPUR

  22,500

  1997–98

  Applied Analysis Ltd.

  Smart

  43,890

  Flexible Fabric Consulting

  Smart

  45,000

  Smart Solutions

  Smart

  37,145

  KTP Ltd.

  SPUR3

  74,900

  1998–99

  Colt Industrial Services Ltd.

  Smart

  96,177

  Commercial Systems Ltd.

  Smart

  45,000

  Ebortec Ltd.

  Smart

  44,880

  Eurosere UK Ltd.

  Smart

  45,000

  Ion Coat Ltd.

  Smart

  88,390

  Scope Engineering Ltd.

  Smart

  21,565

  Essential Nutrition Ltd.

  SPUR3

  89,250

  1280W

  Financial year-name of business

  Type of award

  Value of grant offer (£)

  1999–2000

  Broady Valves Ltd.

  Smart

  36,360

  Newlands Technology Ltd

  Smart

  44,353

  Partoria Engineering Ltd.

  Smart

  35,908

  Precision Drilling 2000 Ltd.

  Smart

  45,000

  2000–01

  Condor Projects Ltd.

  Smart

  18,750

  Z-Cars Ltd.

  Smart Micro4

  10,000

  2001–02

  Clearview Ltd.

  Smart

  35,678

  1 SMART was merged with SPUR on 1 April 1997 to form a new Smart scheme, to provide grants for feasibility studies and development projects

  2 SPUR provided grants for development projects

  3 Although SPUR was closed on 31 March 1997, a small number of former SMART award winners were still eligible to apply for SPUR awards after that date

  4 Smart Micro Projects were introduced in October 1999. Grants are provided towards the costs of developing simple prototypes

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the areas in receipt of assisted area status may be changed through the Assisted Areas Order 2000 prior to the expiry of that Order in 2006. [6646]

  Alan Johnson
  As I told the hon. Member on 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 326W, the Government are not planning to review the assisted areas until it is necessary to develop proposals for the period after 2006.

  RDAs (Tourism)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money(a) Yorkshire Forward, (b) One North East, (c) East of England, (d) South West of England, (e) South East of England, (f) East Midlands, (g) Advantage West Midlands and (h) North West Development Agency have made available to the tourism industry. [7630]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The tourism industry benefits substantially from spending all of the Regional Development Agencies' main programmes including SRB and Rural Regeneration. It is also a particular focus of the Business Recovery Fund for foot and mouth disease established by the RDAs largely with extra resources. With an increasing budget, greater flexibility and increased economic focus, the RDAs can continue to build on their support for the tourism industry. Figures for the total spending on the tourism industry are not available because records are maintained on a programme rather than business sector basis.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the number of staff employed by her Department by region and nation of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6822]
  1281W
  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development currently employs 796 permanent staff in London and 483 in Scotland.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate total annual staff costs for her Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6823]

  Hilary Benn
  Within the UK, DFID staff are located in London and Scotland only. In 2001–02, we estimate we will spend approximately £28 million on the pay and related costs of staff based in London; and approximately £10 million on the equivalent costs of staff in Scotland.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what proportion of each Civil Service grade in her Department is located in each region and nation of the UK; what the average salary is for each grade; and if she will make a statement. [6826]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development currently employs 796 staff in London and 483 staff in Scotland. The table gives the detailed information requested.

  Grade equivalent

  Number1

  Proportion of those in grade

  Average salary2 (£)

  London

  SCS

  54

  91.5

  64,187

  G6

  128

  96.97

  47,443

  G7

  188

  90.38

  37,617

  SEO

  60

  60.6

  28,492

  HEO

  143

  70.1

  24,238

  HEO(D)

  52

  94.55

  23,773

  EO

  144

  51.99

  18,747

  AO

  153

  47.52

  15,489

  AA

  54

  52.43

  12,763

  Scotland

  SCS

  5

  8.5

  62,589

  G6

  4

  3.03

  44,430

  G7

  20

  9.62

  33,952

  SEO

  39

  39.4

  25,985

  HEO

  61

  29.9

  21,577

  HEO(D)

  3

  5.45

  20,434

  EO

  133

  48.01

  16,893

  AO

  169

  52.48

  13,083

  AA

  49

  47.57

  9,986

  1 The figures include 180 of our overseas staff who are normally UK-based and are paid London salaries which cannot be disaggregated in our calculations

  2 These figures are for August 2000 salaries. The pay award for August 2001 has yet to be finalized

  London Weighting
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the total value of London weightings and London living allowances for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [6824]

  Hilary Benn
  On 1 April 1996, following annual pay negotiations with Trade Union representatives and a ballot of staff, London Weighting was fully consolidated into pay for all permanent staff below the Senior Civil Service.1282W
  For the Senior Civil Service, with the agreement of all those involved, London Weighting was fully consolidated into pay on 1 January 1999.

  It is not however possible to estimate the total value of this in current salaries. Individual salaries are based on a number of factors, including performance year on year. Therefore, although the average salary is higher in London at all grades, the difference cannot be fully attributed to the element previously paid separately as London Weighting Allowance.

  Departmental Properties
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the total running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by her Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by her Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6825]

  Hilary Benn
  The estimated total annual costs of our accommodation in our two UK locations, central London and East Kilbride, are as set out in the table. These costs include rent (applicable in the case of central London but not East Kilbride), rates, utilities, service charges, maintenance and minor works, cleaning and security.

  £

  Location

  Total running costs

  Cost per sq m

  Central London

  7,500,000

  504

  East Kilbride

  840,000

  81

  Overall

  8,340,000

  330

  Departmental Spending
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [6827]

  Hilary Benn
  The vast majority of DFID's expenditure is targeted at or in aid recipient countries, with very limited expenditure occurring in the UK, which we are unable to identify separately let alone split between regions and nations. However, the total cost of administering the UK's development assistance programme from DFID's HQs in London and Scotland was estimated at £80 million in 2000–01, the latest year for which such figures are available. This figure comprises salary costs and associated overheads and represents almost 3 per cent. of the Department's total spending in 2000–01. We estimate that this is split in a ratio of 3:1 between London and Scotland ie at 2 per cent. and 0.7 per cent. respectively.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) on a contract basis by her Department in each year since 1992. [6929]
  1283W
  Hilary Benn
  At any one time since 1997, two special advisers have been employed full-time. None were employed before that date, or on a part-time or contract basis since then.

  Four full-time press officers have been employed since 1996. We do not have records which enable us to provide accurate information before that time.

  Ministerial Travel
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) 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; [6932]

  (2) 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. [6931]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 823W.

  Correspondence
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (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; [7031]

  (2) if she will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by 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. [7032]

  Hilary Benn
  The effective handling of correspondence and PQs is an issue to which we 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.

  We aim to answer all ordinary written parliamentary questions for the House of Commons within five working days, and named day written parliamentary questions on the day named. The office aims to answer written parliamentary questions for the House of Lords within 10 working days.

  The Department for International Development has answered a total of 215 parliamentary questions in both Houses so far this Session.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what money the European Union intends to make available for Afghan refugees who are(a) outside and (b) within Afghanistan; and when the funding will be made available. [7678]

  Clare Short
  The EC has disbursed €45 million (UK share £8.5 million) of humanitarian and food aid during 2001 to Afghan refugees and internally displaced persons, most of this before 11 September. A further €8 million (UK share £1.5 million) of food aid has been pledged to the World Food Programme but not yet delivered. A further €25 million (UK share £4.7 million) has been pledged by the Commission and should be disbursed later this month. Most of this is channelled through UN agencies and the ICRC, the rest through NGOs.

  €22.5 million (UK share £4.4 million) of separate funds will shortly be available for longer term support for refugees in the region, which the Commission aims to disburse in January 2002. This will also be channelled through UN agencies and NGOs.

  The Commission is reviewing its plans for 2002. My Department will stay in close touch with them as part of our effort to ensure that the international response to the crisis is Afghanistan is as closely co-ordinated and effective as possible.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the amount of aid required to prevent starvation in Afghanistan; how much aid has been sent into that country; and if she will make a statement. [8198]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Food Programme (WFP) is responsible for overseeing food aid assistance on behalf of the international community. It estimates that some 52,000 metric tonnes of food are required each month for the 7.5 million most vulnerable Afghans. Since 11 September, WFP has made some progress, having distributed around 15,000 metric tonnes of food inside Afghanistan. However more needs to be done to provide for the Afghan people and lay down stores for the winter.

  As I announced last week, we are setting aside £40 million for immediate assistance to the people of Afghanistan. As part of our strategy, we continue to support the WFP and its implementing partners in trying to overcome a number of operational constraints on delivering assistance to Afghans in need. This includes £3 million for the WFP to support its operations in the region.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she has provided advice on the legality of each target in Afghanistan which has been bombed since 7 October. [8208]

  The Solicitor-General
  As chief legal advisers to Her Majesty's Government, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are available to advise the Government on all questions of international and domestic law. In this capacity the Law Officers have been asked to advise, from
  1285W
  time to time, on legal issues relating to the use of force. This has included the right of self-defence as recognised in Article 51 of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. There is a long-standing convention that neither the substance of the Law Officers' advice, nor the fact that they have been consulted, is disclosed outside Government.

  The Campaign Objectives on defeating international terrorism, placed in the Library of the House of Commons, make clear the Government's commitment to acting in conformity with international law, including the UK Charter and international humanitarian law.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking in respect of the expiration of the current term of appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in February 2002. [9039]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The appointment of the current Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mrs. Elizabeth Filkin, ends in February 2002. The House of Commons Commission has considered how best to fill the post for the future. It has decided that there should be an open competition through advertisement in the national press as part of the overall selection process. As a result of the sifting and initial interview process, a shortlist will be drawn up for final interview. The Commission hopes to be able to make a recommendation to the House early in 2002. The competition will be organised to meet the appropriate standards for senior appointments, including equality of opportunity and selection on merit.

  The competition will be open to existing members of staff, including Mrs. Filkin, as well as to external applicants. In the event of Mrs. Filkin wishing to enter the selection process, she would take part in the final short list stage when candidates were interviewed by the Commission.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  English Heritage
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects a new Chief Executive to be appointed to English Heritage. [6062]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage advertised for a new chief executive on 9 September and are considering the applications they received. They plan to hold interviews in mid-November and hope to make an appointment at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, Carole Souter has been appointed as Acting Chief Executive.

  WPC Kaur
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what briefings she has 1286W
  received on the progress of the Croydon Employment Tribunal case involving her, the Royal Parks Constabulary and WPC Kaur; [7407]

  (2) if she will estimate the cost to her Department's budget of preparing for and the hearing of the employment discrimination case of WPC Kaur; [7408]

  (3) if she will make a statement on (a) the claim and (b) the response in her name to the discrimination case of WPC Kaur; [7406]

  (4) if she will discuss the discrimination claim of WPC Kaur with (a) the operational head of the Royal Parks Constabulary and (b) the Police Inspectorate. [7409]

  Dr. Howells
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, William Weston. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from William Weston to Peter Bottomley, dated 18 October 2001:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the Employment Tribunal involving WPC Kaur, because this is an operational matter for which the Royal Parks Agency is responsible.
  We have fully briefed the Secretary of State on the case, and the decision to defend it. There is no need to keep her informed of the case as it progresses, but we shall, of course, inform her of the outcome and of any issues that arise from it. She will make a statement on the case, if it is appropriate for her to do so, depending on its outcome. It would be inappropriate for her to discuss the case with the Police Inspectorate because the Royal Parks Constabulary is not a Home Office Police Force.
  The Agency's legal fees up to the time that the hearing began were approximately £53,500, to which will have to be added counsel's fees for presenting the case and the costs of the RPC officers involved (and of former officers who now work for the British Transport Police) attending throughout the hearing. These can not be reasonably estimated until we know how long the hearing will last, and the full costs of the case cannot be assessed until the outcome is known.

  Football
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much has been invested by the Government in the promotion of grassroots football in the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; [7838]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the Government's support for the promotion of grassroots football. [7837]

  Mr. Caborn
  Support for grassroots sport is a Government priority. As the nation's most popular participatory sport, football has a vital role to play in increasing levels of participation. The Government's support for grassroots football has been channelled through the Football Foundation since July 2000. In 2000–01, the Foundation received £7 million in Lottery funding from Sport England and £3.4 million from the Reduction in Pools Betting Duty, and the majority of this went to funding the sport at the grassroots. A further £30 million has been ring-fenced for football in the New Opportunities Fund's PE and school sport programme.

  Prior to 2000–01, grants of Lottery funding to the Football Association's youth development programmes were made by Sport England, and totalled £20 million between 1995 and 1999. Children's and recreational

  1287W
  football also benefited during this period from substantial Sport England Lottery funding for multi-use capital projects, and the financial benefits to grassroots football cannot be quantified.

  Additional, direct Government funding for the FA's grassroots work totalled £165,000 in 1998–99 and £144,000 in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with representatives of the Nationwide Conference League on its proposal to increase the number of teams promoted into the football league. [8549]

  Mr. Caborn
  This is a matter for the football authorities. However, I met the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Nationwide Conference on 16 July to discuss a range of non-league football matters including the proposal for an additional promotion and relegation place to and from the football league. My officials have also discussed the progress of negotiations with the Conference over recent months.

  Films
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Government support for the distribution of UK-produced films. [8053]

  Dr. Howells
  As part of its objective to help develop a sustainable -British film industry, the Film Council is looking at the question of support for the UK film distribution sector. The Film Council currently invests in individual film productions which can, on a case-by-case basis, include support for the distribution of that film in the UK.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many British-made films have benefited from EU funds in the last five years; and if she will make a statement; [8055]

  (2) if she will list the films produced in the UK in the last five years which have received EU funds, stating the sum involved in each case. [8057]

  Dr. Howells
  EU funding for film over the last five years was discharged through the MEDIA II programme. The MEDIA programme is intended to encourage the development of European films and the distribution of films around Europe. The total funding awarded by MEDIA II to UK films in the last five years was approximately 14 million euros (approximately £8.8 million at today's rates) for film development and approximately 38 million euros (approximately £23.9 million at today's rates) for theatrical film distribution. The distribution figure was the sum awarded outside the UK for distribution of British films in Europe.

  I am placing more detailed information on the MEDIA II Programme and the awards made in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Departmental Spending
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate total 1288W
  annual staff costs for her Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6775]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department's estimated total costs are £20.97 million—London: £20.58 million, Regions: £0.39 million.

  Youth Hostel Association
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received on the financial loss being experienced by the Youth Hostel Association; if she will introduce grant aid; and if she will make a statement. [8129]

  Dr. Howells
  We have received a number of representations on the Youth Hostel Association's financial losses. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs has met representatives of the YHA to discuss their difficulties and possible sources of help. I am also due to meet them shortly. The Minister for Rural Affairs is currently considering, in the light of the recommendations of the Rural Task Force published yesterday, what further help might be made available to the YHA.

  Rugby
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the 2001 Super League Grand Final. [8434]

  Mr. Caborn
  I was at Old Trafford for the Grand Final and enjoyed watching a tremendous game with the Bradford Bulls playing superb rugby.

  I was pleased to be part of the presentation party presenting the winners trophy to Bradford Bulls Team Captain Robby Paul and reiterate my congratulations to the whole team.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance she has provided to the Rugby Football League to persuade the Australian Rugby League authorities to continue with the tour of Great Britain. [8431]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend has had no direct involvement with the Rugby Football League on this matter. However, I have been in regular contact with the RFL.

  Tourism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding she makes available to local authorities to establish tourism officers. [8439]

  Dr. Howells
  Funding is allowed for tourism as part of the Environmental Protective and Cultural Services block of the Rate Support Grant and it is up to individual local authorities to allocate their funds in accordance with statutory requirements and local needs and priorities. We are keen that local authorities both recognise the true significance of tourism to their local economies and community well-being and also ensure that they have Ifpsufficient data to make informed decisions about allocating their resources, whether in relation to provision of tourism infrastructure, services, personnel or marketing.
  1289W
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to promote rural tourism. [4688]

  Dr. Howells
  At the regional, national and international level, new tourist websites and visitor hotlines have provided exposure and a clear picture of what rural Britain can offer. Leaflet information has also been used successfully. Much of the £18 million in additional funding provided by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to the British Tourist Authority (BTA) and English Tourism Council (ETC) has been used in a strategic advertising and marketing campaigns to motivate potential customers and provide information on what is available. Furthermore, DCMS Ministers attended a number of high profile domestic events to increase rural tourism's exposure and encourage visitors.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to make tourist boards co-terminous with regional areas. [8548]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not within Government's powers to direct the Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs) on this issue as they are not public bodies—almost all are private companies limited by guarantee. While they do receive some public funding from this Department (via the English Tourism Council), they are funded primarily by their members and from their commercial activities. Thus they need valid commercial reasons to choose to change their boundaries to be in line with other regional partners. In principle we would like to see all RTBs having the same boundaries as the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and closer alignment is happening in many regions, although in some cases two RTBs share one RDA area or vice versa.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 151W, on tourism, which representatives of the (a) Scotland Office, (b) Scottish Executive and (c) Scottish Tourist Board attended the United Kingdom summit on tourism on 6 March. [R] [7100]

  Dr. Howells
  Alasdair Morrison MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic in the Scottish Executive, who attended in March 2000, was invited to the second annual Tourism Summit 6 March 2001, but was unable to attend due to prior commitments on that date. A draft report of the Summit was circulated to Ministers for clearance, including Alasdair Morrison, prior to its publication on the DCMS website (www.culture.gov.uk).

  Museums
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what help her Department makes available to small municipal museums. [8550]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department provides annual funding to Resource: the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, which acts as a strategic champion for the museums sector. Resource in turn funds Area Museum Councils in each of the English regions to provide advice and assistance to museums of all types.
  1290W
  In December 2000 my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) announced the creation of a Task Force to report to Government on the nature of the problems facing regional museums and how these problems can be solved. I expect that the Task Force will publish its report shortly. The Department will consider its policies and priorities for regional museums, in consultation with Resource, in the light of that report.

  Sport England
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals she has to strengthen the regional structures of Sport England. [8551]

  Mr. Caborn
  In terms of delivering and supporting sport development through revenue programmes, guidance and advice, Sport England regional offices are well placed to take a strategic lead locally. DCMS is currently engaged in the second stage of a quinquennial review of Sport England, which includes a specific element relating to Sport England's regional role and structure. I expect the review to be completed early in the New Year, at which point I will discuss its findings with the new chief executive of Sport England, who is currently being recruited, and with Sport England's Council members, with a view to implementing the recommendations on Sport England's regional presence as promptly as possible.

  Walkers
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the impact has been of the foot and mouth outbreak on walking holidays in this year's tourist season. [4702]

  Dr. Howells
  No specific figures on the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on walking holidays are available. Our best estimate to date is that the loss of revenue in 2001–02 by the English tourist industry is likely to be about £3.3 billion in "value added" terms over the eight month period under consideration (March to October). We will continue to revise the model on which this estimate is based in the light of the latest available data.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Music Lessons
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of pupils in state maintained schools who were given lessons in playing a musical instrument without parental contribution to the cost in the last 12 months; and what percentage this represents of the total number of children receiving such tuition in maintained schools. [7485]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The Department does not collect this information centrally. It is up to each LEA to devise its own policy on whether to charge for instrumental music tuition provided outside of the National Curriculum.
  1291W
  We are committed, however, to supporting instrumental music tuition. The Music Standards Fund was introduced to halt the decline in LEA music services. Between 1999 and 2004, £270 million has been made available to protect and expand local music services. We have also pledged that, over time, all primary school pupils who want to will be able to learn a musical instrument. This is an important part of our drive to ensure that all pupils, regardless of their background, have access to a wide range of extracurricular activities.

  Engineering GCSE
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if a new vocational GCSE in engineering will be offered from 2003. [7803]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The new GCSE in engineering will be introduced from September 2002.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have sold off playing fields each year since 1991. [8578]

  Mr. Timms
  Before October 1998 there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced in October 1998 to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields. Local authorities and governing bodies of all maintained schools are now required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of playing fields or any part of a playing field.

  Since October 1998, 101 applications to sell areas equal to, or larger than, a sports pitch have been approved. These approved applications can be broken down for each year since the law was changed as follows:

  Year

  Approved applications

  1998

  7

  1999

  44

  2000

  31

  2001

  19

  Applications to sell school playing fields are approved only where it is clear that any proceeds will be used to improve or enhance school sports provision or education facilities. All applications made since mid-July this year are scrutinised by the independent School Playing Fields Advisory Panel to make sure that they conform to published criteria. The Panel comprises representatives from the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the education organisation Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association.

  40 per cent. of approved applications were in respect of sports pitches at closed or closing schools. In 67 per cent. of cases at operating schools, the sale proceeds have been used to provide new or enhanced sports facilities, including sports halls, all-weather pitches or improved grass pitches.

  Student Maintenance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the future of student tuition fees and loans. [8421]

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Government's proposals for student maintenance in higher education. [8579]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are currently reviewing the student funding arrangements. We need to ensure that we have an appropriate balance between the contribution made by students, their families and the state to support our ambitions to widen access to and participation in higher education. A range of policy options is being considered. No decisions have been taken.

  Further Education
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on funding arrangements for staff in FE, with special reference to pay and enhanced training. [8580]

  Margaret Hodge
  The total funding allocated for further education this year is just over £4 billion, rising to £4.3 billion in 2002–03. Colleges make their own arrangements for staff pay and conditions within the funding available to them from the Learning and Skills Council and other sources.

  We are investing £300 million in the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) over the next three years to allow colleges to reward high-quality teaching. An additional £5 million is available for TPI in 2002–03 to support modernising pay arrangements. Payments under TPI are separate from any general pay rise a teacher may receive.

  £80 million is available to colleges (including sixth form colleges) this year from the Standards Fund, and £90 million next year, to support the professional development of existing staff and for the initial training of unqualified new entrants to the profession.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) number and (b) proportion of further education colleges employ lecturing staff on banded pay scales that prevent progress to the top of the main grade lecturer scale. [6669]

  John Healey
  The Department does not collect this information.

  FE sector colleges are run by independent corporations established under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and there is no national pay structure in place. Colleges are free to establish banded pay scales where these meet their needs and can be agreed with their staff. We continue to encourage employers and unions to work together to offer further education staff reasonable pay within the substantial extra funding that has been made available for the FE sector.

  Special Educational Needs
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills wit-ten she will bring forward a revised draft code of practice for special educational needs; and if she will make a statement. [6754]
  1293W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: A revised draft Code of Practice will be laid before the House as soon as possible. It will contain revised wording on the quantification of provision in statements of special educational needs and, subject to parliamentary approval, is planned to take effect from January 2002.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list each school that has been granted specialist college status in the years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 and list for each the sources of sponsorship to meet the sponsorship criteria. [7688]

  Mr. Timms
  Detailed information on the sources of sponsorship can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Sources of sponsorship may be categorised as follows:

  (a) large national organisations (companies and company or other charitable foundations) usually donating through the Technology Colleges Trust;

  (b) local businesses from large to very small, usually donating direct to the school;

  (c) school foundation funds;

  (d) donations from individuals;

  (e) parent teacher association fundraising;

  (f) public-private partnership arrangements;

  (g) profits from formally constituted school trading companies.

  School Closures
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in rural areas have been closed each year since 1991. [8577]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not have reliable data on a year-by-year basis on the number of rural schools closed between 1991 and 1997. We estimate that in the period 1983 to the beginning of 1998 around 450 rural primary schools closed. Since we introduced our current policy, with a presumption against the closure of rural schools, in February 1998, the number of rural schools approved for closure has been as follows.1997: 4
  1998: 5

  Number of three-year-olds1,2,3 by type of early years education provider in England 1997–2001—position as at January each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  42001

  Private, voluntary and independent providers5

  Number of three-year-olds

  6—

  6—

  6—

  294,700

  312,300

  of which:

  Number of funded places7

  6—

  6—

  6—

  39,500

  123,000

  Maintained schools8

  Number of three-year olds

  217,000

  224,600

  228,200

  232,200

  229,100

  1 Headcount of children aged three at 31 December in the previous calendar year

  2 Rounded to the nearest hundred

  3 Any child attending more than one provider may have been counted twice

  4 Provisional

  5 Includes Independent schools

  6 Information was not collected for Providers other than Independent schools

  7 Children aged three with providers who claim Nursery Education Grant. Figures include independent schools

  8 Includes maintained nursery, primary and special schools. Places are all funded

  1294W
  1999: 2
  2000: 2
  2001: 3.

  Education Costs (Recovery)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what powers exist to recover the cost of education provided at public expense to those ineligible to receive such education: [7952]

  (2) how much was recovered, in the last year for which information is available, of the cost of education provided at public expense to those ineligible to receive such education; and how much is estimated to remain uncollected. [7953]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: All school children living in Britain are eligible to receive education free of charge provided by local education authorities. This Government have already extended free nursery education for four-year-olds and will do so for every three-year-old, whose parents want it, by 2004. For higher education, the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2001 determine the eligibility of students to receive financial support and the circumstances in which such costs can be recovered from ineligible students. Information on costs recovered from higher education students who are found to be ineligible are unobtainable, as these repayments are not differentiated from other forms of repayments from eligible students.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged three years obtained nursery places in the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [7717]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table shows the number of three-year-olds in early education places in England from 1997 to 2001 based on the position at January each year.

  It is the Government's stated intention that every three-year-old in England, whose parents want one, will have a free nursery education place by September 2004.

  Final figures information for 2001 will be published in the Statistical Bulletin "Provision for Children Under Five years of age in January 2001" at the end of November.

  Temporary Classrooms (Upminster)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many temporary classrooms have been in use in Upminster in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [6628]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not have information on Upminster's temporary buildings at this localised level of detail. Essex local education authority may be able to provide this information.

  In connection with the Department's arrangements for appraising asset management plans, we are planning to publish later this year analyses of authorities' premises information for benchmarking purposes. These should include information on temporary accommodation in Essex local education authority, although not on a year-by-year basis.

SCOTLAND

  Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the economic impact of the postponement of the construction of the Prestwick air traffic control centre(a) locally and (b) on Scotland. [7422]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office is closely monitoring the situation regarding the new centre. As the decision by NATS to review the phasing of the Scottish centre was taken only recently, detailed impacts, if any, of the decision are not yet known.

  All parties involved in this project remain committed to investing in the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. This project will deliver significant benefits both for Ayrshire and Scotland as a whole through construction work and highly skilled operational staff.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings she(a) has had and (b) has planned to discuss the postponement of the construction of the Prestwick air traffic control centre. [7419]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office is in regular contact with the relevant parties in relation to the Prestwick air traffic control centre. The events of 11 September have had an effect on air movements, which has given rise to a review of the phasing of NATS capital investment plan. As a result, the new centre will have a later operational date than originally planned. All parties involved remain committed to investment in the new Scottish centre at Prestwick and to complete this important project.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received from National Air Traffic Control about the postponement of the construction of the Prestwick air traffic control centre. [7420]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I receive representations on a wide variety of issues concerning reserved matters in Scotland. The Scotland Office, both at ministerial and official level, is in close contact with all the relevant parties concerning the future of the new Scottish centre at Prestwick.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the timetable for(a) publication and (b) implementation of Boundary Commission proposals for Scotland. [6498]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: The Boundary Commission for Scotland is required, by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to submit its report to me between December 2002 and December 2006.

  As soon as may be after the Commission has submitted its report, I am required under section 3(5) of the 1986 Act to lay the report before Parliament, together with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations in the report.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the major promotional activity that has occurred to publicise the working families tax credit since it was introduced; and what future plans the Government have to publicise the benefit. [7900]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There have been three major campaigns to publicise the WFTC between September 1999 and November 2000.

  Posters and leaflets in Job Centres and other outlets have supported TV and press advertisements, and Ministers led a series of roadshows throughout the UK.

  A freephone line (now replaced by 0845 number) has backed up all advertising.

  We will continue to advertise existing tax credits until the new ones are in place. WFTC reminder press and radio will run in October/November.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of(a) South Africa, (b) Mozambique, (c) Malawi, (d) Botswana, (e) Angola and (f) Nigeria regarding the status of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting originally scheduled for 6–9 October. [7833]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not discussed the status of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, originally scheduled for 6–9 October, with the Governments of South Africa, Mozambique, Malawi, Botswana, Angola and Nigeria. This is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Secretary General.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he
  1297W
  has to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe with the Governments of (a) South Africa, (b) Mozambique, (c) Malawi, (d) Botswana, (e) Angola and (f) Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [7831]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe. We are in close contact with other Commonwealth and SADC partners, particularly concerning the commitments made by Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth at a meeting in Abuja on 6 September. Since the visit to Harare by five SADC Heads of State on 10–11 September, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the President of Malawi on 9 October. My noble Friend Baroness Amos has spoken to the President of Nigeria on 17 and 18 September and the Foreign Minister of Mozambique on 19 September. My noble Friend also attended the EU/Africa meeting in Brussels on 11 October and took the opportunity to speak to other representatives of African Governments.

  Middle East
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take to help bring about a lasting ceasefire between the Israeli and Palestinian forces; and if it is his policy to support the establishment of a free Palestinian State. [7865]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The primary responsibility to bring the violence to a halt rests with both parties concerned. We are actively engaged with them to ensure that the ceasefire commitments they have made are turned into reality on the ground. We are urging them to build on the dialogue re-established by Chairman Arafat and Israeli Foreign Minister Peres, and to implement swiftly and in full the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee.

  The British Government support the right of the Palestinian people to establish a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian state and look forward to early fulfilment of this right, provided there is a concomitant recognition of Israel's right as a state, and the right of its citizens to live in peace with security. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians will only come through a political process which implements 'land for peace', delivers security for Israel within recognised borders, brings an end to occupation, and allows the emergence of a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state committed to co-existence with Israel, and recognised and respected by Israel. Such an outcome would be a major contribution to regional stability.

  Departmental Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [6816]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1009–12W.

  Devolved Administrations
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is 1298W
  with regard to (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly Committees; and to what categories of document he gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (1) Scottish parliament, (2) Welsh Assembly, (3) Northern Ireland Assembly and (4) House of Commons Select committees. [7036]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1003–05W.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance as(a) spouse and (b) fiancée were received at British posts around the world in each of the last five years; and how many of those applications were refused because the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that the couple intended to live together permanently. [8078]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Records do not distinguish between those applications submitted by spouses or fiance(e)s and other settlement categories. Nor are refusal reasons collated. To ask all the 165 Entry Clearance Posts to provide this information now would require them to carry out a manual search of their records. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Human Rights Report
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report on human rights will be published. [9246]

  Peter Hain
  The FCO annual report on human rights was laid before Parliament as a Command Paper on Monday 17 September 2001. Copies were placed in the Libraries of the House and distributed throughout Parliament in the usual way. The report is on the FCO website www.hrpd.fco.gov.uk and is available through the Stationery Office.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent export licences for military listed equipment to Kosovo. [9247]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government have recently issued licences for the export of the following military listed goods:

  Bulletproof vests for use by the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) which will provide protection against the threat posed by small arms.

  A cab control box for use by the Irish contingent of Kosovo Force (KFOR). It is a logistical piece of equipment that offers remote control operation from within the cab of a military cargo vehicle to load and unload paletted loads such as fuel, ammunition or temporary accommodation, allowing the operator to remain in the cab in potentially dangerous situations.
  1299W
  Protective body armour for use by Ronco Consulting Corporation who are engaged in humanitarian demining activities on behalf of the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Centre in Kosovo.

  Protective body armour and components for UNMIK for use by the Kosovo Police Service, which provides protection against the threat posed by small arms.

  When the export licences were issued for these goods, the FRY was subject to an EU arms embargo (EU Common Position 96/184/CFSP). The decisions on these exports were part of the Government's continuing support for the peaceful reconstruction of Kosovo and were in the Government's view, within the spirit of the embargo, which was subsequently lifted on 8 October 2001, following the removal of the UN arms embargo on 10 September.

  Christians
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the(a) Church of England, (b) Roman Catholic Church and (c) Free churches on the suppression of Christian minorities in different parts of the world. [8540]

  Peter Hain
  Promotion of human rights is at the heart of our foreign policy and we regard religious freedom as a fundamental human right. We condemn instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith, wherever it happens and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned.

  We take every opportunity, often working with our EU partners, to urge states to pursue laws and practices which foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks. We regularly raise specific cases of religious persecution with the governments concerned.

  This Government greatly value dialogue with civil society and have worked to strengthen it. Ministers and officials regularly discuss human rights concerns in a range of countries with non-governmental groups. For example, officials from our African Department Equatorial met staff from the Offices of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Guildford before their visits to Nigeria; and last year in Sudan we helped with the Anglican Church's Centenary celebrations and with the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

  The FCO also organises an ad-hoc Contact Group on international religious freedom. The next meeting is due to take place in December. This meeting is attended by a range of organisations, including different Christian denominations.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with(a) the Sudan, (b) Nigeria, and (c) Indonesia on their Governments' treatment of Christians. [8539]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are concerned about the human rights of all in Sudan, Nigeria and Indonesia, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. The people of Sudan, including its Christian communities, have certainly suffered as a result of Sudan's civil war. We have a regular dialogue with the parties in Sudan to encourage them to work towards a lasting and just peace settlement.1300W
  Only when there is peace can the human rights of all Sudanese be safeguarded. In addition we make representations to the Government of Sudan about individual cases which cause us concern. We continue to work with the Churches, both in Sudan and the UK, as they have an important role to play in the search for peace.

  The Nigerian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all citizens. The Federal States maintain that the introduction of the Sharia penal code is a matter for them not the Government. But they also stress that the code does not apply to non-Muslims unless the latter so choose. Our High Commissioner in Abuja has regular contact will all States' Governors.

  We raise human rights issues with the Indonesian authorities, both bilaterally and through the European Union, at every opportunity. I did so most recently when I met Vice-President Hamzah Haz and the Attorney-General in Jakarta on 27 August 2001.

  Underwater Cultural Heritage
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to support the UNESCO Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage at the 31 session from 15 October to 3 November. [8526]

  Peter Hain
  Her Majesty's Government are still considering the text of the draft UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage which as been submitted by an expert working group to the UNESCO General Conference later this month.

  Overseas Ministers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his practice to notify hon. Members of visits to their constituencies by Ministers of overseas Governments when those visits are accompanied by Government officials. [8594]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is rightly proud of the large number of visits to the UK by overseas Ministers. The degree of Foreign and Commonwealth Office involvement is determined by the nature of the visit and the programme content. Unfortunately, Foreign and Commonwealth Office resource constraints dictate that it is not possible to undertake to notify hon. Members every time an overseas Minister visits their constituency. I am unable to answer for the practice of other Government Departments.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits made by Ministers of the New Zealand Government to the United Kingdom since 7 June, listing in each case the constituencies visited. [8593]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office continues to offer a warm welcome to the many ministerial visitors from New Zealand who visit the UK in both an official and private capacity. The degree of official Foreign and Commonwealth Office involvement and contact is determined by the nature of the visit and the programme content. Since 7 June we are aware of four visits to the UK by Ministers of the New Zealand
  1301W
  Government: Ms Margaret Wilson, Attorney General and Minister of Labour; Mr. Trevor Mallard, the Minister of Education; Mr. Phil Goff, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and Mr. Michael Cullen, the Minister of Finance. All four visit programmes were not arranged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I am unable to confirm all of the constituencies they might have visited.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits made by Ministers of overseas Governments to the Isle of Wight since 7 June. [8592]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK is a popular destination for overseas Ministers. Many visit frequently on official business and in a private capacity. The degree of Foreign and Commonwealth Office involvement is determined by the nature of the visit and the programme content. Since 7 June we are only aware of the visit to the Isle of Wight by Mr. Trevor Mallard, the Minister of Education of New Zealand, which was not organised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will review the new time-limited permitted work rules for people with learning disabilities who combine incapacity benefit with therapeutic work and whose condition is unlikely to improve over time; and if he will make a statement. [7570]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have listened to concerns expressed by disability organisations during our consultation over the new permitted work rules. We are now proposing that people who work in the community with ongoing support or supervision from a professional caseworker (employed or engaged by a public body or voluntary organisation) will not be subject to the new time limits. This will ensure that people, such as those with learning disabilities, whose condition is unlikely to improve over time will continue to be able to combine some work while receiving their incapacity benefits. Regulations to implement this will be laid at the end of the year.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people entitled to a £100 winter fuel payment in winter 2000 who actually received £200; and how many of these overpayments have been recovered. [7914]

  Mr. McCartney
  The amount paid to individuals depends on their household circumstances. Provisions in regulations allow for the automatic payment of a Winter Fuel Payment based on records held by the Department. If departmental records need updating, or the customer has failed to report a change in circumstances affecting the payment, the Department can accept the return of payments. Reasons are not specified for returned payments received from District Offices.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes he is proposing in regulations for Disability Living Allowance in connection with people who are fearful of walking outdoors in unfamiliar places without assistance; what representations he has received on them; and if he will make a statement. [7178]

  Maria Eagle
  Proposed regulations to clarify the conditions of entitlement to the lower rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance in these circumstances are being considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Committee recently consulted publicly and asked for comments on the draft regulations by 14 September. The Committee is considering the responses it has received and I await its report.

  A SSAC press release that included a copy of the draft regulations and an explanatory memorandum is available in the Library.

  The proposed regulations do not alter the basic qualifying criteria for the lower rate mobility component. People with severe physical and mental disabilities will still be able to qualify on the basis of those disabilities alone.

  The intention of the proposed regulations is to ensure that people who experience fear or anxiety when walking out of doors on unfamiliar routes without supervision or guidance are entitled to lower rate mobility component only if their ability to walk independently is directly affected by a severe mental disability. This is to ensure that the scope of the lower rate mobility component remains within the parameters set out when the component was first introduced.

  We have, in addition, received representations from a number of hon. Members about the proposed regulations.

  LETS and Time Banks
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on(a) local exchange trading schemes and (b) time banks, with specific reference to benefit claimants. [8492]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Participation in local exchange trading schemes is treated as employment for those claiming income-related benefits, and any credits received are treated as earnings.

  Entitlement to benefits is not affected by participation in time exchange schemes where the credits derived are counted in time and not exchanged for goods or services.

  CSA (Earnings Deductions)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the impact on employers when deductions of earnings are made at source as a result of the intervention of the Child Support Agency; [8493]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) employers and (b) employers' organisations on the operation of the deductions of earnings at source following CSA intervention. [8495]
  1303W
  Malcolm Wicks
  We are concerned about burdens on business and aim to ensure that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. It is a general principle that both parents, whether they live together or apart, are primarily responsible for supporting their children—not the taxpayer. Deductions from earnings orders (DEOs) are sometimes the only effective method of collecting child maintenance from non-resident parents who otherwise fail to meet their responsibilities. Employers can take an additional £1 from non-resident parents' wages towards their administration costs each time a deduction is made.

  The CSA, in partnership with the Inland Revenue, is in close consultation with a group of employers and their representatives (including representatives of payroll professionals) about arrangements flowing from the child support scheme. This has led to changes to DEO procedures. Local CSA managers also liaise with employers and employer organisations in their area about child support issues.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his involvement on progress towards the operation of the Universal Bank. [8491]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government are committed to sustaining a national network of post offices. One of the initiatives that is being put in place to deliver this is Universal Banking Services. I am co-ordinating the work to modernise the payment of pensions, benefits and Tax Credits along with the introduction of banking services through post offices.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on an individual's eligibility for housing benefit when his residence is re-classified from residential or nursing home to a supported tenancy. [8496]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In these circumstances individuals are eligible for help with their rent through Housing Benefit.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to standardise the housing benefit application form in local authorities. [8202]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Earlier this year we introduced a model claim form which local authorities can choose to use. The form is designed to collect all information necessary to process housing benefit claims securely in line with the Verification Framework. We encourage all local authorities to use the form.

DEFENCE

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many participants in the new deal have received(a) training and (b) work experience in the armed forces, including taster days, in each year since 1998. [7986]
  1304W
  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces do not participate in the new deal scheme directly because of the longer term commitment that recruits are expected to undertake. Nevertheless, in the light of a partnership that my Department has with the Department for Education and Skills Employment Service (ES), there is close liaison between ES jobcentres and the armed forces careers offices. Recruiting staff visit ES jobcentres on a regular basis to promote armed forces careers, and also remind jobcentre staff of the various work experience schemes available in the area for young people up to age 24 years, regardless of their employment status.

  The Services offer work experience, Personal Development Courses (PDCs), Look at Life (LAL) Courses, Army Preparation Courses (APCs), and visits to HM Ships and Establishments. The majority of those who attend are still at school or college.

  A record of the total number of participants per year is not held centrally. Available details are as follows:

  Naval Service

  (a) PDCs: Since April 1999, 89 courses have been provided for 595 students.

  (b) Work Experience Participants: Since 1998 some 800 work experience placements have been made available each year.

  (c) HM Ship Visits

  Officer candidates

  Schoolchildren

  1998–99

  1,501

  5,800

  1999–2000

  1,511

  6,000

  2000–01

  1,990

  6,100

  Army

  The figures are estimated as until recently details of numbers attending were not co-ordinated centrally:

  LALs and PDCs: Number of participants per year= 1,500.

  RAF

  (a) Taster Days:

  'Opportunity for All Days'

  Participants

  1998–2000

  1,300

  2000–01

  2,080

  Home Defences
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the United Kingdom's home defences. [8123]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence informed Parliament on 4 October 2001,Official Report, columns 809–10, that we will be conducting work designed to ensure that our concepts, force structures and capabilities are exactly those that we need in order to meet the challenge of the kind of asymmetric threat that we saw on 11 September. This work will look both at the defence of the UK and our capability to counter and deter terrorism abroad.

  Reserves
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the reserves will play in providing cover for full-time posts. [8424]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reservists are employed across the full range of duties with all the services, and play an important role in undertaking support tasks, helping alleviate shortfalls in regular manpower and bringing units up to operational manning levels. At present, there are almost 1,700 personnel on full-time reserve service. There are also over 500 reservists called out into permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to support military operations. We expect to continue making use of the reserves in these ways.

  Armed Forces (Insurance)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department will reopen its life and personal accident insurance scheme to soldiers in the UK armed forces; which private insurance companies his Department has selected to cover service men and women liable to be involved in the war in Afghanistan who are not covered by PAX+ (Personal Accident and Combined Services); whether this scheme will be similar to the existing PAX+ coverage; if his Department will ensure that every soldier's coverage will be full and continuous; and if he will make a statement. [8418]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has in place a comprehensive package of compensation schemes for injury or death resulting from service in the armed forces. The MOD's Armed Forces Pension Scheme and the War Pensions Scheme are absolutely unaffected by any commercial considerations. These schemes provide full and continuous cover for all personnel. For those who want additional cover Ministry of Defence facilitates the services of commercial insurers.

  As a responsible employer, MOD encourages its personnel to take out the level of cover that individuals deem necessary. However, policies are commercial undertakings between individuals and insurers. The MOD neither carries any of the risk, nor gains from any of the premium. All such schemes differ, and it is for each individual to decide what benefits, restrictions and costs are deemed appropriate.

  Since 1989 the MOD has facilitated a commercial personal accident policy (known as 'PAX') deemed most appropriate to armed forces personnel. On 31 August 2001, 60,035 armed forces personnel (over 25 per cent.) had a PAX policy, and just under half of these took optional life cover. On 9 October the scheme's underwriters—AIG Europe (UK)—implemented an exclusion period for new applicants from 21 September. Existing holders are unaffected; they can carry out their duties knowing that their policy remains in force wherever they are in the world, on or off duty.

  A PAX exclusion period was last imposed during the Gulf War and a special scheme was introduced for personnel who had not bought PAX but wished to buy insurance. AIG Europe are working now to introduce a replacement for PAX, but I am unable to say how long it will take them to achieve this. This is a commercial matter for them.
  1306W
  Since 11 September, some insurance companies have put geographical exclusions on new policies for armed forces personnel (mainly for those deploying to Oman and associated area); others have increased rates. As a result, some service personnel have found themselves without the cover they desired.

  However, at present there are insurers still offering worldwide personal accident and life assurance schemes, although obviously they are keeping rates and terms under close review, and the situation could change. Currently such schemes are available, for example, from NAAFI Financial—through their website and 20 centres located in service garrison areas—and from Scottish Widows through the "Forces Safeguard" Policy. While MOD does not select, endorse or recommend individual companies or products without a full 'benchmarking' process, the MOD is both currently advising members of the armed forces of known personal accident and life assurance options and also facilitating the completion of application forms, especially for those deployed.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the armed forces in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force have joined the armed forces life insurance scheme; what percentage of each service this represents; and if he will make a statement; [8206]

  (2) how many members of (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force have applied to join the armed forces life insurance scheme since 11 September; and how many have been successful. [8207]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence facilitates an insurance scheme (PAX), which provides both personal accident and life cover for armed forces personnel. Optional life assurance cover is only available to those who first take out PAX personal accident cover.

  The table gives details, as at 31 August 2001, of the number of Service personnel who were scheme members and also those policy holders who had elected to take out additional life cover.

  Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Number of personnel covered by PAX (personal accident cover)

  4,952

  50,106

  4,977

  Percentage of total trained strength

  13

  50

  10

  Number of personnel who have additional life insurance cover

  2,723

  17,567

  3,419

  Percentage of total trained strength

  7

  18

  7

  Of course, many armed forces personnel have cover with other commercial providers more suited to individual circumstances, but we have no means of knowing details of these personal financial arrangements.

  Figures on the number of personnel joining PAX since 11 September are not yet available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to make further studies of the UK's preparedness for defence against chemical and biological weapons. [8122]
  1307W
  Mr. Hoon
  The 1998 Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999) identified the importance of the UK's defence response to the potential use of weapons of mass destruction. The threat posed by chemical and biological weapons is under continuous review and we constantly monitor the preparedness of the UK's armed forces to meet it. The strategy paper "Defending against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons" of 21 July 1999, cited on 21 July 1999,Official Report, column 537W, explained in more detail our policy, and the ways in which we planned to develop our capabilities further to protect our armed forces. The United Kingdom has also been active in promoting wider preparedness in this area within NATO.

  I announced on 2 October that we would be continuing work on the defence of the UK and our capabilities to counter and deter terrorism abroad in light of the 11 September attacks. This work will look at our concepts, force structures and capabilities to ensure that we can meet the challenge of asymmetric threats.

  Our current contingency plans, which have been reviewed recently, include being able to deal with a wide range of terrorist threats that we might face in the UK or overseas.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the practicability of military operations in the passes of Afghanistan after winter conditions have made them impassable. [8475]

  Mr. Hoon
  The climate and topography of Afghanistan are two of the many factors we take into account when considering possible options for coalition military action.

  Aston Down
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the procedures by which the decision was taken to shut MOD Aston Down. [8574]

  Mr. Ingram
  The process that led to the close of the Ministry of Defence site Aston Down stemmed from the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) Study 2G1. This study recommended the formation of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (DSDA) and also recommended that savings equivalent to the closure of a minor depot could be made. As one of the minor units joining the new agency, MOD Aston Down was therefore considered, along with two other minor units, a candidate for closure.

  In order to determine how best to make these savings a further study was undertaken. This study was known as the DSDA Rationalisation Study—Phase 1 (DRS1). The study was wide ranging and among other things considered the MOD's future storage requirement against storage capacity and sought to identify the way in which this could be produced in the most cost-effective manner.

  Ministers decided that, subject to consultation, savings equivalent to the closure of a minor depot could be best achieved by shutting down the MOD site at Aston Down. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), the then Minister for the Armed Forces, wrote to my hon. Friend on 10 January 2000 to communicate this and initiate the consultation period, during which all interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on
  1308W
  the proposals to the Chief Executive. In the event the only comments received were from the Council of Civil Service Unions regarding the position of their members. During the consultation period, SERCO, the company running Aston Down under contract, made alternative proposals for future use of the site. SERCO's offer to purchase the site was eventually withdrawn. Once the period of consultation had ended a decision was made to close the MOD site at Aston Down.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the duties by which SERCO operated the contract to run MOD Aston Down. [8576]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Operation and Maintenance tasks at Aston Down were first contractorised in 1986 and SERCO (then RCA) won the competition.

  In all there have been four consecutive contracts let -competitively with SERCO for the Aston Down requirements covering the periods 1986–89, 1989– 93, 1993–96 and 1996 to 31 March 2001 when the Depot officially closed.

  The tasks carried out by SERCO under the contract(s) were, as follows:
  Physical storage of all stockholding.
  Support in the disposal of surplus MOD holdings including surplus vehicles.
  Stores accounting
  Operation of all mechanical handling equipment and other on site depot vehicles.
  Depot domestic support services eg cleaning, messenger/janitorial.
  Fire and security.
  Grounds maintenance.
  Minor maintenance of depot buildings.
  Processing of spent ammunition containers.
  Bird control (infestation).
  SERCO are currently on the site providing a site protection and guarding service while the property is being marketed for disposal.

  Aircraft (Repair and Maintenance)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the budget for repair and maintenance of armed forces aircraft in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [8480]

  Mr. Hoon
  The maintenance of military aircraft is undertaken at a variety of locations: operating units (1st and 2nd Line); the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (3rd Line); and various aerospace companies in the UK and abroad (4th Line). Maintenance work falls into a number of categories: sonic is preventive or routine, other work is based around fault diagnosis and rectification.

  The wide range of information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Death-in-service Payments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in granting Anna Homsi further payments relating to the death in active
  1309W
  service of Brad Tinnion; when he expects to make further payments and at what amount; and if he will make a statement. [8205]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have completed our detailed work to consider the options for responding to Ms Homsi's request for further payments with respect to the death of her partner, Bombadier Tinnion, and her responsibility for their daughter. This has taken slightly longer than expected but we expect to be able to advise Ms Homsi of our decision by the end of this month.

  Maritime Wrecks
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish his response to the public consultation on diving on maritime wrecks. [8073]

  Dr. Moonie
  The report on the findings of the public consultation on the protection of military wrecked vessels is still being considered. The House will be informed of the outcome shortly. A copy of the report on the public consultation will be placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Funding (Education)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when it is intended that the proposed changes to the education funding formula for local government will take effect. [4581]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 July 2001]: After considering the consultation responses to the Green Paper on local government finance, we have concluded that while reforming the education funding system is an important priority, we must ensure that there is sufficient time to develop proposals and to consult on them before a new system can be introduced. We have therefore decided to delay introduction of a reformed system until 2003–04.

  Traveller Encampments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the terms of reference are of his Department's review of policy towards traveller encampments; when he intends to publish the conclusions of the review; and if he will make a statement. [7155]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Research has been conducted to review the effectiveness of the current DTLR/Home Office Good Practice Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping. A summary of the findings will be published shortly, during the week commencing 29 October, and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  The terms of reference for the research were to:

  (i) explore the extent to which local authorities and police are aware of the guidance;

  (ii) determine the extent to which the guidance has been used by, and met the requirements of, local authorities and the police;

  1310W

  (iii) explore whether the guidance has encouraged local authorities to take a fresh look at existing policies on unauthorised camping;

  (iv) examine whether local authorities, in reviewing existing policies, are working in partnership with the local police force; liaising with neighbouring authorities; bringing together departments within their authority with an interest in the issues and involving Gypsies and Travellers;

  (v) identify the extent to which local authorities and the police are making use of the statutory Crime Reduction Partnerships in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to tackle anti-social behaviour associated with unauthorised camping;

  (vi) examine the impact of action taken in response to the guidance on crime and disorder associated with unauthorised encampments;

  (vii) identify any gaps in the current guidance, and highlight additional examples of good practice, including examples of joint-working between local authorities and the police;

  (viii) establish to what extent local authorities and police forces are making use of their current legal powers to deal with the problem of unauthorised camping.

  Devolved Administrations
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly Committees; and to what categories of document he gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (1) Scottish Parliament, (2) Welsh Assembly, (3) Northern Ireland Assembly and (4) House of Commons Select Committees. [7042]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 15 October 2001.Official Report, columns 1003–05W.

  Departmental Staff
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [6802]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [6798]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I should like to refer the hon. Gentleman to the existing publication "Civil Service Statistics 2000", published on 31 August 2001, especially to Table D (page 42). This gives a regional distribution of staff, as at April 2000, for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR(C)) and for its agencies. A copy of this should already reside in the House of Commons Library.
  1311W

  Regional distribution of staff

  Totals on a full-time equivalent basis

  London

  4,350

  South East

  870

  South West

  1,760

  West Midlands

  790

  North West

  730

  North East

  370

  Merseyside

  80

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  740

  East Midlands

  550

  Eastern

  840

  Wales

  3,690

  Scotland

  390

  Northern Ireland

  0

  Unreported and elsewhere

  1,930

  Total

  17,070

  We estimate that once the Machinery of Government changes are complete, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR(C)) will employ approximately 3,400 staff. This represents a net reduction of 490 staff in London and SE and a net reduction of approximately 150 in the SW. The other figure shall remain the same for the other regions.

  Ministerial Travel
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) 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; [6891]

  (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. [6892]

  Dr. Whitehead
  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.

  Departmental Spending
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by his Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if he will make a statement. [6890]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) was created in June 2001. Answers to the above questions for the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and its predecessors could be provided 1312W
  only at disproportionate cost to the public purse. Expenditure on advertising by the former DETR and its predecessors in financial years since 1992–93 was reported to the House on 23 April 2001, Official Report, column 60W.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [6803]

  Dr. Whitehead
  An analysis, by function, of totally managed expenditure by country and region can be found in Chapter 8 of the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2001–02" (Cm 5101) published in April 2001. Tables 8.6a, 8.6b, 8.7, 8.11 and 8.12 give cash data for 1999–2000, the most recent year for which the analysis is available.

  In 1999–2000, around 98 per cent. of the then DETR's expenditure on its main programmes was incurred in England. The majority of public expenditure in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is incurred by the relevant devolved Administration (see table 8.7).

  Correspondence
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the total number of(a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by his Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if he will make a statement; [7041]

  (2) if he will place in the Library 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. [7040]

  Dr. Whitehead
  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.

  The information requested in respect of parliamentary questions prior to the formation of this Department on 8 June 2001 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. En the period 8 June to 20 July 2001, my Department answered 616 parliamentary questions from hon. Members and 60 from noble Lords. All of those questions were answered within one month.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many
  1313W
  (a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full time, (ii) part time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. [6889]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was formed on 8 June 2001. On that date, the following press officers were employed by the Department:1 Assistant Press Officer;
  16 Press Officers, one of whom was employed on a casual contract basis;
  9 Senior Press Officers, of whom one worked part-time; three Grade 7 Press Officers; and
  one Grade 6 Press Officer.

  There were no special advisers employed by the Department on 8 June 2001. However, a total of three were appointed between 11 June and 13 August 2001, one on a part-time basis.

  Isle of Wight Council (Borrowing)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what permissions to borrow have been given 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 for a specified project or projects. [7958]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 16 October 2001] Since 1999–2000, the Isle of Wight council has been given permission to borrow as credit approvals the following amounts:

  Year

  £

  1999–2000

  10,689,000

  2000–01

  9,412,056

  2001–02

  11,385,773

  Within these totals, the Isle of Wight Council is required to use the following amounts of credit approval for the following purposes:

  £

  Purpose

  Credit approval

  1999–2000

  Local Transport Safety Schemes

  623,000

  Rural and non-rural package transport minor works

  600,000

  Coast protection at Gurnard: Preliminary study

  2,000

  Process unit strategy plan: Ryde

  9,000

  Wheelers Bay: Coast protection scheme

  449,000

  Seagrove Bay

  397,000

  Contaminated land project

  6,000

  Capital challenge1

  417,000

  New housing2

  178,000

  Purchase of dwellings2

  101,000

  Housing-related projects2

  50,000

  2000–01

  Accommodation for Community Mental Health Team

  200,000

  Contributions to various buildings for the Isle of Wight and Hampshire Magistrates Court Committee

  31,056

  Integrated transport measures

  1,404,000

  Transport maintenance

  1,540,000

  Public Transport Information Systems

  5,000

  Coast protection at Gurnard: Preliminary study

  10,000

  Process unit strategy plan: Ryde

  33,000

  Wheelers Bay: Coast protection scheme

  35,000

  Seagrove Bay

  21,000

  1314W

  £

  Purpose

  Credit approval

  2001–02

  Contributions to various building projects for the Isle of Wight and Hampshire Magistrates Court Committee

  20,773

  Provision of facilities for women firefighters

  19,000

  Integrated transport measures

  3,000,000

  Transport maintenance

  2,900,000

  1 Projects include school repairs, IT facilities, and community regeneration projects

  2 Capital receipts initiative

  Note:

  1. Figures for the current financial year reflect the situation at the moment. The finalised figures are likely to be different.

  2. Figures only include credit approvals that are allocated for capital expenditure. They do not include trading supplementary credit approvals, which attract no revenue support grant.

  Planning
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he intends to take to ensure that the rights of third parties under planning legislation are compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. [8494]

  Ms Keeble
  We do not consider that there is any need to make changes to planning legislation as it affects third parties as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which incorporates provisions from the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law).

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance has been issued to local authority planning offices regarding the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. [7720]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department has not issued guidance. The Government's Human Rights Task Force issued core guidance on the Act for public authorities (including local authorities). In addition, the Local Government Association has produced a pocket guide "Acting on rights: a guide to the Human Rights Act", and a booklet "Deciding rights: applying the HRA to good practice in Local Authority decision making". The latter includes a fact sheet on Human Rights and planning.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the review of the planning procedures is planned to commence. [8527]

  Ms Keeble
  I expect to issue a Green Paper on planning reform at the end of the year.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to establish regional assemblies. [4700]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 July that the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional governance in England which will set out the Government's proposals for taking forward elected assemblies, where people want them.

  A590
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the proposed A590 bypass at High and Low Newton. [7513]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proposed A590 bypass was identified as a priority for delivery by 2007 in the North West's Draft Regional Planning Guidance, published in July 2000. The Secretary of State is currently considering the Panel Report from the Public Examination of the draft. It is planned to publish proposed changes this winter, with a view to issuing the final version in spring/summer 2002.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the level of Government financial support given to Railtrack in each year since its inception. [8486]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 1994–95 and 1995–96, when Railtrack was still in the public sector, grants of £32 million and £34 million were paid to the company towards the cost of maintaining level crossings. Since its privatisation in 1996, the company has recovered that cost and other costs through access charges paid to it by train operating companies (TOCs) and others. So, although no public money was paid direct to Railtrack between 1996–97 and 2000–01, the company's profitability in those years was contingent on public money. Some 85 per cent, of its income is paid to it in access charges by TOCs, most of which are supported by public money.

  In future Railtrack, or its successor body, will continue to receive income from TOCs, the large majority of which will continue to receive subsidy from the SRA. In addition, in accordance with the terms of Railtrack's 2 April agreement with Government, Railtrack received £337 million of network grant on 1 October 2001; and, when requested by the administrators, it will receive £162 million of network grant in respect of the (October 2000) final conclusions of the Rail Regulator's periodic review of access charges.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the relationship between Railtrack and the British Rail Property Board. [8487]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Rail Property Board became Rail Property Ltd. in July 1997. It is now a subsidiary company of the Strategic Rail Authority. It has commercial dealings with Railtrack from time to time.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he made to the directors of(a) Railtrack Group plc and (b) Railtrack plc in connection with the financial statements for the year ended 31 March. [8190]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The financial statements contained in Railtrack's annual report and accounts for 2000–01 are a matter for its Board of Directors and its auditors.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will serve on the board of the successor company to Railtrack plc. [8183]
  1316W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The identity of the directors of the proposed company has yet to be determined. Initially, the Strategic Rail Authority, in consultation with rail industry stakeholders and existing senior management of the company, would appoint directors. Members—a large majority of whom would be from the private sector—would be invited to confirm these initial appointments at a special general meeting. Subsequent board appointments would be decided by the board itself. Members would have the power to remove directors and would therefore have an effective right of veto. We anticipate this process would produce a highly competent board, representative of the interests of railway industry stakeholders.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial guarantees will be given in respect to debt finance obtained by the successor company to Railtrack plc. [8188]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have proposed a private sector Company Limited by Guarantee to succeed Railtrack and intend to agree a transfer scheme with the Railway Administrators. We plan to structure this new company so that it would achieve at least a BBB investment grade credit rating as the basis to raise debt finance.

  The new company would be entitled to receive track access payments from train operators along with the network grants from the SRA agreed as part of the Rail Regulator's October 2000 Periodic Review and the 2 April agreement between Railtrack and Government. These sources of income would be available to help achieve at least the BBB credit rating.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what events occurred subsequent to 3 July which required him to review the ownership and structure of the railway industry. [8192]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 954.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the legal advice he received concerning the use of section 59 of the Railways Act 1993. [8191]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions does not intend to publish any such legal advice.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the number of appeals his Department has received following its recent revaluation of the business rate. [8584]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Valuation Office Agency (VOA), an executive agency of Inland Revenue, is responsible for compiling and maintaining the non-domestic rating lists. The most recent revaluation took place on 1 April 2000. At 30 September 2001, VOA had received a total of 798,000 appeals against the rateable values shown in the new rating lists on 1 April 2000.
  1317W
  This figure includes 632,000 appeals made to challenge the initial valuations made by the VOA at the time of the revaluation on 1 April 2000, and 166,000 made on the grounds that the valuation has been affected by a change in circumstances that has occurred since that date.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on current procedures with regard to the appeals process for business rates with specific reference to the periods for any underpayment of rates. [8585]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Appeals against rateable values shown in the rating lists can be made at any time before a new rating list comes into force, by sending them to the local Valuation Officer of the Valuation Office Agency, an executive agency of Inland Revenue. The next revaluation is scheduled to come into force on 1 April 2005. Appeals are automatically sent to the independent Valuation Tribunal, if they are not settled by agreement between the ratepayer and the Valuation Officer.

  Where an appeal is made, the ratepayer must continue to comply with the payment schedule as set out in the original demand notice from the local authority. Payments may only be altered following the settlement of an appeal and following the issue of a revised bill by the local authority, or with the formal agreement of the billing authority. Where an appeal leads to a reduction in the amount due to be paid, any previous overpayment is refunded to the ratepayer with interest.

  In general, the effect of any appeal leading to a change in rateable value will be backdated either to the date that the change in value occurred, or the first day of the financial year in which the appeal was made, whichever is the later.

  However, in the following cases, changes in rateable value arising from an appeal will take effect from either the date that the change in value occurred or the day that the rating list came into force, whichever is the later:

  (i) deletion of properties from the rating list,

  (ii) changes between domestic and non-domestic use,

  (iii)splits and mergers of properties, and

  (iv)alterations arising from decisions of valuation tribunals, the lands tribunal and the higher courts.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the operation of rates relief for businesses affected by foot and mouth, with specific reference to(a) the Valuation Office and (b) individual local authorities. [8586]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authorities have discretion to provide rate relief of up to 100 per cent, to any ratepayers suffering hardship for any reason, under Section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Usually, 75 per cent, of the cost of any such relief is centrally funded, with local authorities funding the remaining 25 per cent., to reflect the benefit to the local community of granting the relief.

  Under Special Grant Reports 80 and 86, approved by Parliament on 2 April and 17 July 2001, the Government increased to 95 per cent, their contribution towards the cost to English rural local authorities of granting this relief to small businesses suffering hardship as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. Guidance on the general
  1318W
  operation of these arrangements was provided to local authorities in appendix (ii) to Special Grant Report No. 80.

  This increased level of funding applies in respect of properties with rateable values of up to £12,000 in 151 English rural local authorities, and up to £50,000 in 37 of these authorities that are located in the worst affected areas, for a period of nine months from 1 April 2001. The level of Government support also increases to 98 per cent, in total where the net cost to the authority would otherwise exceed 0.4 per cent, of the authority's net budget requirement for 2001–02.

  Special Grant Report No. 86 requires local authorities to submit claims for the grant by 31 March 2002. Those claims will provide information on the amount given in relief. Meanwhile, information provided by the Local Government Association shows that 117 English local authorities have received over 6,500 applications for hardship rate relief related to the foot and mouth outbreak.

  The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is responsible for setting rateable values, but has no role in administering rate relief. Ratepayers who believe that the rateable value of their properties has been adversely affected by the foot and mouth outbreak can appeal to the VOA for a reduction in rateable value. Around 72,000 such appeals have now been received in England. The VOA is now giving priority to settling appeals from businesses that have been worst affected by the outbreak.

  The Government also extended by three months to 30 June 2001 the deadline for all appeals relating to properties in the 151 rural authority areas. This allowed any changes to rateable values arising from foot and mouth related appeals made before that date to have effect from the date the outbreak affected the property, instead of being limited to 1 April 2001. It also allowed the effect of other appeals made in these areas up to 30 June 2001 to be backdated to 1 October 2000, or the date of any change to the property giving rise to the change in value, whichever is the later. The effect of appeals made on or after 1 July 2001 in these areas will be backdated to 1 April 2001, or the date of any change to the property giving rise to the change in value, whichever is the later.

  District Housing Authorities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's support for smaller district housing authorities, with specific reference to the selling up of arm's-length companies. [8531]

  Ms Keeble
  It is open to any authority, large or small, to seek a share of the additional resources announced in the Spending Review 2000 for authorities which establish arm's length housing management and demonstrate high standards. We have published detailed guidance which is available on the Department's website, and my officials will be happy to supplement this as necessary.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department's investigation into the problem of dumped vehicles will report. [8560]
  1319W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement by 31 October.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy of a re-banding exercise for council tax. [8587]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have announced our intention to conduct a council tax revaluation in England. Properties will be placed into updated valuation bands according to their values on 1 April 2005, and changes will first impact on council tax bills in 2007. Revaluation should not, of course, lead to any overall increase or decrease in the council tax yield. Decisions on the band thresholds will be taken closer to the time of revaluation, when we will know more about the distribution of property values across England.

  Transport Commissioners
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will investigate the role of the Transport Commissioners and their ability to impose particular conditions in the operation of the rural transport grant. [8530]

  Ms Keeble
  Rural bus services supported by grants from my Department are provided by operators under contracts to local authorities who specify and enforce the terms of the contract. There is no specific role for the Traffic Commissioners on such services. However, all local bus services must register route and timetable with the Traffic Commissioner who can take disciplinary action if the service is not run reliably according to those details. Traffic Commissioners, at the request of the local authority, can also impose conditions on bus operators on the grounds of reducing danger to road users, congestion or pollution.

  Unitary Local Authorities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals regarding unitary local authorities. [8488]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no plans for moving now to more unitary local authorities. As previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we intend to publish a Regional Governance White Paper, and this will set out how we plan to take forward our Manifesto commitment that"provision should be made for directly elected regional government to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local government is established".

  Public Interest Trusts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met representatives of the Institute of Public Policy Research to discuss(a) Project Ariel and (b) public interest trusts. [8189]
  1320W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has had no such meetings.

  Birchwood Park, Warrington
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the Highways Agency to lift its holding directive in order to allow Warrington borough council to determine the planning application for the re-development of Birchwood Park. [8203]

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

  Letter from Ginny Clarke to Helen Jones, dated 18 October 2001:
  The Roads Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Holding Direction issued to Warrington Borough Council by the Highways Agency on 27 June this year, in respect of the Birchwood Park Outline Planning Application.
  The Minister's letter of 11 October in reply to yours of 18 September (copies enclosed), explained why the Direction was issued and the prerequisites for the Direction to be lifted. Since then we have now presented the independent study document to the Developer and his consultants. We hope it will form a basis for us, the local Highway Authority and the Developer to discuss the likely impact of the development on the surrounding highway network, and to determine the necessary measures to cater for that impact.
  We do not wish to delay this proposal, but we must ensure that its traffic implications are properly assessed. Progress towards lifting the Direction is dependent on the Developer's consultant presenting suitable measures to provide for the impact on the trunk road and motorway network.
  I am sorry that I cannot, at the moment, say when the Holding Direction will be lifted. If you would like any further information about this scheme, you may wish to contact the Agency's Development Control Officer for this particular application, Tony McVay, Room 710, Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, M I 4BE (telephone 0161 930 5764).

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take action to limit construction of wind turbines in upland areas close to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. [4696]

  Ms Keeble
  Planning policy guidance for renewable energy projects is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 22: Renewable Energy. This gives guidance to local planning authorities on the siting of renewable energy projects.

  We have no proposals to bring in specific planning controls, beyond those of normal development control, to protect the visual amenity of views looking out from National Parks and Areas Of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
  1321W
  The guiding principle in countryside planning policies is that development should both benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance the environment. The key aim is to get the right amount of development of the right quality in the right places.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Special Constables (Thames Valley)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in the Thames Valley Police Force in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000. [5758]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of serving special constables in Thames Valley Police force from 30 September 1996 to 30 September 2000 are set out in the table:

  Year

  Numbers

  1996

  731

  1997

  694

  1998

  587

  1999

  514

  2000

  463

  Statistics provided by Research, Development and Statistics department.

  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and we are looking at radical improvements in their management, welfare and deployment as part of the police reform process.

  Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the proportion of people under 25 reporting use of illegal drugs(a) in the last month and (b) in the last 12 months in each year since 1997. [5884]

  Mr. Denham
  The British Crime Survey provides data on the levels of self-reported drug use among a representative sample of the general population in England and Wales. The survey of smoking, drinking and drug use among school children provides equivalent data for those aged 11 to 15 years.

  Table 1 provides the relevant data for 1998 and 2000 for those aged 16 to 24 years. Table 2 provides the equivalent data for 11 to 15-year-olds.

  Table 1: Percentages of respondents aged 16 to 24 years reporting use of illegal drugs in the last year and last month, in England and Wales

  Last year

  Last month

  1998

  29

  19

  2000

  29

  18

  Bases:
  1998=1,296; 200=1,517

  Source:
  Drug Misuse Declared in 2000; results from the British Crime Survey, Home Office research Study 224
  1322W

  Table 2: Percentages of school children aged 11 to 15 years reporting use of illegal drugs in the last year and last month, in England

  Last year

  Last month

  1998

  11

  7

  1999

  12

  7

  2000

  14

  9

  Bases:
  1998 = 4,647; 1999 = 9,053; 2000 = 6,855

  Source:
  Department of Health Statistical Press Notice, July 2001. Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2000

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people under 25 who were using heroin in 1998, and in each subsequent year to date. [5760]

  Mr. Denham
  The British Crime Survey provides data on the levels of self-reported drug use among a representative sample of the general population in England and Wales. The table provides data for 1998 and 2000 on the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who have used heroin and the estimated number of 16 to 24-year-olds who have used heroin. Further information on population estimates and how these have been calculated is available in Chapter 5 of the main report (referenced in the table).

  Estimated numbers for the younger age group (11 to 15-year-olds) are not available.

  Table 1: Percentage of 16 to 24-year-olds who have used heroin in the last year and last month use (England and Wales)

  1998

  2000

  Proportion using heroin in the last year

  0.30

  0.80

  Estimated numbers

  17,000

  46,000

  Proportion using heroin in the last month

  0.27

  0.32

  Estimated numbers

  15,000

  18,000

  Bases:
  1998 = 1,296; 2,000 = 1,517

  Source:
  Drug Misuse Declared in 2000; results from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study 224

  Firearms
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving the use of firearms occurred in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [5781]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of recorded crimes involving firearms committed in England and Wales since 1996 are given in the table.

  Number of recorded crimes involving the use of firearms

  Year

  Firearms other than air weapons

  Air weapons

  Total offences

  1996

  6,063

  7,813

  13,876

  1997

  4,904

  7,506

  12,410

  1997–981

  4,903

  7,902

  12,805

  1998–991

  5,209

  8,665

  13,874

  1999–20001

  6,843

  10,103

  16,946

  1Year ending March

  1323W
  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, and hence figures before and after this date are not directly comparable. Details for the financial year 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving firearms were committed in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [7612]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The number of recorded crimes involving firearms committed in England and Wales in the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Firearms other than air weapons

  Air weapons

  Total offences

  1995

  5,866

  7,568

  13,434

  1996

  6,063

  7,813

  13,876

  1997

  4,904

  7,506

  12,410

  1997–981

  4,903

  7,902

  12,805

  1998–991

  5,209

  8,665

  13,874

  1999–20001

  6,843

  10,103

  16,946

  1Year ending March

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, and hence figures before and after this date are not directly comparable. Figures for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Home Secretary (Appointment)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what duties the police officers and the patrol car used for the photo opportunity to announce his appointment as Home Secretary were withdrawn from; and if he will make a statement; [5777]

  (2) what advice he received from the duty officer at Belgravia police station about the availability of police resources for the photo opportunity to announce his appointment as Home Secretary; and if he will make a statement. [5778]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that two police officers and one police vehicle deployed from Belgravia Police Station were present at the photo opportunity outside the Home Office on 9 June. They had already been assigned to security patrol in the same vicinity, and remained available for redeployment elsewhere if the need arose.

  Police
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on reforms to police working conditions. [5780]

  Mr. Denham
  The police reform programme is about making the police service more effective in catching criminals and reducing crime and the fear of crime. To help ensure that the police service has the support it, managers and officers need to deliver these outputs we will be presenting the Police Negotiating Board with the 1324W
  outcomes we wish to achieve in respect of relevant police conditions so that it can recommend how best to deliver them.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers are serving in each specialist non-territorial constabulary; and in what respects their powers differ from the general powers of police forces. [7401]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) principal applicants and (b) dependants would gain the right to take paid employment in the United Kingdom if the EEC draft directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in member states were implemented. [6059]

  Angela Eagle
  If the European Economic Community (EEC) draft directive were implemented there would be no change with regards to rights of employment for principal applicants. When considering dependants, this issue is to be the subject of detailed discussions in the council working groups.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were dispersed on arrival in each month since January; and what percentage of these have since moved elsewhere and are no longer in receipt of housing aid. [7628]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Statistics recorded by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) show that as at the end of July 2001, 28,8101 asylum seekers, including dependants, were being supported in NASS accommodation.

  As at the end of July 2001, over 7,000 cases, excluding dependants, had ceased to receive support from NASS. But this will include both cases which had not been dispersed and cases which have received a positive asylum decision.

  The requested breakdown is currently unavailable.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value of contracts is awarded to(a) the private sector, (b) local authorities and (c) the voluntary sector in relation to the Government's dispersal scheme for asylum seekers; and how many individuals have been accommodated by each sector. [7412]

  Angela Eagle
  I am unable to supply information on the value of individual contracts between National Asylum Support Service (NASS) and its suppliers. This information is commercial in confidence and cannot be released to third parties.

  I am afraid that the NASS statistics do not show whether asylum seekers and their dependants are being accommodated by the private sector, local authorities or the voluntary sector However I can say that approximately 60 per cent. of bedspaces are provided by private sector companies and the remainder by local authorities and the voluntary sector.
  1325W
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value of the contracts awarded to the Landmark Company is in relation to the dispersal of asylum seekers. [7413]

  Angela Eagle
  I am afraid that I am unable to supply the information. The value of individual contracts between National Asylum Support Service (NASS) and its suppliers is commercial in confidence and cannot be released to third parties.

  Extradition
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his strategy for improving the effectiveness, speed and enforceability of extradition procedures internationally. [7302]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  An Extradition Bill will be introduced to streamline extradition law and procedure. The content of the Bill will be based on the Home Office review "The Law on Extradition", published in March 2001. The main elements of the Government's strategy are to establish fast-track extradition with our European Union (EU) partners building on the European Council Framework Decision in the European Arrest Warrant.

  The Bill will also contain provisions to simplify and speed up the handling of extradition requests from the United Kingdom's extradition partners outside the EU.

  Habitual Criminals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many habitual criminals(a) are under 21, (b) are hard drug users, (c) are without school qualifications and (d) were in care as children; and if he will make a statement. [7296]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no agreed definition of a habitual criminal. However data are available on offenders with three or more previous convictions, or with five or more previous convictions.

  From a sample of persons sentenced for standard list offences during 1999, of those with three or more previous convictions for standard list offences, 19 per cent, were aged under 21; and of those with five or more previous convictions for standard list offences, 15 per cent. were aged under 21.

  From a survey of 1,884 male prisoners sentenced in early 2000 the analysis in the table has been obtained:

  Male prisoners with:

  Three or more previous convictions1

  Five or more previous convictions1

  Percentage who

  Admitted to using cocaine, crack or heroin during the previous twelve months

  57

  60

  Had no school qualifications

  66

  67

  Were in care as a child

  35

  37

  1Based on number of convictions admitted by the offender

  Devolved Administrations
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department giving
  1326W
  evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly Committees; and to what categories of document he gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (w) Scottish Parliament, (x) Welsh Assembly, (y) Northern Ireland Assembly and (z) House of Commons select committees. [7009]

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

  Labour Shortages
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to fast-track asylum or immigration applicants who are skilled in the area of trades where the UK has labour shortages. [8562]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Secretary has announced further plans for controlled channels of entry to help meet skill needs in the United Kingdom economy. These will provide a legal route for those who can earn their living and contribute to the United Kingdom. But these proposals must be seen as separate from asylum. There are no plans to allow any asylum seeker who has made his way to this country to take up any form of employment other than the existing concessionary arrangements for adult asylum seekers where their application has been outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made on it.

  Crimestoppers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much financial assistance was given by his Department to Crimestoppers for the financial years(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; how much he proposes to grant for the 2002–03 financial year. [8302]

  Mr. Denham
  In 2000–01 the Home Office made a grant of £90,000 to Crimestoppers for their administration costs and provided £40,000 to fund an evaluation of the effectiveness of their work. We are currently considering the question of Home Office assistance to Crimestoppers now and in the future.

HEALTH

  Breastfeeding
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of mothers(a) in the Stretley/Broxtowe surestart area and (b) in the UK breastfeed their babies. [7303]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data collected by the Stretley/Broxtowe sure start programme from local midwifery and health visiting records show that in 1999, 22 per cent. of mothers in Stretley/Broxtowe sure start area breastfed at birth, 10 per cent, at six weeks and four per cent, at four months.

  Preliminary results from the first stage of the 2000 infant feeding survey show an increase in the number of mothers in the United Kingdom who initiate breastfeeding. The overall breastfeeding rates rose from 66 per cent, in 1995 to 69 per cent, in 2000. The incidence of breastfeeding in England and Wales increased from 68 per cent, in 1995 to 70 per cent, in 2000. In Scotland

  1327W
  and Northern Ireland the rate increased from 55 per cent, in 1995 to 63 per cent, in 2000, and 45 per cent, in 1995 to 54 per cent, in 2000 respectively. The increase has been particularly marked in low income households in England, where breastfeeding rates increased from 50 per cent, to 62 per cent, of women between 1995 and 2000.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the dissemination of digital hearing aids by the NHS in the last three years; and if he will make a statement on his plans for future dissemination of hearing aids. [7396]

  Jacqui Smith
  Twenty National Health Service trusts in England have been fitting digital hearing aids for NHS patients since October 2000, as part of the Department's "modernising NHS hearing aid services" project. The project also includes increased investment in information technology, equipment and modernised patient processes. The Institute of Hearing Research is evaluating the project and its findings will help determine how changes in hearing aid services might be extended to all NHS audiology departments.

  In the meantime all NHS trusts with the staff, training, equipment and experience necessary to fit digital hearing aids, are able to apply for access to the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids. Twenty five trusts have been given access to the contract allowing them to fit digital aids for patients outside the project.

  Waiting Times
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target he has set for waiting times for in-patient treatment in West Surrey. [7702]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan (published in July 2000) set a national target for waiting times. By March 2002, no one should wait longer than 15 months for in-patient treatment.

  West Surrey health authority have submitted performance improvement plans which set the following targets for West Surrey:
  By March 2002 there should be no more than 697 people waiting longer than 12 months for in-patient treatment and by September 2002 there should be no more than 357 people waiting longer than 12 months.

  These plans have been approved by the national health service south east regional office who will be monitoring progress closely.

  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients waiting for in-patient treatment in West Surrey have been waiting for more than one year; in which health authorities the percentage is highest; which health authority has the largest percentage waiting more than one year; which health authorities have no one waiting more than one year; and what steps he has taken to reduce variations in patients waiting over one year in the NHS. [7701]

  Ms Blears
  At the end of August 2001, 10.9 per cent, of patients in the West Surrey health authority area had waited over 12 months for in-patient treatment. This is the highest 1328W
  percentage in England. The health authority area with the lowest percentage is Dorset with 0.1 per cent. There are no health authorities in England without patients waiting over 12 months.

  The NHS Plan contains a target to reduce the maximum waiting time to six months for in-patient treatment and three months for out-patient appointments by 2005. The Modernisation Agency and Department of Health's regional offices are working with the national health service significantly to improve access to care and to reduce variations in waiting times in the areas with the longest waits. West Surrey health authority has also developed action plans to bring about improvements locally.

  Hospices (Funding)
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage is of revenue costs financed by public funds at the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice, Farnham. [7558]

  Ms Blears
  I understand that 17.2 per cent, of the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice's revenue costs are financed by West Surrey health authority. We are committed to tackling inequalities in access to specialist palliative care services for patients. The Cancer Plan set out our intention to support this by investing an additional £50 million in specialist palliative care by 2004. This will mean that for the first time the national health service investment in specialist palliative care services will match that of the voluntary sector.

  We have required all cancer networks to develop costed strategic investment plans for palliative care, which will inform the wider NHS planning process through health improvement programmes and service and financial frameworks for 2002–03. This will be the mechanism by which we will see inequalities in palliative care service provision addressed and also more realistic support for voluntary hospices.

  Reciprocal Health Agreements
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in each of the last five years, what was the net cost to the United Kingdom of reciprocal health agreements with each non-EU country with which a reciprocal agreement is in force. [7216]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The United Kingdom's bilateral reciprocal health agreements generally cover only immediately necessary treatment for temporary visitors. They have been negotiated on a cost waiver basis, with each of the parties to the agreement bearing the cost of treating the others' people. Net cost information is therefore not available.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated in overseas hospitals, funded by the NHS, in each of the last five years. [7218]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]United Kingdom residents are personally liable for costs of hospital and other medical treatment overseas unless there are reciprocal health agreements under which costs
  1329W
  are assumed by Governments. Since many of these agreements are on a cost waiver basis information on numbers of patients treated in overseas hospitals is not available.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in each of the last five years, what has been the net cost to the United Kingdom of reciprocal health agreements with each EU country. [7217]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 is the European Commission legislation which co-ordinates the health care systems of

  Estimated net costs to the United Kingdom of reciprocal health arrangements with EU countries during 1996 to 2000

  £sterling

  Country

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Austria

  919,000

  1,337,000

  1,219,000

  1,228,000

  1,145,000

  Belgium

  815,000

  341,000

  330,000

  403,000

  378,000

  Denmark

  Waiver

  Waiver

  Waiver

  Waiver

  Waiver

  Finland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  France

  17,796,000

  17,049,000

  21,989,000

  20,618,000

  21,674,000

  Germany

  169,000

  312,000

  434,000

  354,000

  363,000

  Greece

  54,000

  -17,000

  -117,000

  -46,000

  -139,000

  Ireland

  75,040,000

  83,458,000

  79,948,000

  96,387,000

  107,229,000

  Italy

  -480,000

  -709,000

  -1,120,000

  -1,392,000

  -1,822,000

  Luxembourg

  Waiver

  Waiver

  Waiver

  Waiver

  Waiver

  Netherlands

  1,509,000

  1,423,000

  1,148,000

  1,268,000

  1,052,000

  Portugal

  398,000

  292,000

  246,000

  268,000

  239,000

  Spain

  34,418,000

  27,996,000

  23,463,000

  26,338,000

  23,226,000

  Sweden

  -230,000

  -196,000

  -327,000

  -518,000

  -491,000

  Notes:
  1. Figures are based on latest available information and used for Resource Accounting and Budgeting purposes.

  2. Claims against the UK are made in national currency and converted into sterling by using the quarterly mean exchange rates published by the EU commission.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. A minus sign indicated that the UK is an overall creditor.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of(a) the average length of time a nurse will need to spend per person when using the assessment tool for free nursing care and (b) the number of nurses required to complete the assessment by all self-funders by Christmas; [7481]

  (2) which organisations his Department consulted in drawing up the assessment tool for implementing free nursing care. [7447]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The testing of the registered nursing care contribution (RNCC) tool has indicated that, on average, determinations take between 50 minutes and one hour to carry out.

  By the end of this month, a total of 800 nurses in England will have undergone training in the use of the tool to enable the planned programme of determinations to be completed by the end of December.

  The RNCC was developed with the input from a wide variety of organisations, nurses, as well as social services staff and the independent nursing home sector. National health service and independent sector nurses took part in its evaluation.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if part-funders in nursing homes will be assessed under the free nursing care guidance; when the assessments will 1330W
  the member states. It provides for health care to be given at the expense of the patient's home country, in a wide range of circumstances, including immediately necessary health care for temporary visitors, patients referred specifically for treatment, treatment for state pensioners who have retired to another member state, and for posted workers.

  Member states pay each other for such treatments. The table gives the net cost to the United Kingdom (on a resource accounting basis). The figures reflect the fact that with many member states there are more UK pensioners and tourists going to other member states than vice versa.

  commence; when they will be concluded; what levels of payment they will be entitled to; and if he will set out for each health authority how many part-funders there are; [7480]

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that self and part-funding residents in nursing homes receive a reduction in their nursing home fee equivalent to the NHS payments for nursing care under the free nursing care assessment. [7388]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Those people who have, prior to 1 October 2001, paid a council towards the cost of their care by a registered nurse (part funders) will be classed as self funders from that date and treated identically. Those people entering nursing homes after 1 October 2001 who would previously have paid a small amount to the council in respect of their care by a registered nurse will no longer need to do so. All self funders currently in a nursing home should have had a determination of their need for the care of a registered nurse carried out by the end of December this year. The actual reductions in the level of payments experienced by this group will vary depending on the level of assessed need and how the council had previously assessed them. Information on the number of people in this group by health authority is not held centrally, but there are thought to be less than 10 per health authority on average in England.
  1331W
  Primary care trusts and health authorities have been asked to ensure that the contracts that they establish with nursing homes reflect the National Health Service contribution towards individuals' costs of nursing care and the expectation that this will result in a similar reduction in people's care home fees.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards the payment of individuals eligible for free nursing help since the change in procedures. [8555]

  Jacqui Smith
  Primary care trusts and health authorities have begun the process of arranging payments to nursing homes in respect of residents who fund the full cost of their nursing care themselves from 1 October. Determinations of individual nursing need are being

  Finished consultant episodes: quarterly data by area of residence, ordinary admission/day case split, for patients aged over 75 NHS Hospitals England 1999–2000

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Ordinary admission

  Daycase

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Northern & Yorkshire Regional

  QDD Bradford HA

  4,041

  946

  3,852

  1,154

  4,305

  1,044

  4,253

  1,236

  QDE County Durham HA

  4,968

  1,278

  5,012

  1,366

  5,492

  1,423

  6,186

  1,603

  QDF East Riding HA

  5,539

  1,298

  5,640

  1,317

  5,772

  1,361

  6,068

  1,602

  QDG Gateshead & South Tyneside HA

  3,506

  1,207

  3.693

  1,241

  4,265

  1,202

  4,306

  1,284

  QDH Leeds HA

  7,546

  1,420

  7,559

  1,600

  8,338

  1,604

  8,415

  1,569

  QDJ Newcastle & North Tyneside HA

  4,674

  1,467

  4,868

  1,547

  5,214

  1,629

  5,447

  1,810

  QDK North Cumbria HA

  3,017

  722

  2,991

  715

  3,424

  811

  3,725

  884

  QDM Northumberland HA

  3,002

  875

  3,098

  1,057

  3,330

  1,010

  3,336

  1,178

  QDN Sunderland HA

  2,041

  995

  2,000

  821

  2,631

  971

  2,982

  1,002

  QDP Tees HA

  4,753

  1,043

  5,053

  1,175

  5,611

  1,254

  5,344

  1,434

  QDQ Wakefield HA

  2,416

  639

  2,317

  638

  2,540

  639

  2,553

  770

  QDR North Yorkshire HA

  6,427

  1,868

  6,484

  2,138

  7,113

  2,158

  6,868

  2,308

  QDT Calderdale & Kirklees HA

  4,815

  1,177

  5,063

  1,285

  5,329

  1,326

  5,582

  1,478

  Trent Regional Office

  QCG Barnsley HA

  3,044

  449

  3,001

  498

  3,210

  514

  3,294

  527

  QCH North Derbyshire HA

  3,407

  899

  3,347

  941

  3,705

  878

  3,995

  1,127

  QCJ South Derbyshire HA

  5,536

  1,454

  5,820

  1,568

  6,261

  1,489

  6,438

  1,577

  QCK Doncaster HA

  2,695

  797

  2,840

  908

  2,740

  997

  3,144

  1,191

  QCL Leicestershire HA

  9,057

  2,058

  9,463

  2,235

  9,715

  2,293

  9,452

  2,375

  QCM Lincolnshire HA

  6,522

  1,417

  6,710

  1,626

  7,256

  1,617

  7,279

  1,709

  QCN North Nottinghamshire HA

  3,944

  769

  3,879

  821

  4,718

  810

  4,965

  846

  QCP Nottingham HA

  6,649

  1,286

  7,015

  1,352

  7,786

  1,405

  8,002

  1,425

  QCQ Rotherham HA

  1,883

  370

  1,836

  511

  2,006

  529

  2,105

  575

  QCR Sheffield HA

  5,331

  1,150

  5,318

  1,292

  5,874

  1,464

  5,986

  1,647

  QDL South Humber HA

  2,441

  626

  2,486

  720

  2,612

  736

  2,630

  878

  West Midlands Regional Office

  QD9 Birmingham HA

  8,317

  1,966

  8,280

  2,176

  9,134

  2,150

  9,419

  2,362

  QEA Coventry HA

  2,655

  621

  2,702

  659

  3,001

  767

  2,920

  814

  QEC Dudley HA

  1,969

  854

  2,048

  836

  2,237

  860

  2,046

  857

  QED Herefordshire HA

  1,426

  419

  1,311

  369

  1,483

  538

  1,474

  542

  QEE Sandwell HA

  2,206

  719

  2,391

  792

  2,735

  745

  2,793

  861

  QEF Shropshire HA

  3,166

  983

  3,280

  1,029

  3,465

  1,069

  3,534

  1,180

  QEG Solihull HA

  1,289

  478

  1,463

  502

  1,624

  494

  1,610

  549

  QEH North Staffordshire HA

  3,845

  1,535

  4,029

  1,540

  4,064

  1,526

  4,050

  1,584

  QEJ South Staffordshire HA

  4,276

  1,637

  4,357

  1,563

  4,707

  1,541

  4,691

  1,606

  QEK Walsall HA

  2,019

  419

  2,007

  468

  2,421

  448

  2,561

  560

  QEL Warwickshire HA

  4,240

  1,115

  4,109

  1,147

  4,697

  1,158

  4,592

  1,226

  QEM Wolverhampton HA

  1,778

  410

  1,957

  458

  2,359

  508

  2,590

  656

  QEN Worcestershire HA

  4,010

  1,166

  3,861

  1,187

  4,106

  1,249

  4,025

  1,368

  North West Regional Office

  QC 1 South Lancashire HA

  2,802

  1,087

  2,838

  990

  2,872

  1,103

  2,880

  1,091

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  5,470

  1,177

  5,571

  1,176

  6,158

  1,150

  6,362

  1,216

  QC3 Manchester HA

  3,411

  1,304

  3,516

  1,486

  3,737

  1,469

  3,583

  1,583

  QC4 Morecambe Bay HA

  2,873

  1,189

  2,834

  1,402

  3,092

  1,275

  3,109

  1,378

  1332W
  carried out by National Health Service registered nurses now, a programme that should be completed by the end of December 2001.

  Elderly In-patients
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each(a) NHS region and (b) health authority the number of elderly people aged 75 years or over for each quarter from Q1 1999–2000 to Q1 2001–02 for (i) ordinary admissions, (ii) day admissions and (iii) any other category or sub-category of admission for which statistics are collected. [7391]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The table shows a count of ordinary admission and day case finished consultant episodes by health authority area of residence for patients aged 75 and over in each quarter for 1999–2000. Data for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not yet published.
  1333W

  Finished consultant episodes: quarterly data by area of residence, ordinary admission/day case split, for patients aged over 75 NHS Hospitals England 1999–2000

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Ordinary admission

  Daycase

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  QC5 St. Helens & Knowsley HA

  3,246

  794

  3,328

  805

  3,647

  824

  3,662

  831

  QC6 Salford & Trafford HA

  4,456

  1,751

  4,520

  1,854

  4,654

  1,830

  4,768

  1,806

  QC7 Sefton HA

  2,726

  1,073

  2,863

  1,143

  3,284

  1,048

  2,865

  1,163

  QC8 Stockport HA

  2,269

  1,157

  2,270

  1,302

  2,444

  1,313

  2,706

  1,272

  QC9 West Pennine HA

  4,355

  1,347

  4,443

  1,623

  4,512

  1,768

  4,622

  2,025

  QCT Bury & Rochdale HA

  3,607

  1,142

  3,517

  1,185

  3,867

  1,180

  4,139

  1,412

  QCV North Cheshire HA

  2,754

  710

  2,824

  782

  3,461

  785

  2,911

  824

  QCW South Cheshire HA

  5,161

  1,656

  5,644

  1,847

  5,935

  1,789

  6,255

  1,911

  QCX East Lancashire HA

  5,365

  1,863

  5,391

  2,063

  5,772

  1,994

  5,831

  2,154

  QCY North West Lancashire HA

  4,643

  2,357

  4,516

  2,477

  4,662

  2,433

  5,063

  2,897

  QDA Wigan & Bolton HA

  5,000

  1,447

  5,203

  1,629

  5,651

  1,565

  6,184

  1,721

  QDC Wirral HA

  4,434

  507

  4,251

  559

  4,805

  618

  4,654

  734

  Eastern Regional Office

  QA6 Bedfordshire HA

  3,967

  1,008

  4,045

  958

  4,320

  945

  3,586

  1,036

  QAX North Essex HA

  7,343

  1,548

  7,567

  1,685

  7,854

  1,846

  8,652

  1,889

  QAY South Essex HA

  6,271

  1,787

  6,259

  1,874

  6,705

  1,816

  6,590

  2,142

  QCF Suffolk HA

  7,961

  1,745

  7,805

  1,889

  8,418

  1,906

  8,060

  2,089

  QEP East & North Hertfordshire HA

  4,071

  1,286

  4,148

  1,414

  4,328

  1,327

  4,969

  1,515

  QEQ West Hertfordshire HA

  4,285

  1,094

  4,258

  1,205

  4,719

  1,177

  4,683

  1,278

  QER Cambridge HA

  6,525

  1,436

  6,734

  1,605

  7,420

  1,570

  8,244

  1,772

  QET Norfolk HA

  10,043

  2,429

  9,717

  2,783

  10,608

  2,796

  10,525

  2,948

  London Regional Office

  QA2 Hillingdon HA

  1,706

  467

  1,665

  455

  1,983

  510

  1,921

  549

  QA3 Kensington Chelsea & Westminster

  2,495

  667

  2,380

  680

  2,515

  667

  2,462

  762

  QA4 Enfield & Haringey HA

  2,884

  869

  2,735

  942

  3,094

  941

  2,955

  1,089

  QA5 Redbridge & Waltham Forest HA

  3,064

  1,078

  3,102

  1,103

  3,422

  1,024

  3,324

  1,143

  QAA Bexley & Greenwich HA

  3,086

  838

  3,199

  813

  3,345

  838

  3,226

  999

  QAC Bromley HA

  2,672

  787

  2,519

  842

  2,713

  914

  2,647

  929

  QAD Croydon HA

  2,057

  703

  2,073

  683

  2,267

  721

  2,230

  721

  QAG Kingston & Richmond HA

  2,520

  638

  2,583

  700

  2,929

  757

  2,795

  746

  QAH Lambeth Southwark & Lewisham

  3,668

  1,026

  3,930

  1,062

  4,444

  1,018

  4,281

  1,084

  QAJ Merton Sutton & Wandsworth HA

  4,151

  1,173

  4,295

  1,177

  4,507

  1,143

  4,565

  1,189

  QAP Barking & Havering HA

  3,123

  925

  3,126

  919

  3,570

  985

  3,549

  1,005

  QAQ Barnet HA

  2,583

  592

  2,462

  616

  2,677

  568

  2,786

  722

  QAR Brent & Harrow HA

  2,769

  880

  2,618

  907

  2,922

  958

  3,111

  1,080

  QAT Camden & Islington HA

  2,357

  446

  2,420

  546

  2,584

  481

  2,650

  548

  QAV Ealing Hammersmith & Hounslow

  3,897

  1,075

  3,767

  1,143

  4,333

  1,254

  4,146

  1,213

  QAW East London & The City HA

  3,500

  739

  3,650

  827

  3,994

  839

  3,974

  890

  South East Regional Office

  QA7 Berkshire HA

  4,988

  1,084

  4,900

  1,193

  5,281

  1,190

  5,041

  1,361

  QA8 Buckinghamshire HA

  4,499

  911

  4,602

  1,015

  5,145

  1,051

  4,892

  1,149

  QAE East Kent HA

  6,732

  1,666

  6,010

  1,699

  6,945

  2,020

  5,450

  2,176

  QAF West Kent HA

  7,680

  1,344

  7,187

  1,448

  7,295

  1,543

  7,448

  1,676

  QAK East Surrey HA

  3,714

  877

  3,416

  950

  3,547

  866

  3,401

  883

  QAL West Surrey HA

  4,459

  1,248

  4,535

  1,478

  5,149

  1,402

  4,782

  1,364

  QAM East Sussex Brighton & Hove HA

  8,022

  2,126

  8,268

  2,309

  8,590

  2,208

  8,539

  2,420

  QAN West Sussex HA

  6,772

  2,071

  6,885

  2,317

  7,418

  2,422

  7,612

  2,612

  QCC Northamptonshire HA

  4,976

  1,171

  4.813

  1,338

  5,171

  1,302

  5,646

  1,384

  QCE Oxfordshire HA

  4,602

  1,092

  4,462

  1,132

  4,790

  1,104

  4,666

  1,002

  QD1 North & Mid Hampshire HA

  4,127

  1,054

  4,099

  1,005

  4,136

  930

  4,351

  1,048

  QD2 Portsmouth & South East Hampshire

  5,185

  1,093

  4,896

  1,312

  5,823

  1,187

  5,634

  1,317

  QD3 Southampton & South West Hampshire

  5,541

  1,688

  5,751

  1,893

  6,308

  1,761

  6,325

  2,098

  QD4 Isle of Wight HA

  1,542

  223

  1,400

  258

  1,562

  261

  1,500

  260

  South West Regional Office

  QD5 Somerset HA

  5,308

  1,421

  5,082

  1,378

  5,676

  1,443

  5,832

  1,807

  QD6 South & West Devon HA

  6,721

  1,716

  6,481

  1,788

  6,730

  1,733

  6,694

  1,823

  QD7 Wiltshire HA

  4,560

  1,191

  4,606

  1,409

  4,832

  1,383

  5,108

  1,422

  QD8 Avon HA

  9,163

  2,552

  9,058

  2,679

  9,678

  2,792

  9,529

  3,058

  QDV Cornwall & Isles of Scilly HA

  6,240

  2,416

  6,503

  2,386

  6,957

  2,096

  6,954

  1,521

  QDW Dorset HA

  10,877

  3,491

  10,436

  3,844

  10,812

  3,775

  11,506

  4,014

  QDX North & East Devon HA

  5,839

  1,626

  5,662

  1,706

  6,312

  1,831

  6,833

  1,901

  QDY Gloucestershire HA

  5,007

  1,533

  5,004

  1,608

  5,347

  1,645

  5,307

  1,764

  QW1 Gwent HA

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  QW2 Bro Taf HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  QW3 Dyfed Powys HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  QW4 North Wales HA

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1334W 1335W

  Finished consultant episodes: quarterly data by area of residence, ordinary admission/day case split, for patients aged over 75 NHS Hospitals England 1999–2000

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Ordinary admission

  Daycase

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  Ordinary admission

  Day case

  QW5 Iechyd Morgannwg HA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Wales (other)

  965

  308

  1,122

  342

  1,165

  354

  1,153

  482

  Scotland

  197

  18

  300

  22

  200

  26

  171

  19

  Foreign

  1,413

  899

  1,425

  838

  1,350

  777

  1,406

  761

  Northern Ireland

  13

  1

  17

  1

  14

  0

  13

  0

  Not known

  331

  25

  413

  33

  483

  33

  485

  25

  Total

  437,494

  119,175

  439,061

  127,784

  476,222

  128,497

  480,467

  138,903

  Note:

  1. An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  2. Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of a molar root treatment is in(a) the general dental service and (b) the personal dental services. [8064]

  Ms Blears
  The item of service fee currently paid to a dentist for providing a molar root treatment (endodontics) under general dental services is £68.65 per molar tooth. Under the personal dental service's arrangements, treatments are not remunerated on an item of service basis but are included as part of the overall contractual arrangements, which, for example, may be by way of salary, capitation payments, modified item of service or block contract, the category of patient treated and the range of treatments being provided under each individual pilot's arrangements.

  General dental service: Number of dentists whose adult registrations fell to zero during the financial year: England

  Health authority

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  Hillingdon

  6

  9

  4

  7

  10

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  19

  20

  29

  18

  23

  Enfield and Haringey

  18

  14

  17

  10

  13

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  8

  3

  11

  6

  4

  Bedfordshire

  11

  11

  6

  10

  7

  Berkshire

  16

  12

  12

  20

  11

  Buckinghamshire

  15

  14

  16

  14

  12

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  1—

  1—

  1—

  9

  5

  Bexley and Greenwich

  13

  8

  11

  8

  7

  Bromley

  6

  5

  6

  12

  8

  Croydon

  12

  6

  12

  11

  11

  East Kent

  13

  17

  10

  12

  18

  West Kent

  27

  27

  24

  37

  23

  Kingston and Richmond

  11

  13

  10

  4

  6

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  18

  24

  38

  19

  29

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  24

  17

  19

  17

  11

  East Surrey

  10

  11

  8

  8

  18

  West Surrey

  16

  18

  10

  19

  9

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  20

  20

  17

  10

  12

  West Sussex

  18

  18

  17

  18

  15

  Barking and Havering

  4

  4

  4

  7

  6

  Barnet

  7

  10

  11

  12

  11

  Brent and Harrow

  7

  14

  13

  8

  11

  Camden and Islington

  23

  20

  22

  19

  16

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  25

  24

  38

  35

  22

  East London and The City

  13

  20

  17

  15

  14

  North Essex

  20

  13

  18

  19

  16

  South Essex

  24

  11

  12

  6

  24

  South Lancashire

  6

  5

  7

  3

  3

  1336W
  Patients pay the same charge for treatment under the personal dental service as they do under the general dental service. The current charge for molar root treatment is £54.92 per molar tooth.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have de-listed themselves from taking NHS adult patients by each health authority area, in each of the last six years. [8553]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the number of the General Dental Service (GDS) dentists in each health authority whose adult registration numbers fell to zero during each of the last five financial years ending in March. The vast majority of these dentists are leavers from the GDS. They will leave for a number of reasons, for example retirement, and some are absent only temporarily.

  Those people who wish to see a national health service dentist should now be able to do so by contacting NHS Direct.
  1337W

  General dental service: Number of dentists whose adult registrations fell to zero during the financial year: England

  Health authority

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  Liverpool

  7

  8

  4

  11

  8

  Manchester

  9

  7

  11

  12

  7

  Morecambe Bay

  5

  10

  7

  3

  9

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1

  7

  5

  3

  4

  Salford and Trafford

  7

  6

  6

  9

  9

  Sefton

  4

  4

  5

  3

  5

  Stockport

  1

  5

  3

  1

  6

  West Pennine

  5

  7

  5

  6

  9

  East Norfolk

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  12

  Northamptonshire

  10

  6

  8

  8

  10

  North West Anglia

  1—

  1—

  1—

  5

  6

  Oxfordshire

  15

  15

  8

  14

  12

  Suffolk

  8

  5

  8

  13

  6

  Barnsley

  4

  1

  4

  2

  1

  North Derbyshire

  6

  6

  6

  4

  3

  South Derbyshire

  11

  7

  15

  5

  2

  Doncaster

  3

  1

  2

  2

  4

  Leicestershire

  16

  13

  7

  24

  7

  Lincolnshire

  7

  3

  7

  4

  4

  North Nottinghamshire

  6

  7

  2

  7

  2

  Nottingham

  10

  15

  17

  16

  5

  Rotherham

  2

  2

  4

  4

  2

  Sheffield

  5

  5

  7

  6

  9

  Bury and Rochdale

  10

  5

  7

  6

  5

  North Cheshire

  3

  0

  3

  2

  4

  South Cheshire

  13

  9

  26

  6

  14

  East Lancashire

  8

  5

  4

  6

  7

  North West Lancashire

  11

  5

  7

  2

  8

  North and Mid Hampshire

  11

  7

  12

  11

  12

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  11

  8

  11

  5

  9

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  15

  12

  8

  5

  12

  Isle of Wight

  3

  5

  1

  0

  5

  Somerset

  10

  9

  10

  4

  13

  South and West Devon

  12

  11

  12

  13

  17

  Wiltshire

  14

  14

  13

  9

  9

  Avon

  26

  27

  21

  30

  24

  Birmingham

  26

  21

  18

  13

  15

  Wigan and Bolton

  7

  7

  7

  6

  5

  Wirral

  7

  11

  5

  5

  3

  Bradford

  6

  13

  9

  6

  4

  County Durham

  8

  4

  4

  2

  6

  East Riding

  5

  7

  3

  10

  9

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  4

  4

  0

  4

  8

  Leeds

  15

  15

  11

  14

  13

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  15

  7

  10

  10

  9

  North Cumbria

  5

  6

  6

  5

  4

  South Humber

  5

  5

  3

  3

  2

  Northumberland

  4

  5

  5

  7

  5

  Sunderland

  4

  7

  4

  7

  2

  Tees

  14

  10

  8

  9

  4

  Wakefield

  3

  3

  2

  5

  2

  North Yorkshire

  10

  15

  13

  13

  14

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  7

  7

  5

  2

  3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  9

  14

  9

  7

  10

  Dorset

  12

  16

  9

  11

  16

  North and East Devon

  20

  12

  9

  5

  11

  Gloucestershire

  7

  7

  6

  6

  5

  Coventry

  4

  4

  4

  6

  2

  Dudley

  5

  1

  2

  5

  1

  Herefordshire

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Sandwell

  4

  1

  3

  2

  4

  Shropshire

  3

  7

  5

  8

  0

  Solihull

  6

  2

  3

  1

  1

  North Staffordshire

  4

  5

  5

  5

  2

  South Staffordshire

  6

  7

  7

  5

  3

  Walsall

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Warwickshire

  8

  15

  12

  3

  3

  Wolverhampton

  3

  3

  2

  3

  1

  Worcestershire

  8

  10

  9

  3

  9

  East and North Hertfordshire

  13

  9

  6

  13

  9

  West Hertfordshire

  13

  10

  5

  15

  7

  Cambridge

  16

  19

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Norfolk

  12

  17

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  1,001

  954

  926

  885

  851

  1 In April 1999 Cambridge
  and Huntingdon, East Norfolk and North West Anglia were amalgamated into two Has, namely Cambridge Ha and Norfolk HA. For 1998–99 the total number of dentists in these Has was 19.

  1338W 1339W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists still take NHS adult patients, broken down by each health authority area. [8552]

  Ms Blears
  Most dentists continue to treat some adults and children on the national health service. Only about 1,000 general dental service (GDS) dentists have no adult registrations at all and a proportion of these are practitioners who specialise in children's work. Most dentists ceasing to have adult patients have left the GDS, frequently because of retirement.

  The table shows the number of GDS dentists in each health authority that have adult registered patients at the end of June 2001. Dentists working in more than one health authority are counted only once in their main health authority.

  General dental service: Number of dentists with adult registered patients at 30 June 2001, England

  Health authority

  Number of dentists

  Avon

  360

  Barking and Havering

  89

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  305

  Barnsley

  53

  Bedfordshire

  136

  Berkshire

  239

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  243

  Birmingham

  272

  Bradford

  130

  Brent and Harrow

  169

  Buckinghamshire

  247

  Bury and Rochdale

  106

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  169

  Cambridge

  177

  Camden and Islington

  175

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  149

  County Durham

  145

  Coventry

  73

  Croydon

  123

  Doncaster

  80

  Dorset

  239

  Dudley

  78

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  259

  East Kent

  167

  East Lancashire

  132

  East London and The City

  160

  East Riding

  135

  East Surrey

  171

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  278

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  110

  Gloucestershire

  190

  Herefordshire

  61

  Hertfordshire

  399

  Hillingdon

  84

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  187

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  167

  Kingston and Richmond

  117

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  216

  Leeds

  241

  Leicestershire

  248

  Lincolnshire

  128

  Liverpool

  124

  Manchester

  151

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  222

  Morecambe Bay

  97

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  144

  Norfolk

  209

  North and East Devon

  173

  North and Mid Hampshire

  164

  North Cheshire

  84

  North Cumbria

  93

  1340W

  General dental service: Number of dentists with adult registered patients at 30 June 2001, England

  Health authority

  Number of dentists

  North Derbyshire

  97

  North Essex

  233

  North Nottinghamshire

  92

  North Staffordshire

  103

  North West Lancashire

  133

  North Yorkshire

  262

  Northamptonshire

  143

  Northumberland

  85

  Nottingham

  196

  Oxfordshire

  205

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  146

  Rotherham

  66

  Salford and Trafford

  142

  Sandwell

  76

  Sefton

  78

  Sheffield

  174

  Shropshire

  134

  Solihull

  56

  Somerset

  149

  South and West Devon

  228

  South Cheshire

  221

  South Derbyshire

  154

  South Essex

  204

  South Humber

  65

  South Lancashire

  86

  South Staffordshire

  157

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  172

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  87

  Stockport

  110

  Suffolk

  188

  Sunderland

  75

  Tees

  171

  Wakefield

  89

  Walsall

  44

  Warwickshire

  151

  West Kent

  301

  West Pennine

  134

  West Surrey

  248

  West Sussex

  277

  Wigan and Bolton

  160

  Wiltshire

  183

  Wirral

  105

  Wolverhampton

  58

  Worcestershire

  152

  England

  15,058

  Child Abuse (Norfolk)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have died in the last five years as a result of brutality inflicted on them by(a) relatives and (b) people known to the child as a "family friend", while the child was on the at risk register of the social services department of Norfolk county council: and if he will make a statement. [7546]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, we are informed by the social services department of Norfolk county council that one child has died in the last five years as a result of injuries inflicted on them by a relative, while the child was on Norfolk's child protection register. The social services department is not aware of any registered child who has died in the last five years as a result of injuries inflicted on them by a person known to the child as a family friend.

  Drug Misuse
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is the number of drug misusers who were not given immediate access to appropriate treatment, upon application, in each year since 1997. [6485]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available centrally. There has been an increase of 16 per cent, in the number of people entering treatment over the last three years. In fact, the latest information from the regional drug misuse databases published on 11 October, indicates that the number of users in treatment was approximately 118, 500.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the General Medical Council will be required by him to take in order to advise complainants of the availability of judicial review of its decisions. [6967]

  Ms Blears
  None. In August we published "Modernising Regulation in the Health Professions" in which we have consulted on the functions of the proposed Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professions. These include a power to make public interest appeals in extreme cases against individual decisions of the regulatory bodies.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of responses to complainants and subsequent notification of decisions the General Medical Council has failed to issue within its own target times for each year since 1997. [6969]

  Ms Blears
  Since July 2000 the General Medical Council has set itself a series of explicit service standards for dealing with fitness to practise complaints. It reports on its performance against these standards each year. It aims to acknowledge all letters promptly and to keep complainants informed of progress but it does not hold separate performance information on these activities.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision the General Medical Council is making to fast track complaints against doctors where(a) previous disciplinary action has been taken against them and (b) another complaint is presently being considered by the General Medical Council; [6964]

  (2) in how many cases since January 1999 in which disciplinary action was subsequently taken, including admonishment, by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council, an interim suspension order was imposed. [6970]

  Ms Blears
  I understand that the chief executive of the General Medical Council wrote to my hon. Friend on 31 August providing the information requested.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals his Department has to ensure that public interest immunity is not a barrier to providing complainants to the General Medical Council with an adequate explanation of the reasons for decisions of the Professional Conduct Committee; [6963]

  (2) what proposals his Department has to ensure that the General Medical Council provides complainants with an explanation of the reasons for decisions in disciplinary hearings. [6968]
  1342W
  Ms Blears
  The General Medical Council recognises the importance of providing information to complainants about the reasons for the Professional Conduct Committee's decisions and it does so in all cases.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance the Government will provide on the training appropriate for registered managers; who will decide what training is appropriate; who will pay for the training; and if he will make a statement. [8062]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance on the training appropriate for registered managers for Care Homes for Older People has been given in the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People published in March 2001. Guidance on the training appropriate for registered managers of Care Homes for Younger Adults and for Children's Homes will be given in the relevant set of National Minimum Standards. These standards are presently being finalised and will be published later in the year.

  It is an employer's responsibility to ensure that they and their staff receive the relevant training for the work that they have to undertake. However, help towards the cost of funding for national vocational qualifications is available from the learning and skills councils. The Department also contributes towards the cost of training social care workers via the training support programme grant and this year. The Department has also provided £2 million towards the implementation of the national training strategy for social care workers.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the views of care home staff on the Care Homes Regulations 2001 will be collected by the Care Standards Commission; where the results will be published; and if he will make a statement. [8060]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department completed the consultation exercise on the draft Care Homes Regulations 2001 on 21 September. Copies of that document were made available widely to interested groups and individuals through direct mailing, the National Care Standards Commission internet site and the Department's distribution unit. Care workers were welcome to give their views as were any other interested parties. Responses were received from a few individual care workers. In addition, under section 7 of the Care Standards Act 2000, the National Care Standards Commission will have the responsibility of keeping my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed about the availability and quality of the services it regulates. The Commission will also be required to make public information about these services. Much of this information will be obtained through the inspection processes that the Commission will adopt. Section 31(3)(d) gives the Commission powers to interview any person employed by a regulated provider. It is likely that staff views would be sought through this power.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action will be taken against a registered provider if a care home worker refuses to make available their passport, as required in section 19(4)(c) of the Care Home Regulations 2001: and if he will make a statement. [8061]
  1343W
  Jacqui Smith
  Section 19(4)(c) of the draft Care Homes Regulations will require the registered person to obtain certain information regarding the fitness of a person who is working or seeking to work in the care home. Schedule 5 of the draft Regulations sets out the details of the information for the purpose of establishing identity to be provided by the care worker. The care worker is required to provide a birth certificate, a passport if he or she has one and a recent photograph. Where a person who has a passport refuses to provide that document to the registered person then an application for employment should be refused or employment terminated. No action will be taken against a provider who refuses to employ or terminates the employment of someone who has a passport but who refuses to provide that document.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) residential care homes and (b) nursing care home beds were available in England and Wales in each of the last four years. [7605]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The table shows the requested information for England. Information on the number of homes and beds in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Number1 of residential care homes and registered nursing beds in England, 1997 to 2000 (as at 31 March)

  21997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Residential care homes

  24,480

  24,880

  24,820

  24,830

  (b) Registered nursing beds in nursing homes3

  196,300

  205,600

  202,200

  193,300

  1 Rounded numbers

  2This refers to the period 1 October 1997 to 31 March 1998

  3Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reverse the trend in the number of residential care home places. [6510]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: On 9 October, we announced an extra £300 million investment over this year and next year for local councils to spend on community care services. This major cash investment will be used to reduce bed blocking and will help to stabilise the care home sector, giving them greater confidence in the future.

  We, also launched a new agreement "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care" on 9 October. The agreement focuses on councils and the independent sector working together as partners throughout the commissioning process. This should promote a more strategic, inclusive and consistent approach to capacity planning at a local level.

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for researching the non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields; and if he will make a statement. [7974]

  Ms Blears
  Electromagnetic fields (EMF) can arise from a wide range of sources including telecommunications at high frequencies and the electric power supply at low frequencies. The Stewart report on 1344W
  mobile phones and health made a recommendation that a substantial research programme should be set up under the aegis of a demonstrably independent panel and financed by the mobile phone companies and the public sector. The mobile telecommunications and health research programme, jointly funded by Government and industry, has now been set up under the direction of an independent programme management committee. The committee is currently assessing a range of research proposals, including some that are designed to look at non-thermal effects. Information about this programme can be found on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/mobilephones.

  Research into the broader area of electromagnetic fields and health is continuing within the Department's radiation protection research programme, the work of the National Radiological Protection Board, the EMF Biological Research Trust and that of the World Health Organisation to which the United Kingdom contributes funding and expertise.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he ensures the identification of children who may have severe untreated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; what progress has been made towards ensuring that the condition is recognised by teachers and school nurses in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [7333]

  Jacqui Smith
  In guidance published in October 2000 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence identified that of an estimated 69,000 six to 16-year-olds in England who met the diagnostic criteria for hyperkinetic disorder, for example severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), some 45,000 who might benefit from the drug methylphenidate were not receiving this treatment. The guidance also made it clear that a diagnosis of ADHD should be based on a timely, comprehensive assessment conducted by a child/adolescent psychiatrist or a paediatrician with expertise in this disorder. Referrals for specialist assessment can come from a number of sources including family members, general practitioners, social workers and teachers.

  The Department for Education and Skills (DIES) is promoting a number of initiatives designed to help schools and teachers work with children with a range of emotional and behavioural needs, including ADHD. In June this year the DIES issued guidance on "Promoting Children's Mental Health within Early Years and School Settings" which has been circulated widely. The guidance covers not only mental health problems faced by children but also the approaches schools can take to promote children's mental health. It includes a section on attention deficit/hyperactivity which will help teaching staff identify pupils with ADHD. It also includes teaching strategies to help pupils with ADHD.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to carry out research on the correlation between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and social exclusion; and if he will make a statement. [7334]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not currently have any plans to carry out research on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and social exclusion. The
  1345W
  Department is providing or has provided support for a number of projects on ADHD in general. Details of 24 ongoing and 54 completed projects on ADHD are available on the national research register which can be accessed in medical libraries on CD-ROM or on the internet at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  Nutriprem
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 April 2001,Official Report, column 287W, on Nutriprem 2, when he will announce his decision on Nutriprem 2. [6732]

  Ms Blears
  A decision on Nutriprem 2 will be announced shortly.

  Fall Prevention
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will arrange for the dissemination of reports on best practice in the prevention of falls; [8024]

  (2) what financial resources he plans to devote to work to prevent falls. [8025]

  Jacqui Smith
  Falls are a major cause of disability and the leading cause of death due to injury in older people. Action to address this is detailed in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" which set targets to reduce accidental injuries and deaths, and in the National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People. The NSF includes a detailed service model for integrated falls services and milestones for their full adoption across England by April 2005. Staged implementation will help planning, and will be underpinned by an evaluation of the more detailed financial and workforce implications within the additional resources we have allocated to health and social care.

  Cannabis (Clinical Trials)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stage the trials into the medical uses of cannabis have reached; and when he expects to be able to announce the results. [7712]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is funding a clinical trial into the efficacy of cannabis extract and a single cannabinoid in the treatment of spasticity in multiple sclerosis patients. The trial is being run by Dr. John Zajicek, of Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. The trial started recruitment in autumn 2000. It will take three to four years to complete from the point of recruitment and the results will be published subsequently in peer reviewed publications.

  We are aware that a second study on the development of a medicine derived from cannabis has started. This work which is expected to last for three years and is being led by Dr. Guy of GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Detailed evidence about clinical trials with cannabis and its derivatives was presented to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into the therapeutic uses of cannabis. It provides information about clinical trials with cannabis and its derivatives that are completed and published or ongoing. The date of publication of the ongoing trials is matter for the
  1346W
  investigators and sponsors. This information is recorded in the Committee's reports 'Cannabis: the Scientific and Medical Evidence' (9th Report Session 1997–98, HL Paper 151) and 'Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis' (2nd Report Session 2000–01, HL Paper 50), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were provided with orthodontic treatment per 1,000 of the population in each health authority area in the last 12 months. [6359]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The table shows the number of orthodontic appliance claims per 1,000 of the population by health authority in England for 2000–01.

  General Dental Service: Number of claims for orthodontic appliances per 1,000 population, 2000–01

  Health authority

  Claims per 1,000 population

  England

  Avon

  6.5

  Barking and Havering

  7.6

  Barnet

  15.1

  Barnsley

  2.1

  Bedfordshire

  1.9

  Berkshire

  5.8

  Bexley and Greenwich

  6.0

  Birmingham

  5.0

  Bradford

  1.8

  Brent and Harrow

  3.3

  Bromley

  10.1

  Buckinghamshire

  4.2

  Bury and Rochdale

  5.9

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  4.0

  Cambridge

  4.1

  Camden and Islington

  2.4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3.5

  County Durham

  2.3

  Coventry

  3.1

  Croydon

  6.7

  Doncaster

  5.7

  Dorset

  4.0

  Dudley

  3.7

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  3.8

  East and North Hertfordshire

  6.4

  East Kent

  3.6

  East Lancashire

  3.3

  East London and The City

  4.8

  East Riding

  3.1

  East Surrey

  5.5

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  4.0

  Enfield and Haringey

  5.5

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  1.9

  Gloucestershire

  6.4

  Herefordshire

  4.5

  Hillingdon

  7.5

  Isle of Wight

  5.6

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  5.6

  Kingston and Richmond

  7.9

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  3.8

  Leeds

  6.0

  Leicestershire

  3.7

  Lincolnshire

  2.5

  Liverpool

  6.5

  Manchester

  2.8

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  3.3

  Morecambe Bay

  3.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  3.8

  Norfolk

  4.7

  1347W

  General Dental Service: Number of claims for orthodontic appliances per 1,000 population, 2000–01

  Health authority

  Claims per 1,000 population

  North and East Devon

  5.1

  North and Mid Hampshire

  3.1

  North Cheshire

  7.1

  North Cumbria

  2.6

  North Derbyshire

  4.5

  North Essex

  5.2

  North Nottinghamshire

  6.0

  North Staffordshire

  3.1

  North West Lancashire

  8.9

  North Yorkshire

  4.2

  Northamptonshire

  4.3

  Northumberland

  1.6

  Nottingham

  5.7

  Oxfordshire

  4.9

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1.8

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  7.8

  Rotherham

  2.8

  Salford and Trafford

  8.0

  Sandwell

  2.8

  Sefton

  1.4

  Sheffield

  4.8

  Shropshire

  5.6

  Solihull

  5.7

  Somerset

  4.4

  South and West Devon

  4.3

  South Cheshire

  11.0

  South Derbyshire

  3.4

  South Essex

  3.4

  South Humber

  2.5

  South Lancashire

  6.2

  South Staffordshire

  2.6

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  4.2

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2.4

  Stockport

  5.7

  Suffolk

  5.4

  Sunderland

  2.9

  Tees

  3.9

  Wakefield

  3.0

  Walsall

  2.7

  Warwickshire

  3.2

  West Hertfordshire

  9.2

  West Kent

  8.5

  West Pennine

  7.4

  West Surrey

  8.8

  West Sussex

  7.9

  Wigan and Bolton

  5.9

  Wiltshire

  5.4

  Wirral

  9.0

  Wolverhampton

  3.2

  Worcestershire

  5.7

  England

  4.9

  NHS Estates
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all those NHS hospital sites being considered for sale by NHS Estates and their respective bed capacities when last fully utilised. [7601]

  Mr. Hutton:
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: National Health Service Estates is responsible for disposing of surplus NHS property owned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. During the last five years these disposals have generated over £1.15 billion for reinvestment in the NHS.
  1348W
  Details of whole or substantial parts of hospital site disposals proposed for 2001–02 and those being considered for disposal thereafter, following review with appropriate health bodies, are outlined in a table which will be placed in the Library.

  The NHS Plan provides for an extra 7,000 beds by 2004, with the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS already under way. The disposal of properties that need to be replaced due to their age, condition or unsuitability to provide modern healthcare will continue to generate cash for reinvestment in NHS modernisation.

  Due to the considerable elapse of time since many of the sites were last operated at full utilisation, following changing models of delivering patient services, details of bed capacities at that point are not readily available.

  Hospital Doctors
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital doctors have been(a) recruited and (b) left the NHS in England in each year since 1990. [7594]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The Department does not routinely collect data on the number of joiners and leavers from the medical and dental grades. The annual medical and dental workforce census contains details of individual doctors working in the national health service on 30 September each year. Figures are shown in the table.

  Headcount of hospital medical staff, England at 30 September

  Headcount

  1990

  58,120

  1991

  58.700

  1992

  58,820

  1993

  59,720

  1994

  59,490

  1995

  62,720

  1996

  64,210

  1997

  66,840

  1998

  68,460

  1999

  70,000

  2000

  71,690

  Source:

  Department of Health medical workforce census

  It is possible to link together files from consecutive years using the doctors' General Medical Council number, to see how many doctors are present one year and not the next, and vice versa. This provides a reliable general indication of turnover, which is used in workforce models, but does not provide reliable separate figures for leavers and joiners. The main reasons for this are:
  Doctors do not receive full registration until they have completed their pre-registration year. For most doctors in the earlier stages of their careers, the census will show them with a limited registration GMC number in one year, and a completely different full registration number the following year. If we match these files together, the doctor would appear notionally as both a leaver and a joiner.
  Similarly, some doctors in the latter stages of their career take career breaks, or work for periods of time in other sectors such as the armed forces. The census only counts those doctors working on a given day (30 September), so again leaving and joining rates tend to be slightly inflated.

  Renewable Energy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the policy of the NHS is for purchasing of energy from renewable sources. [7616]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The national health service complies with Government policy as determined by the Office of Government Commerce which requires that all public procurement of goods and services is based upon value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity.

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency negotiated a national contract for purchasing electricity from renewable sources which was an option to the NHS from April 2000. However, it attracted an average 5 per cent. price premium. Therefore, no NHS bodies took up this option.

  In the recent October/November 2001 contract round, electricity from renewable resources has been secured without a price premium. This should provide approximately 16 per cent. of the total NHS demand for electricity in the next 12 months.

  National Beds Inquiry
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will made a statement on the implications of the national bed survey for Worcestershire. [8042]

  Jacqui Smith
  The report of our National Beds Inquiry (NBI) was published for consultation in February 2000. The facts revealed by the NBI supported the concept of building a new bridge of national health service care for older people between hospital and home, and supported the first national strategy for providing NHS beds in 30 years.

  Worcestershire health authority is currently modelling bed numbers and capacity for the year ahead. The health authority's modelling work on bed numbers will take into account the NBI.

  The NHS plan took forward the findings of the NBI report by proposing action to increase bed numbers. The Department subsequently published new long-term planning guidance in February 2001 to implement NHS plan bed increases. This guidance will help local health economies ensure that they have the right number and mix of beds in place.

  Nursing Home Beds
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing home beds have been lost since June,(a) nationally, (b) in the City of York and (c) in the North Yorkshire county council area in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [8052]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of registered nursing1 beds in 1999 and 2000, together with the absolute and percentage change in numbers for England, Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office and North Yorkshire health authority Information is not available for the City of York.
  1Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics
  1350W

  Number of registered nursing care beds

  Year ending 31 March

  1999

  2000

  Absolute change

  Percentage change

  England

  202,200

  193,300

  -8,800

  -4.4

  Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office

  30,600

  28,500

  -2,100

  -6.8

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  4,450

  4,320

  -130

  -3.0

  Note:

  Numbers and percentages are rounded.

  Source:

  Source: Department of Health Annual Returns

  NHS Dentistry (Swadlincote)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dentistry in Swadlincote, Derbyshire. [8058]

  Ms Blears
  In September 1999, we gave a commitment that, within two years, everyone would be able to access National Health Service dentistry if, and when they wanted 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. These plans identify shortfalls in service provision and ways of tackling unmet demand.

  Southern Derbyshire Health Authority has recently been allocated £35,000 from the Dental Care Development Fund to support the development of a new practice in this area. Discussions are taking place with a dentist who has expressed an interest in practising in Swadlincote. If an agreement can be reached with the dentist concerned, this will ensure the availability of NHS services at the new practice for five years.

  Delayed Discharge
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital patients are subject to delayed discharge in(a) Brighton, Hove and East Sussex and (b) Eastbourne district general hospital. [7662]

  Ms Blears
  Quarterly information for East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority, for patients aged 75 and over, has been placed in the Library.

  Information on delayed discharges is not available centrally for patients under 75 and individual hospitals. Further information may be obtained from the Chairmen of East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority and Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) 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; [6899]
  1351W
  (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. [6900]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 823W.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate total annual staff costs for his Department and its agencies by nation and region of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [6865]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  £

  Government office region (GORs)1

  Total

  London

  103,913,670

  South East

  6,218,096

  South West

  8,879,731

  West Midlands

  5,839,820

  Table 1. How many and what proportion of each civil service grade, located in each region and nation of the United Kingdom

  Government office region (GORs)1

  All grades

  SCS level

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  London

  3,108

  272

  623

  843

  705

  665

  (Percentage)

  100

  8

  17

  24

  24

  26

  South East

  182

  10

  45

  59

  39

  29

  (Percentage)

  100

  5

  22

  30

  20

  23

  South West

  231

  27

  67

  57

  37

  43

  (Percentage)

  100

  11

  30

  24

  15

  21

  West Midlands

  160

  22

  40

  24

  34

  40

  (Percentage)

  100

  14

  25

  15

  21

  26

  North West

  810

  23

  88

  140

  132

  427

  (Percentage)

  100

  1

  7

  14

  21

  58

  North East

  158

  20

  35

  43

  22

  38

  (Percentage)

  100

  12

  22

  28

  14

  26

  Merseyside

  15

  0

  0

  1

  3

  11

  (Percentage)

  100

  0

  0

  3

  10

  87

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,301

  75

  316

  374

  283

  253

  (Percentage)

  100

  5

  22

  24

  22

  27

  East Midlands

  64

  2

  9

  2

  11

  40

  (Percentage)

  100

  2

  12

  2

  11

  72

  Eastern

  131

  16

  51

  25

  18

  21

  (Percentage)

  100

  11

  37

  19

  14

  18

  Total

  6,160

  467

  1,274

  1,568

  1,284

  1,567

  1Government office regions (GORs) as defined by Cabinet Office for official statistical returns. It excludes data where GOR information is not held

  Note:
  Figures relate to England only. The Department has no staff in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland

  Source:

  Department of Health August 2001 payroll data
  1352W

  £

  Government office region (GORs)1

  Total

  North West

  19,827,095

  North East

  5,873,323

  Merseyside

  219,074

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  38,968,069

  East Midlands

  1,257,707

  Eastern

  5,560,394

  Grand total

  196,574,360

  1Government office regions (GORs) as defined by Cabinet Office for official statistical returns. It excludes data where GOR information is not held

  Note:

  Figures relate to England only and include the Department's agencies. The Department has no staff in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland

  Source:

  Department of Health August 2001 payroll data

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of each civil service grade in his Department is located in each region and nation of the United Kingdom; what the average salary is for each grade; and if he will make a statement. [6868]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  1353W

  Table 2. The average salary for each grade

  £

  Grade

  Average1

  SCS

  67,725

  Grade 6

  49,651

  Grade 7

  39,983

  SEO

  28,833

  HEO

  22,818

  EO

  18,287

  AO

  14,218

  AA

  10,906

  1The average of salaries for each grade across all Government office regions (GORs)

  Note:

  August 2001 payroll data

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to promote the benefits of the use of animals in the testing of drugs. [6508]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: The Minister with responsibility for research at the Department, my noble Friend the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, takes every available opportunity to make it clear that properly regulated research using animals is absolutely essential to the discovery of new treatments, as well as to the assessment of safety and efficacy of medicines.

  Prosthetics
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the additional funding for silicone cosmesis for prosthetic limbs announced in Autumn 2000 will be given to disablement service centres. [8095]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have increased health authority allocations by £4 million over the next three years to provide silicone cosmesis for prosthetic limb users. This funding started in April this year with £0.5 million for 2001–02, £1.5 million for 2002–03 and a further £2 million for 2003–04.

  These amounts were in health authority general allocations. We will be writing to chief executives and finance directors of health authorities that commission prosthetic services to ensure this funding is available to disablement services centres.

  The contract for purchasing the silicone cosmesis coverings was negotiated and awarded on 1 October 2001.

  Head Injuries
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish their response to the Health Committee's report on rehabilitation following head injury. [8334]

  Jacqui Smith
  The response was laid before Parliament on 24 July. The response is called "Government Response to the Health Select Committee: Inquiry into Head Injury Rehabilitation", (Command Paper 5226). The response can also be downloaded from the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/longterm.htm.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities in England providing funding for anti-TNF therapy for people with rheumatoid arthritis. [7721]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the prescribing of Etanercept (Enbrel) and Infliximab (Remicade) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is not available centrally.

  Infliximab (Remicade) and Etanercept (Enbrel) are currently being appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Until NICE has completed its appraisal, National Health Service bodies have been advised to determine local prescribing policies based on the available evidence.

  Older People (Challenging Behaviour)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on older people whose health problems include challenging behaviour. [8532]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Older People was published on 27 March this year. It sets, for the first time, new national standards of care for all older people, across all care settings. The NSF looks at conditions that mainly affect older people, including dementia.

  Standard 7 of the NSF relates to mental health and will ensure that those older people who have mental health problems have access to integrated mental health services to ensure effective diagnosis, treatment and support, for them and for their carers.

  Although memory loss is a universal symptom of dementia, psychiatric systems and behavioural disturbances (such as depression, wandering, agitation, aggression, hallucinations and paranoid ideas) may also be present in those individuals with dementia.

  The NSF recognised that specialist mental health services should be available to be consulted about and treat the most common mental health disorders in old age (depression, dementia, schizophrenia, mania and confusional states). Specialist care may be required for individuals suffering from behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.

  A full range of psychological and physical treatments should be available, including:
  advice on behavioural management for people in residential and nursing homes;
  drug treatment with antipsychotic and other forms of medications, where appropriate;
  individual and family counselling and support.

  The Department has issued guidance to staff on managing violence in all healthcare settings, including mental health. The guidance was issued as part of the National Health Service zero tolerance zone campaign to tackle violence against staff working in the NHS.

  The guidance "Managing Violence in Mental Health" states that individual patients should be risk assessed for violence to themselves and/or others. Where a risk of violence is identified, an action plan or strategy for dealing with such behaviour should also be in place.

  Alcohol and Drug Misuse
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the representative body for alcohol and drug counselling regarding "Fit for the future". [8557]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department consulted widely when developing the draft national minimum standards for care homes for younger people; these standards include services for drug and alcohol misuse. In addition, representatives from Alcohol Concern and DrugScope were members of the formal reference group that advised the Department. The consultation period for these standards closed on 21 September and the Department is currently considering the 500 responses received.

  "Fit for the Future" was a consultation document for older people's services, published in 1999.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what flexibility he will allow care homes who specialise in treating alcohol or drug addicts under "Fit for the future" proposals. [8556]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has just completed the consultation on draft regulations for care homes and national minimum standards for care homes for younger adults, including those for drug and alcohol misuse. We will consider all responses fully before finalising our proposals.

  TETRA Masts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the latest health evidence on the safety of TETRA masts. [8567]

  Ms Blears
  A report by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) (the Stewart Report) provided a comprehensive and authoritative review of possible health effects of emissions from mobile phone masts. The report concluded that the balance of evidence indicated that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. The group was concerned that there could be indirect adverse effects on people's wellbeing in some cases and efforts have been made by Government to improve the availability of information about the siting and emissions from base stations.

  The Report also indicated that there are some unique features of emissions from terrestrial trunked radio (TETRA) telecommunication systems that may be a cause for concern. This was addressed in a report by the National Radiological Protection Board's (NRPB's) Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation at the request of the Government. This report was published on the NRPB web site at the end of July 2001. In relation to exposures from TETRA base stations it concluded that exposures of the public would be small fractions of exposure guidelines and comparable to those arising from the operation of other telecommunication systems.

  Nursing and Midwifery Council
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of health visitors in the new Nursing and Midwifery Council. [8571]
  1356W
  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 150W.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assess the effects of global warming on health. [4697]

  Ms Blears
  In 1999 the Department commissioned an expert group on climate change and health in the United Kingdom to advise on the likely effects of climate change on health in the UK. The group included experts from meteorological and climate change fields as well as from public health, physiology, epidemiology and microbiology.

  The review "Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK" was published for comment in February this year, and posted on the departmental website. The responses, together with the conclusions contained in the report, are currently being evaluated and a final version will be published later this year.

  Podiatrists
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a register of podiatrists to include private practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [8218]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new Health Professions Council will determine arrangements for the admission to its register for each of the professions it regulates. The Council will have a duty to consult and involve all those likely to be affected.

  Lorazepam
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clinical and prescribing advice has been given for Lorazepam with specific reference to the dosage and the period of time over which it is usual to administer the drug. [8215]

  Ms Blears
  All licensed medical products have an approved summary of product characteristics (SPC) which includes clinical and prescribing information.

  Lorazepam is licensed for the short-term (two to four weeks) treatment of severe anxiety occurring alone or in association with insomnia or psychosomatic, organic or psychotic illness.

  The usual dose for adults is 1–4 milligrammes daily in divided doses. Lower doses may be used in patients with renal or hepatic impairment, or in the elderly.

  The dosage section of the SPC advises that Lorazepam should not be used for long-term chronic use, and that routine repeat prescriptions should be avoided.

  The therapeutic indications section of the SPC specifies short-term use for two to four weeks.

  The potential for the development of tolerance and dependence are discussed in the special warnings and precautions section of the SPC, where there is also

  1357W
  additional discussion of the need for the duration of treatment to be as short as possible. The potential for rebound (withdrawal) symptoms is also discussed.

  Generic Medicines
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review under Article 4 of the Council Directive 89/105/EEC of the statutory maximum price scheme for generic medicines dispensed in the NHS in the Community. [9040]

  Ms Blears
  We are today announcing our decision, taken in the light of consultation with interested parties, to roll forward, unchanged, the maximum price scheme for generic medicines. The scheme will remain in place pending decision on longer-term arrangements for the supply and reimbursement of generic medicines. The statutory maximum price will continue to be set on a United Kingdom-wide basis.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Domestic Terrorism
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on domestic terrorism following 11 September and the declaration of an international war on terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [7894]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that we will take all the action we judge necessary to deal with terrorism wherever it occurs—whether inside the United Kingdom or outside, or whether it is international or domestic. I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 15 October 2001, Official Report, column 923, which sets out some of that action relating both to international and domestic terrorism.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley—Took the Oath.

EU Intergovernmental Conference
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they recommend that Parliament should select British representatives to the proposed convention to prepare the next European Union Intergovernmental Conference.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government welcome the debate on the future of Europe. We argued at Nice that national Parliaments should be properly represented in the future of Europe process. I am pleased that it has now been agreed that national Parliaments will play a significant role in the convention to prepare the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. How the UK's Government and parliamentary representatives to the convention will be chosen has not yet been decided. We will wish to consider with the UK parliamentary authorities how best arrange UK parliamentary participation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I remind her that on the previous occasion when the convention for the European Charter of Fundamental Rights was selected, most of us discovered only some time after the event the identity of our parliamentary representatives to the convention. Will the Minister ensure that there is full transparency this time on how the process takes place, who is elected and how? As the convention is likely to last for 18 months and cover a broad agenda, and in particular as the Prime Minister stressed in his Warsaw speech that national Parliaments need to be more involved in European debates, can we ensure that there are regular procedures for reporting back to national Parliaments, including this Chamber, as the convention proceeds?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word or two about my late colleague Peter Shore. I hope that the House will understand, given that this is a Question on Europe and Parliament, that I feel it appropriate to say how much we on these Benches will miss our colleague after his long and distinguished career in both Houses.
Peter was an outstanding intellect. He had an extraordinary capacity for eloquent argument, as we on the Front Bench often had cause to reflect. He was passionate in his views on Europe and about the role
702
that Parliament should play in Europe. Whatever was said publicly, he was always very considerate and enormously kind personally and we shall miss him very much.
I know that there was a good deal of unhappiness on the occasion that the noble Lord referred to. I am anxious to ensure that the views of your Lordships' House as a whole are fed into the process. I said in my Answer that we want to consult the parliamentary authorities. I also want to consult other Members of the House. To that end, I can offer an open meeting to any of your Lordships who want to come to discuss the matter at 1 p.m. on 31st October. I hope that it will be in Committee Room G, but I shall make efforts to ensure that I let the Front Benches and the Cross Benches know the exact arrangements. I hope that that will be an earnest of the Government's intention to take all views on the subject fully into account.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness about the late Lord Shore of Stepney. He was a man of great principle and eloquence. I worked closely with him for many years in another place and he was a good friend. We deplore greatly his passing and he will be greatly missed.
Does the noble Baroness accept that it is vital for national Parliaments to be fully, continuously and regularly involved in the convention process? It must not become yet another elite exercise in which the future of Europe is decided over people's heads. She probably does not recall that I had the dubious honour of leading the delegation of the two Houses to the last so-called parliamentary assize in Rome about 10 years ago. It was a complete shambles. It did not work at all and was very badly organised. We need something much better this time.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that was nothing if not refreshingly honest about what happened 10 years ago. I have said that we shall have a meeting to which all your Lordships may contribute. I am sure that in that meeting we will want to discuss not only the composition but also arrangements for reporting back to the House. No one can sit on these Benches as a Foreign Office Minister without being absolutely aware of the importance that your Lordships attach to regular updates on these issues. There will be important matters on the agenda in 2004 and I assure your Lordships that I shall do everything that I can to ensure that the House is kept properly informed.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I have a word to add about Lord Shore. He was a dear friend of mine for nearly 30 years. I do not think that there could have been a wider gulf between us on Europe or a closer association on almost everything else. I add my words of deep regret to his wife and family.
I have one question only. In the procedures that the Minister is considering, particularly the very welcome meeting, will she consider what steps might be taken to inform the House of the European Parliament's measures with regard to the counter-terrorist

703
campaign? When we discuss the Home Office proposals, it will be very important to know how close together we are on issues such as the definition of terrorism and the laundering of money. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what steps might be taken to make that possible.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their remarks about my noble friend. I call him my noble friend, but he had strong personal friendships that extended across the House. I wish to meet the noble Baroness's request that we should take all possible steps to tell the House what is being done about terrorism on a European level. The House has been remarkably united in its discussions about the importance of countering the terrorist threat. I would like that near unanimity of view to be preserved as far as possible. I am acutely aware that keeping colleagues informed and feeding back the views of the British Parliament to all forums in which we have an international voice are part of that process.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one who had the opportunity over many years of working very closely with Lord Shore, I add my personal tributes to him for the work that he did in the House and the leadership that he was able to give to people like me.
At the proposed conference, will it be possible to have a full and representative discussion about the role of the British Civil Service in relation to Europe, particularly of senior civil servants?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the exact nature of the discussions in preparation for the 2004 IGC will be further considered at a meeting in Laeken on 13th and 14th December. It has already been decided that there should be discussion on how to establish and monitor a more precise delimitation or division of powers between the European Union and member states, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity. I should have thought that that would provide a fairly useful opportunity to hold a discussion about the role of civil servants in a number of European states. However, I am absolutely certain that my noble friend will come to the meeting that I have suggested takes place on the 31st of this month. I am sure that we shall then be able to discuss his and other ideas more fully.

Macedonia
3.10 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their long-term plans for the employment of British forces in Macedonia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will continue to have a bilateral defence relationship with the Macedonian Government, offering assistance such as training programmes and multi-national defence seminars and courses. As part of that, we continue to provide a defence adviser to the Macedonian Government. We currently have around 40 British troops deployed in Macedonia and we have no plans significantly to change the numbers of British forces there.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, to what extent is the state of British forces in Macedonia affected by the possibility of a much larger deployment of forces in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the House will be aware of Task Force Harvest, which was, if I may say so, a huge success. At its height—on 23rd August—we deployed almost 2,000 troops in Macedonia. That operation concluded on 25th September, and British forces were withdrawn by 12th October. Therefore, the size of our forces in Macedonia will have absolutely no effect on the number of troops that we may or may not need in other parts of the world.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, given the necessity to police the minority areas in Macedonia and the experience that we have gained from substituting police for military forces in parts of Kosovo and Bosnia, does the Minister foresee the need for British police to be seconded to some of the Albanian parts of Macedonia?
Lord Bach: My Lords, at present, no. That is, of course, one of the many questions about the future of the process going on in Macedonia on which we must keep a close watch. In due course what the noble Lord suggests may be appropriate. However, for the moment, we look forward to the Macedonian Parliament making the appropriate decisions on constitutional changes. Of course, that Parliament should make those decisions, but we believe that the debate should not be drawn out for too long.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I declare my role as chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. On the issue of over-stretch in respect of operational commitments, does the Minister accept that we are talking about not only service personnel but their families and the quality of life of their families? Does my noble friend agree that service people on those operational commitments want to know and to be assured that their families back home are being well looked after? That is the responsibility of the Government of this nation. Accommodation must be at the centre of those concerns, not only in relation to married families but also in relation to single personnel.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. As she knows, we have announced significant programmes to improve the standard of living accommodation. There is still a long way to go, and I look forward to having discussions on this matter with my noble friend in one of her many capacities.
Of course, this Question concerns Macedonia, but we cannot help but think about other parts of the world at the same time. Therefore, it is absolutely appropriate that we should deal with a question about service families, who sit at home and wait for their loved ones. We have done our best to improve the position. My noble friend will know that the operational welfare package enables servicemen and women to stay in contact much more easily than was once the case with families through telephone, e-mail and other mail. Ministers also now hold regular talks with service family groups to discuss their concerns and to overcome the unique difficulties that service families can face when their loved ones are abroad.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, now that the United Kingdom contingent of approximately 2,000 troops has returned from Macedonia and the Germans have taken over from us with Task Force Foxtrot, can the Minister say how many troops will remain operationally deployed in percentage terms?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the Front Bench at Question Time and thank him for the courtesy that he showed in giving me advance warning of his question. I must explain that the current deployment of troops for Exercise Saif Sareea in Oman does not contribute to the percentage of troops deployed in operations. The noble Lord did not suggest that they did; I merely point out that they do not. Therefore, now that, by and large, troops have left Macedonia, I can tell the noble Lord that the number of personnel committed to operations currently stands at around 20 per cent.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister has already referred to constitutional reforms in Macedonia. Does he agree that the implementation of the internal agreement already reached is crucial? Will he urge on the parties the importance of that implementation as that will surely affect any future external force levels within the country?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The constitutional changes are absolutely critical. The British Government are doing their best to ensure that pressure is applied so that those constitutional changes take place. However, as I said previously, the Macedonian Parliament must make the decision. We hope that it will decide quickly and in the right way. The Task Force Harvest call to which the British Government responded, as did other governments in NATO, was of course important in two ways. Not only was a large amount of ammunition passed over but it enabled a political process to begin and gave it teeth, which it did not have before.

Single Parents: Social Fund Assistance
3.17 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the Minister will agree—
Noble Lords: Question!
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Question is coming. Does the Minister agree—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe that the House is being helpful to the noble Earl. He has forgotten to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they have drawn from the level of support being provided to single parents through the Social Fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I am deeply disappointed that the noble Earl was going to ask a supplementary question before he had heard the Answer to the first Question. I am mortified.
The purpose of the Social Fund is to provide access to affordable credit for people on the lowest incomes. Last year, 44 per cent of the total paid from the discretionary Social Fund went to single parents. I believe that that shows that the Social Fund is needed by lone parents and is well used by them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the House for leave to ask the Question. Is the Minister aware that nearly 50 per cent of the loans budget of the Social Fund now goes to single parents? Does she agree that that shows either that the percentage of those in real need who are single parents is increasing or that the Social Fund is not being allocated according to need? In that context, is she aware of a Written Answer to me from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on 24th July last concerning the rate of long-term illness and disability among single parents not in employment? That rate is now 32.1 per cent and has increased by 5.4 per cent since 1998. Has the Minister an explanation for that increase?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the first question that the noble Earl asked was whether I believe that the use by lone parents of the discretionary Social Fund budgetary loan is an indication of their financial hardship and need. I believe that perhaps the noble Earl is confusing the role of community care grants, which deal with poverty, and crisis loans, which deal with emergency poverty, with budgeting loans, which are meant to provide credit for what we call "lumpy purchases".
Let me give an example. A washing machine in the high street might cost £400. One would get that money interest free from the Social Fund. If one used a mail

707
order over-52-week purchase, it would cost £500. If one went to a licensed credit agency it would cost £700 and if one went to a money lender shark it would cost £2,000. The Social Fund is designed to make available the sort of credit that the noble Lord and I take for granted.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one reason why discretionary payments are needed from the Social Fund is because of the inadequacies and complexity of housing benefit? The processing of payments is subject to delays, which leads to genuine hardship. All of that was set out in the report of the Better Regulation Task Force. Will the Minister say when the long overdue reform of housing benefit can be expected?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, who has asked her first question from the Front Bench. I am sure that she will bring her business expertise in particular to bear on our debates.
The noble Baroness's question about the inefficiency of housing benefit may be indicative of where we may be going. I entirely share her concerns—I am sure that they are shared around the House—about the inefficiency of and inadequacies in the current administration of housing benefit by the vast array of local authorities. The situation in Hackney is very much to be deplored. The Social Fund loans—budgetary loans, crisis loans and community care grants—do not come into play in relation to housing benefit; they are not to be used for that purpose. Therefore, although the noble Baroness is right to say that we need to reform housing benefit, that benefit is not part and parcel of our discussion of the Social Fund.
The noble Baroness asked when housing benefit may be reformed. We are currently seeking to improve the administration of housing benefit but the longer-term reform of that benefit clearly has to follow the longer-term reform of social housing sector rents.

Mr Alun Evans
3.22 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Mr Byers, or his special adviser, Ms Moore, were involved in any discussions or correspondence relating to the removal of Mr Alun Evans from his post prior to his removal.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, when Alun Evans took up appointment as the director of communication it was envisaged that he would move back into policy work
708
in the Civil Service in due course. This he has now done. He has been appointed to a senior post working with Dr Ian Anderson as head of the secretariat studying the foot and mouth outbreak.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am trying awfully hard to be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer but I am afraid that I cannot manage it. Is he aware that the purpose of my Question is not to trample on an individual, who has committed a grievous error but who has apologised for it and who is at any rate a symptom rather than the problem itself? I invite the noble and learned Lord to reflect on the real purpose of my Question. Perhaps the Government would do well to consider the increasing anxiety that is felt about the activities of special advisers and to reflect on their apparently continuing addiction to the questionable art of spinning rather than presenting facts.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there are approximately 80 special advisers in this Government, something under 10,000 senior civil servants and about 400,000 civil servants as a whole. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, said in the evidence that he gave to a committee in another place that special advisers can assist the process of government. They do so by providing people within a ministry with the views of the Minister. Civil servants like that because they get a better view of what is going on in the Minister's mind. Unlike practically any other system of government, incredibly few people change jobs after an election when there is a change of government. It is sensible and right that when Ministers come to office they should be assisted by people such as special advisers. That view is shared by the Cabinet Secretary and the First Division Association. The arrangement is not a bad thing; it can promote good government.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the Opposition's fixation with this relatively minor—albeit unacceptable—incident represents an attempt to conceal and draw attention away from the very good work that is being done by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which affects the daily lives of each and every one of our electorate? Perhaps he will take this opportunity to outline some of the work that has been recently done in that regard.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is an important point. The people of this country want improved transport, better local government, better housing and better urban regeneration. It is those physical changes to their lives that really matter. It may well be that people in the environs of Westminster and Whitehall find it worth while to talk for long periods about special advisers and structures. However, the Government are committed—rightly so—to the delivery of changes to people's lives. That is what the electorate are interested in.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord please say whether the Government are guided by the number of special advisers or by the quality of advice that they give? It is the quality of the advice that is important and it is the number of special advisers that troubles us and the Conservatives.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course it is the quality that matters. I referred to the numbers involved in order to make the point that the Government are not remotely swamped by special advisers; far from it. Those advisers represent a tiny proportion of the number of people who serve any government, and their work is to assist Ministers. If one thinks for a moment about the range of things that Ministers have to do, it cannot be unreasonable to suggest that the 23 or 24 Cabinet Ministers should be assisted by one or two special advisers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord draw particular attention to the latest code of conduct for special advisers? It states that they should not be responsible for line management of permanent civil servants, including their recruitment, and matters covered by their contract of employment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a very important point. Another important point in connection with their contract is that they are employed as civil servants and they are entitled to be treated as being bound by that contract of employment. That works both ways. They must deliver on their duties under that contract and they can expect to be disciplined and dealt with under its terms. That is what happened to Miss Jo Moore; that should be the end of it.
Lord Peyton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that his Question was meant to query the future role of special advisers and to express his disapproval of spin doctoring. I ask my noble and learned friend as a matter of fact whether special advisers were invented by this Government or whether we have had them for many years. A fortiori, is it not the case that spin doctoring was certainly not invented by this Government? However, I am bound to say that it appears that we are much better at it than our predecessors were.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can speak only on the basis of what I have read, which leads me to understand that when the Conservatives were in power they indeed employed special advisers and found them to be of real value in the conduct of government. The answer to the two parts of my noble friend's question is, "No, we did not", and, "No, we did not".
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as a former private secretary to two Prime Ministers—and proud
710
of it—I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is true, as is stated in the press, that private secretaries are from now on to be referred to as policy advisers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can speak only for my own private secretary. She refers to herself as a private secretary and I refer to her as a private secretary. That is the only indication I can give.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is it not the case that Mr Alun Evans was removed from his post because he refused to release sensitive information about Mr Bob Kiley, the Transport Commissioner for London, because he regarded that as a party political matter? Furthermore, does the noble and learned Lord agree with the recent statement made by Bob Kiley that:
"Personal vilification is the last resort of people who are unable to defend their position"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome the noble Viscount to the Front Bench at Question Time. It is always a pleasure to see him perform this function. The answer to the first part of his question is "No". Personal vilification has no part to play in politics.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it was proper for Ms Moore to apologise for her most unfortunate and inappropriate remarks? However, would it not also be appropriate for Her Majesty's Opposition to apologise for a most unfortunate privatisation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this is the third occasion this week on which I have been in the House answering Questions on transport or related matters. Not once has a Member of the Opposition Benches referred to the privatisation of Rail track. I assume that that is because it is a subject that dare not speak its name.

Business of the House: Christmas Recess
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, I always do my best to facilitate your Lordships' arrangements by announcing the Recess dates as far as possible in advance. The middle of October is a long way ahead to start to think about Christmas. However, I know that it will not be long before your Lordships start to ask me for the Christmas Recess dates. I am surprised that I have not already been asked.
Whenever I announce Recess dates I always use the formula that it is, "Subject to the progress of business". I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this year there is particular uncertainty about predicting events so far ahead. The events of 11th September seem likely to result in emergency legislation of one kind or another. We may well have to change our plans to accommodate whatever is necessary.

711
Having said that, and subject to the progress of business, the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 20th December and rise for the Christmas Recess at the end of business on that day. We shall return at 2.30 p.m. on Monday 7th January next year.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

International Development Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Development assistance]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after first "assistance" insert "only"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Before doing so, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the declaration of interest I made in Committee. For much of my life I have been and still am involved in the work of humanitarian and voluntary agencies, which deal with development matters.
I also want to make clear one point at the beginning of our proceedings. I take second place to no one in my admiration for the commitment of my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench to the courage, commitment and leadership of the Secretary of State and to the dynamic and exciting role played by DfID in developing policy in this sphere. My intention, however misguided the Front Bench may feel it to be, is to help them in that work and in no way to undermine it. I hope, therefore, that my amendments will be accepted in that spirit.
I turn to Amendment No. 1. Frankly, I am puzzled by the present drafting of the Bill. The Bill does not stipulate that the Secretary of State cannot provide assistance if that assistance will not contribute to a reduction in poverty. It stipulates that the Secretary of State may provide such assistance if something which is being proposed is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister stated that the word "only" was intended. I know her well and know that she meant that fervently. However, if that is intended, I do not understand why it is not on the face of the Bill. I have had a certain amount of experience in this sphere as a Minister. I am not talking about hypothetical issues but about what really happens in government when the struggle for public funds is under way. It seems to me that the Bill, as presently drafted, gives a hostage to fortune. It enables other departments, which may have interests and objectives which are not about the reduction of poverty, to have greater play in the debates which take place in Cabinet Committee.
If the word "only" is not to be on the face of the Bill, in many ways it would have been better not to introduce the concept of a reduction. I genuinely believe—not with the present Government, never; not with the present Secretary of State and present Ministers—that at some future date the concept of reduction could become a problem. That is why I have tabled Amendment No.2.
It would be possible for a future administration or, indeed, for another Minister in this administration, perhaps, to say that the objectives of the Bill were being fulfilled because there had been a 0.5 per cent reduction in poverty. Unless the objective is stated on the face of the Bill there is nothing against which to measure how much is being achieved by that reduction and how far that reduction is really making significant progress. I find that all the more intriguing because we have had two White Papers, in each of which the concept of the elimination of poverty was strongly stated in the title. The first is entitled, Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century. The second is entitled, Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work fir the Poor. In both White Papers there were personal statements from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister committing themselves to the elimination of poverty.
It seems to me that to remove the word "elimination" and the concept of elimination from the face of the Bill would be, however inadvertently, a retrograde step. We are now talking just about reductions in poverty. I believe that in future discussions—heated discussions, perhaps, in Cabinet Committee and elsewhere—this may prove to have been a self-inflicted wound. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 2.
At present, all Members of the House are deeply concerned about the elimination and eradication of terrorism in the world. There are some people who are rather defeatist. They may say, "It's never possible to eradicate terrorism". We would say, "Don't come here with such defeatist talk. To eradicate terrorism must be the objective. We must seek to fulfil that objective, however difficult". I find it strange that we have moved into an age in which we can have as an objective the eradication of terrorism, but we can no longer have as a stated objective in a Bill the elimination of poverty. It is unfortunate and potentially dangerous to have left that concept of elimination out of the Bill.
Some people will say that elimination is a political concept and we are dealing with legal matters, and that using the word "elimination" will give room for all sorts of people to challenge the Government and to say that poverty is not really being eliminated, but only reduced. I say, frankly and candidly, that we should welcome such debate and such pressure. Surely it is good for people to be able to ask how much progress we are making towards the elimination of poverty and not just ask what token reduction we have made.
That brings me to the third of my amendments. Poverty has many dimensions, but too easily it can be seen in material terms alone. Amendment No. 3 seeks to establish, on the face of the Bill, the right of the

713
Secretary of State to interpret poverty in wider terms. Putting such a matter on the face of the Bill will assist the Secretary of State in any future discussions or deliberations in Whitehall about how money may be used by her department or by the department of any successor to the present Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, no one in this House knows more about international development and aid for good causes than the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He has spent a great deal of his working life devoted to such causes and all noble Lords are glad to hear his views on the Bill at Report stage.
However, I find it difficult to accept either of his first two amendments. If the word "only" is to be included, who decides whether the development assistance will relate only to the reduction of poverty? If that word were to be included, for rather semantic reasons a number of good causes may become divorced or separated from the aid that they would otherwise receive. I do not believe that adding the word "only" helps the cause with which the noble Lord is normally associated.
In relation to his second amendment, in a realistic world one has to accept that poverty will never be eliminated. There is no possibility of that. It is rather foolish to set oneself targets that in one's heart one knows are quite unachievable. Although we would all like to see poverty totally eliminated, as we would like to see children throughout the world receiving primary education, in a realistic way we have to accept that that will not happen. Therefore, perhaps the words that he suggests in his second amendment are a pipedream. I believe that the wording on the face of the Bill is preferable.
On the other hand, I agree with his third amendment relating to the broadening and clarifying of the definition of the word "poverty". I believe that the words,
"material deprivation and also deprivation in wider human development terms",
would be a substantial addition to the Bill.
The final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was associated with the reduction of terrorism, the war in which we are jointly engaged with others at the moment. If this Bill had been drafted earlier, it may have been sensible for the word "starvation" to have been included, specifically in the subsection to which the third amendment refers.
At the moment it is not possible for the Report stage of this Bill to pass without dwelling on the position of those who are likely to face starvation in Afghanistan in the weeks ahead. In this context I declare an interest in that my elder son has been working for Oxfam in Islamabad for the past three weeks. Naturally, I am aware of the passion he feels on the subject. The latest figures from Oxfam, supported by other major agencies, are that the United Nations estimates that 50,000 tonnes of food, particularly wheat, must move into Afghanistan within the next few weeks. In the past
714
month 10,000 tonnes have been moved in and the present figures from the World Food Programme, which is playing a major part in the situation, are that about 500 tonnes daily are being moved in. If that situation continued the food would reach only one-third of the target that the UN estimates is essential before the snows arrive.
Of course, it is difficult to achieve accurate statistics. I know that the Government believe that the World Food Programme organisation is meeting its target, but the aid agencies on the spot would say absolutely categorically, against the figures that I have quoted, that the target is not high enough. Stockpiling must take place before winter comes, not only of wheat, but also of blankets. There are few drivers and porters willing to risk their lives by driving through the Khyber Pass to distribute the aid properly.
I gather that there is no clear indication at the moment that the Taliban has been grabbing aid, but it is clear that 400,000 people are already suffering. The most worrying figure of all is that it is assessed that another half a million people will be cut off in the next few weeks. On top of that, one and a half million will not have enough food for the winter. In total, perhaps two and a half million people are at risk in one way or another.
I appreciate enormously the efforts of the Secretary of State, Clare Short, in immediately making more money available and in her bravery in going to Pakistan herself to see the situation. Whether there should be a pause in the bombing raids is not something that we should discuss here today, but, in the context of the work carried out by the Department for International Development, we must be aware of the number of those in Afghanistan who are at risk at the moment and who will be materially deprived if circumstances continue as they are at present.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I hope that he will not push them because I could not support him that far, but unlike the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I believe in the pipedream of the elimination of poverty as an ultimate goal.
However, I feel that pushing the definition of "poverty" too far may mean that we fall into the trap of making this into a legal debate on what poverty involves, which is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. This issue has caused me some concern. The poorest countries in the world have some of the worst problems. But there are also some middle-income countries that have very poor areas, and people there are equally needful of our assistance, especially in areas that may not fall under a legal definition such as education and environmental assistance.
I echo the words of the noble Lord in relation to the work carried out by the Secretary of State. I nave some concerns about linking aid to military action. I believe that it would be inappropriate to make too many points in relation to the present situation. I hope that

715
the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be content not to push the amendments and that the Minister can give some assurance that the ideas behind those amendments are the ones to which DfID will stick.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for his remarks about the department, the role being played by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and about myself. I thank other noble Lords who have also spoken.
My noble friend and I have debated this matter on many occasions. I understand his concern. However, what is appropriate in legislation against our longer-term political objectives is the issue at the heart of one of my noble friend's amendments. I welcome debate. The debate that we have had on this subject, both in Committee and today, is part of the process of raising awareness of what the Government are trying to do through their development agenda and our clear focus on poverty elimination.
Before addressing the detail of the amendments, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, that his point with respect to the issue of—for example—starvation and the situation in Afghanistan is covered in Clause 3 which deals with humanitarian assistance. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to stockpile food in Afghanistan for the winter. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development made that point. The noble Lord will be aware of the strenuous efforts made by the Government through our support for the World Food Programme and other NGOs to bring vitally needed help and supplies to the poor in Afghanistan. As the noble Lord said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is at this time in Pakistan.
I turn to Amendment No. 1. I fully recognise my noble friend's concern to make absolutely sure, for example, that tied aid cannot be provided under the Bill. But we do not believe that the clause requires the addition of the word "only" in order to do that. The clause already makes clear that the Secretary of State cannot—I repeat, cannot—provide development assistance if she or he is not satisfied that it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty. There are no other circumstances under Clause 1 in which development assistance can be provided. The Bill will make sure that such assistance can no longer be used to further improper commercial or political ends.
On Amendment No. 2, I fully recognise the efforts of my noble friend to combine his concern that on the face of the Bill we should reflect our long-term policy objective of the elimination of poverty and the concern that I set out in Committee that the elimination of poverty is too high a test to embed in legislation directed to the sanctioning of individual spending decisions. But we believe that under this new formulation the Secretary of State's decisions would
716
be open to be tested against the higher standard. If that is not what my noble friend intends, then the wording of the amendment would have no value.
Turning now to Amendment No. 3, again I recognise my noble friend's efforts to find a definition of poverty that we shall be able to accept. But I believe that however we try to define poverty in the Bill—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—we risk exposing the Secretary of State to the risk of technical legal challenge over whether the aspect of poverty that she or he had identified fell within specific elements of the definition, rather than within the meaning of the whole term. The proposed amendment offers the possibility of exhausting debate over the meaning and quality of "deprivation" and the compass of "human development" to the distraction of the purpose of reducing poverty wherever we find it and in whatever form it takes.
The Government's commitment to poverty elimination is firm. As my noble friend said, it is set out in our two White Papers. We are focusing our whole development effort on the need to reduce extreme poverty and on meeting the millennium development goals and international development targets. The Bill will establish our poverty focus in law. I hope that on the basis of my response my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments, even if we do not altogether agree. With regard to Amendment No. 1 that concerns the word "only", in listening to the Minister, I just wish that she had drafted the Bill because if the Bill said what she has said, I would be a much happier man. I do not read Clause 1 (1) as saying what the Minister says it says. Clause 1 does not state that the Secretary of State cannot provide assistance if what is being proposed does not contribute to a reduction in poverty; it simply says that the Secretary of State can provide assistance if it is going to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
That is unfortunate. Together with one or two other matters in the Bill, it makes the point that when things are working well it is better to leave them alone rather than to start moving in and complicating the task for the future by introducing matters, notions, processes or concepts which may be open to still further confusion and debate in the future.
On the matter of elimination, I am sad when I hear noble Lords make the kind of observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I have tremendous respect for the noble Lord—as he knows—and a great admiration for him. I have always enjoyed his contributions in Parliament. I feel for the noble Lord in terms that he must be quite an anxious man at the moment because of his own personal involvement in the area, which the noble Lord has quite movingly described to us this afternoon, through his family and so on. If society is to move forward in any direction we have to be brave. We have to be prepared to set out what the objective is and then to measure the action against that.

717
I was excited by the two White Papers which referred unashamedly in their title—with messages from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—to the elimination of poverty. I should feel much happier if the Bill therefore said, "Yes. Of course. We cannot have elimination in the immediate future, perhaps even in the foreseeable future, but we really have elimination as the ultimate objective and will therefore look at reduction in terms of how far it is moving towards that elimination".
In terms of Amendment No. 3, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend says. To show that I am a reasonable man I say that I understand the complications she has described. There are two sides to this argument. However, I am prepared to listen to and accept the strength of what my noble friend says.
I conclude by saying that the firmness and the commitment with which my noble friend has spoken—not for the first time—on these issues provides some point of reference on the matters of concern that I have raised. I am unhappy with the drafting. The drafters could have done better. In terms of what my noble friend has said, if we can make sure that in the future people look firmly at that, I am prepared on this occasion to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 anti 3 not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 10, after "furthering" insert ", either bilaterally or multilaterally,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during a lifetime of work on development matters I have come firmly to the conclusion—I am sure that DfID would share this assessment—that we have to work increasingly in a multilateral context. It is not just that we can combine efforts to greater effect to more than just the aggregate of the sums and to greater effect if we are working together with others and in common with others, but it is also true that competing bilateral programmes can be disruptive and fragmentary in their approach. They can actually do damage. Therefore, it is important to sustain the concept of multilateralism, particularly within the UN system.
From that standpoint, therefore, it will be helpful for the Secretary of State in future deliberations, in Government and more widely, to be able to refer to the fact that there is a statutory obligation to work in multilateral as well as bilateral contexts. There are chauvinistic and nationalistic people around who fail to recognise this wider dimension. They work against the cause rather than for it. I would not want to see us in any way playing into their hands. I want therefore to see a commitment to multilateral action clearly on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I understand the intention of' my noble friend in regard to this amendment. He wishes to make sure that the Secretary of State provides assistance through multilateral
718
bodies, such as the European Union and the United Nations. I can assure my noble friend that Clause 4 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make contributions to the European Development Fund and to United Nations bodies, to name but two examples. United Kingdom contributions to other European development assistance programmes, such as those for the former Soviet Union, Asia and Latin America, and for humanitarian purposes, are appropriated under the European Communities Act 1972 and attributed to the aid programme. Those contributions will not be affected by the Bill.
The Bill should not impose unnecessary constraints on the channels through which the Secretary of State may choose to direct development or humanitarian assistance. Decisions on whether to use multilateral channels for the delivery of UK assistance have to be made in the light of circumstances pertaining in each case and on the relevant capacities of the bodies in question.
As it stands, Clause 1 naturally embraces both bilateral and multilateral action. Though it is likely to be a rare event, there could be circumstances in which aspects of our effort to further sustainable development might be defined as unilateral; neither as part of a direct agreement with one other country, nor in the context of multilaterally concerted action.
I hope that, in the light of this explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, again I think that my noble friend has spoken strongly. Once more, I hope that future generations will look back at what she has said and see that it is firmly the intention here. To some extent I am reassured and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, after "prudent" insert "and environmentally sound"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, increasing numbers of people concerned with third world issues, if I may use the old phrase, realise that they cannot be separated from concerns about the environment. But, of course, environmental issues range far wider than third world matters. For myself, I have reached the stage in life where I believe very much that we need to see a change in mindset as regards our socio-economic activities whereby we realise that the greatest and most important strategic interest of all, in consideration of our children and grandchildren, is the effective management of our environment.
For that reason, I believe that when one considers countries facing tremendous problems of development, we now have a chance to get it right and to ensure that we do not lead those nations down roads that subsequently prove to be less than satisfactory in terms of a commitment to the protection, enhancement and well-being of the environment. It would be a good thing to spell out in the remit of DfID that it bears the responsibility of ensuring that all its actions are

719
environmentally sound and compatible with good stewardship of the environment. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I would have thought that it might be possible for the Government to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I regret that once again this afternoon I find myself in some disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, over the words that he wishes to add to the Bill, although I appreciate that he wants to see them included for extremely good reasons. We all believe in environmentally sound measures and in fostering a greater consciousness of the environment across the world, not least in the developing countries. However, the real problem here is how to ascertain whether something is environmentally sound and whether, in the pursuit of environmentally sound measures, traditional methods fall by the wayside.
For example, technicians and consultants might be anxious to see the latest GM-tested crop seeds being used in place of traditional seeds. However, increasingly history demonstrates that in many cases the use of modern techniques is often to the lasting damage of older traditions. It is then found that the resultant crops obtained, despite the projections of the makers of the new seeds, fall far short. In Bangladesh, for example, attempts have been made to introduce various new strains of rice. Those efforts have had the effect of producing, after some years, lower yields than was the case with the traditional types of seed. In the end, the new strains simply did not suit the soil and water into which they were planted.
However, recognition of such problems is not achieved quickly. It comes only after a number of years of experiment, by which time the old seed has often disappeared, along with the knowledge of how to treat the land in the traditional manner. As a result, many living on extremely low incomes find that their agricultural output is worse than it was five years previously, despite the environmentally sound measures that were introduced.
I recall when I was a Minister at the Foreign Office paying a visit to Sudan. On a trip to an area outside Khartoum, I was shown a major project aimed at bringing back water to land associated with the Nile, but from which it had receded. A century before, water had been in good supply and cotton was grown on the land. The project to reopen the old canals and re-establish the growing of cotton was hugely welcomed. I watched a film showing local people jumping for joy and leaping into the water in celebration of the return of the Nile to their cotton fields. However, what no one had realised was that the water was impregnated with bilharzia. All those who entered the water went on to develop bilharzia, from which many died, while others were maimed for life. The project had not been tested properly.
That story reflects for me a sad tragedy. It is a tragedy when a project that appears to be environmentally sound actually works in the other
720
direction. Mistakes were made because of lack of proper study of the local conditions, the soil and what can survive in a particular climate.
For those reasons, whatever may be the good motives underlying the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in seeking to add the words "and environmentally sound" to the Bill, personally I think that it would be a mistake.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at Second Reading I stated that what I particularly liked about the Bill was its definition of sustainable development. I liked it because it was necessarily extremely broad. That breadth did away with a great deal of conceptual muddle surrounding the notion of sustainable development. Believe me, it is not as easy a definition as many would like to think.
I should like to say only this. If specific requirements are added to the Bill along the lines suggested by my noble friend—for very good reasons—I can think of other specific requirements which have been missed out. For example, I might want to add a mention about gender, or children, or human rights. None of those requirements is mentioned on the face of the Bill.
However, to ensure the likelihood of generating lasting benefit for the population of a country, the current definition of sustainable development should cover the ground. Flexibility is always preferable to attempting to nail concepts down. The more specific the requirements, in some cases the more difficult it will become to give aid where it is most needed. That is because it will be impossible to satisfy all the specific requirements of the criteria.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd has a long and distinguished record of contributions to and concern about development matters, so I know that he is aware of the ongoing debates regarding the nature of sustainable development and within that, issues of environmental responsibility and, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, so powerfully outlined in his example, potential environmental impacts.
As I said in Committee, we believe that poverty can be permanently eliminated only through sustainable development, but we also believe that it is important to avoid forcing the Secretary of State to adopt either an overly economic or environmental focus in interpretations of that term. In that I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai when he says that we need flexibility in these matters. Sustainable development is understood to comprise economic, social and environmental factors. The balance between them must be determined in the context of the needs of those people at whom the assistance in question is aimed.
I can reassure my noble friend that we take the environmental aspect of sustainable development very seriously. All DfID spending proposals are screened to determine their likely environmental effects and the seriousness of those effects. This screening is intended to enhance the environmental benefits of the proposed project or programme; to ensure that our activities are

721
consistent with relevant UK, EC and local legislation and with international environmental agreements; to identify any potentially adverse environmental impacts of the proposal; and to ensure that environmental issues are properly taken into account in the detailed design.
We are also working at international level as part of the preparations for next year's World Summit for Sustainable Development to promote the principle that environmental sustainability considerations should be integrated into countries' national poverty reduction strategies.
With that reassurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, again I extend my appreciation to all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I did not follow the logic of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, because the project he described, very graphically, was clearly environmentally unsound.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the point is that at the time it was thought to be extremely environmentally sound, and all the experts thought that it was sound too.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my point is, as the noble Lord pointed out in his own remarks, the job was not properly done. That is what was wrong; it was badly done. We do not, presumably, approach any legislation in this House on the basis that we cannot envisage changing anything because someone may make the change badly. We expect people to do their job properly. In that case, clearly people had not done their job properly. But that does not invalidate the arguments for being environmentally sound.
To my good and noble friend—my longstanding friend—Lord Desai, I candidly put to him that I have a difference with him. I care as deeply as he does about gender, but I believe that the issue of environment is of strategically greater significance than the issue of gender. If we get the environment wrong, the argument about gender will become fairly academic in the not too distant future.
We are talking about the survival of the human race. We are talking about economic and social viability in the countries concerned. Gender is important, but we would be desperately unfortunate if we embarked along roads of development which proved counterproductive in terms of the preservation of the environment and caused greater problems in the future for those already over-taxed and ill-fated societies.
I say to my noble friend the Minister, yet again, how I wish she had drafted the Bill. We would then have had a very different creature in front of us. However, because I admire the way in which she has put her case, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Humanitarian assistance]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) Such assistance shall be consistent with the purpose of humanitarian aid as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by quoting the European regulation concerned. It is not long.
"Whereas humanitarian aid, the sole aim of which is to prevent or relieve human suffering, is accorded to victims without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic group, religion, sex, age, nationality or political affiliation and must not be guided by, or subject to. political considerations".
In this area of policy—not unlike other areas to which we have referred already and some to which we will refer later—in the real world of political activity there are a lot of pressures with which to contend. There will always be a tendency for pressure to be exerted to divert humanitarian aid from simple humanitarian purposes to achieving political objectives which may at the time seem important. When those pressures are exerted, the Secretary of State needs the maximum possible explicit authority to withstand them.
From that standpoint, if we accept—as we presumably do—in a European Union context the validity of the European Council regulation, then surely it is a little odd that we are not consistent in terms of accepting it in the application of what we are ourselves doing outside the European Union. I urge that we should become consistent and that what we have accepted in one context should run right across our policy towards humanitarian assistance. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I explained in Committee, we firmly believe that it would not enhance the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance to try to define on the face of the Bill the terms on which it should be given.
My noble friend has taken an interesting approach in attempting to link the Secretary of State's powers to those laid down in the legislative basis for European Community humanitarian assistance. But there are a number of significant disadvantages to such an approach. We believe that it would impose an unnecessary restriction on the Secretary of State's ability to take necessary action.
While the objectives of our Bill are largely consistent with the objectives of the EC regulation, the regulation is intended to govern Community actions, not those of the member states of the European Union. As a matter of principle, the Secretary of State should not have her or his hands tied legally by external definitions.
There are also practical difficulties. The EC regulation does not allow for certain types of assistance which the Secretary of State may wish to provide under this clause, such as post-emergency rehabilitation and reconstruction, and assistance for displaced people after the immediate humanitarian crisis subsides, including, for example, the

723
reintegration of demobilised former soldiers. Both of those matters have been discussed in the House. For European aid, these forms of assistance are covered by subsequent Council legislation.
Finally, identifying how the "purpose" of humanitarian assistance is defined by the regulation could lead to considerable legal argument. During the debate in Committee, my noble friend quoted one of the 18 preambular paragraphs of the regulation—I had to go and look it up—but the regulation does not at any point specifically define the "purpose" of humanitarian assistance. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I find my noble friend's observations reassuring. Having accepted them in the spirit in which they are offered, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Financial assistance]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 2, after "assistance" insert "in accordance with section 1(1)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to the heart of what really happens in development—if you like, the nitty gritty; the wheeling and dealing. Before the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, rises to disagree with me, I want to make one point very clear: I do not have an ideological objection to the involvement of the private sector in development. I believe that the private sector has a very important part to play in development and I have advocated that role. Therefore it is not an ideological matter but a question of how it is done.
When the pressures are on and all kinds of considerations come into play, there is a real danger that what has been stated as the objectives of the Bill—even though they are not quite as I would have liked them, they are there—will seem very far away. In the context of the business of getting on with the work, everyone may concentrate on certain parts of the Bill and not all the time be thinking of its original purposes and objectives. From that standpoint, it seems useful to be able to refer back at certain key points in the Bill to its objectives. It would give a point of reference—it would provide "belt and braces". Because of the complexity of policy and the pressures involved in the areas dealt with in these clauses, it would be a wholesome development to see a reference at these points on the face of the Bill to what it is all supposed to be about—rather than merely expecting people to obtain a copy of the Bill, take it out of the filing cabinet, look the reference up, see what the objectives really are and all the rest. The information should be available in the operative part of the Bill with which the activity is concerned.
I hope that I am not being too provocative in saying that this is not a theoretical point. In quite recent times real issues have become highly contentious in this kind of area. Indeed, we have seen the departure from the department of one of the finest Permanent Secretaries
724
in Whitehall on a matter of principle in precisely this kind of area. Therefore, it seems to me extraordinary that there is a resistance to repeating a reference back to the principles and objectives of the Bill. I am disappointed. I begin to wonder why there is not a willingness to accept such a reference at this point.
The same points apply to some extent to Amendment No. 11. But my point in tabling the amendment is this. If one looks at the list or organisations set out in the schedule, one sees that they have a pretty demanding agenda involving all kinds of responsibilities other than reducing world poverty. If they are to co-operate in the policies of DfID, it would be sensible to have an explicit reference back at this point to the basis on which that co-operation is taking place. The point is not merely to facilitate the organisations in their general work; it is to make sure that any work that they do makes a genuine contribution to fulfilling the Bill's objectives. Therefore, I do not see why a "belt-and-braces" reference back at this juncture would not be appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I am not certain about the noble Lord's reference to the private sector in his remarks on Amendment No. 7. I may have missed the point. It seems to me that both the private sector and the public sector have a real part to play in the provision of development assistance as defined in the Bill. I strongly support the amendment. A reference back to Clause 1(1) would be a good way of reminding people of the objectives for which the money was being provided.
I am afraid that I did not take part in the deliberations on the Bill in Committee. I am slightly surprised by the list given in Schedule 1, which seems rather odd. Perhaps the point was debated at some length in Committee, but it does not strike me as the obvious list to which the Clause 9 provisions should apply. Quite a large number of bodies which become involved in development aid are not listed in the schedule. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, perhaps I may add a supplementary point. Why are not social services bodies included in the list?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the concerns that have prompted the tabling of Amendment No. 7 are ones with which I sympathise. One of the underlying reasons for bringing forward the Bill is the desire to ensure that there shall be no return to past abuses of the aid programme and no sliding away from the commitment that the Bill enshrines to place the reduction and eventual elimination of poverty at the heart of the United Kingdom's policy for development assistance. The driving need for humanitarian relief and recognition of our longstanding obligations to the Overseas Territories offer the only carefully crafted departures from it.
Let me explain why we consider Amendment No. 7 and any similar amendment to be unnecessary. Clause 6 is not itself a spending power. No future Secretary of

725
State will be able to base the giving of grants or loans or the taking up of securities on Clause 6 on its own. Clause 6 serves only to explain the forms which financial assistance may take when it is offered under Clause 1, 2, 3 or 4. Those are the spending powers. Unless a Secretary of State can bring himself or herself within the terms of one of them, the Bill will not sanction his or her spending.
Each of Clauses 1 to 4 uses the term "assistance". Clause 5 gives us the meaning of that term as it is used in the clauses. It refers to,
"financial or technical assistance, and … assistance consisting in a supply of materials".
Clause 6 then explains what form financial assistance can take.
Therefore, we do not need the amendment proposed by my noble friend in order to ensure that financial assistance is given only in accordance with Clause 1 or, as I believe my noble friend would wish us to add, Clause 2 or Clause 3. That being the case, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Our concern about Amendment No. 11 is that it would impose an unnecessary curb on the actions of statutory bodies with respect to assistance to overseas territories or for humanitarian purposes. As Clause 9 is presently formulated, statutory bodies can enter into agreements for purposes that reflect the purposes in Clauses 1, 2 and 3. They may do so only with the consent of the Secretary of State. This is the device that ensures the consistency of their actions with development policy and allows the Secretary of State to ensure that the poverty criterion is met when appropriate. The amendment would apply the poverty criterion even in response to disasters and thus inhibit statutory bodies' scope for action even if the Secretary of State wanted them to help out. It would be better to leave control in the hands of the Secretary of State, who can be held to account in this House and in another place.
I turn to the point made about the schedule by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Renton of Mount Harry. We explained in Committee that the list is purely historical, based on the 1980 Act. The need for the list is to perfect the powers of bodies that could not otherwise assist. That is why the list is so "odd" and why it does not include every single statutory agency. If noble Lords would like more information, I advise them to return to the debates on the matter in Committee. In the light of that explanation, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment and not to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her explanation. On the point about the list of organisations contained in the schedule—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and I are in agreement—I, too, find it slightly odd. Why include these bodies and not others? It is interesting.
Problems arise in this area. I can remember being approached by a health authority that was anxious about a large amount of equipment which it felt was no longer relevant in its work. It hoped that DfID might
726
assist in exporting it to third world countries where it might make a useful contribution. One can see the pressures that will develop, whereas the starting-point in a third world country is to ask the following questions. What is the position in this country? What is really needed? What is the best use of available resources? And what is going to be sustainable in terms of a developing health service in this situation?
In these kinds of debates it is helpful not merely to take the legalistic position of the draftsman and say that the words are contained in the opening sections of the Bill. There ought to be an explicit statement at the point of the Bill that is applicable at any particular moment. I sometimes think that we have a problem of amour propre as regards the parliamentary draftsman. I hope that that is not the case here. Some of the arguments that I have heard from my noble friend suggest that, had she been drafting the Bill, she would have done so in very much the way that I seek. Therefore, I cannot quite understand the resistance to them.
However, my noble friend has put her case clearly. It would not be appropriate to divide the House. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Terms on which assistance is provided]:
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert "subject to subsection (5)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 and speaking to Amendment No. 9, perhaps I may say how sad I am that my noble friend Lady Young, who has been so closely involved with the issues that are referred to in these amendments, is unable to be here today because of illness. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in sending her our very best wishes. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has also worked tirelessly for this cause. sadly cannot be here today because of a long-standing commitment.
I am, however, willing to give my strong support to these amendments because of the principle that they enshrine: respect for human rights, especially for the reproductive rights of women and of motherhood. The amendments have been revised from those tabled at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Young, to accommodate concerns about unintended consequences for voluntary family planning or for Britain's relations with other countries. I do not intend to divide the House today but I hope that in the light of these revisions, the Government will be willing to consider the amendments sympathetically.
I wish to emphasise that these amendments would not stop funding for abortion or family planning services, nor would they prevent Her Majesty's Government from giving funding to providers of these services, as long as they are not complicit in coercion. The amendments are not designed to condemn China or to threaten trade or diplomatic relations. Rather they could help China to reform its family planning programme to meet internationally agreed standards, and thereby improve its reputation in the international community.
Her Majesty's Government's commitment to an ethical foreign policy must surely require them to enshrine respect for human rights in the disbursement of their international development budget. Therein lies the essence of these amendments. It is incontestable that coercion is both a policy and a practice integral to China's population control programme. Many reports from Amnesty International, the US State Department, dissidents, refugees and the international media testify to the harsh fact of forced abortion and sterilisation. In August the Sunday Telegraph reported that,
"one Chinese county has been ordered to conduct 20,000 abortions and sterilisations before the end of the year … after family planning chiefs found that the official one-child policy was being routinely flouted … Many of the terminations will have to be conducted forcibly on peasant women to meet the quota".
Despite that clear evidence of coercive policies, the United Nations Population Fund—UNFPA—and the International Planned Parenthood FederationIPPF—continue to support and fund China's one-child policy. In 1999 UNFPA spent 5 million US dollars on population control in China and the British Government give UNFPA on average £15 million every year of unrestricted funds.
Moreover, the China Family Planning Association—CFPA—a state-run body responsible for ensuring the policy's implementation, has been an IPPF member since 1983, just as that one-child programme became increasingly coercive. In 1989 IPPF admitted that CFPA,
"volunteers sometimes collect the occasional fine when a couple breaks the birthplan rules".
Last year IPPF gave 500,000 US dollars in unrestricted funds to CFPA. The British Government give on average £5 million every year to IPPF, again in unrestricted funds.
British taxpayers' money is giving financial sustenance to the coercive one-child policy. This has not gone unnoticed by the victims of that policy. A spokesman for a Tibetan human rights organisation said in August last year:
"What is the UK doing helping to fund birth control policies in Tibet, an occupied country? With Tibetans a rapidly shrinking minority in their own land, rigid birth control—especially in conjunction with China's inhumane policies of enforced sterilisation and abortion—amounts to genocide … It's time the UK government behaved ethically".
UNFPA and IPPF have claimed that their activities in China involve purely voluntary family planning and are helping to eliminate the one-child policy's coercive practices. They have used this argument year after year. Year after year the Chinese authorities strengthen the strict population control programme. In 1995 the International Development Department's own document, China: Population Issues stated:
"Critics of this position argue that several years of UNFPA and IPPF involvement in China have not led the Chinese to moderate their policies or stop abuses in the implementation of the policy".
The continued failure of UNFPA to moderate China's coercive policy was exposed last month. The US-based Population Research Institute sent a team to observe UNFPA's so-called voluntary programme and to interview women and officials in those counties where the UNFPA is active. Its investigation concluded:
"The UNFPA, contrary to its own statements, is participating in the management and support of a program of forced abortion and forced sterilisation in China".
Other side effects of China's coercive one-child policies include infanticide of baby girls, a distorted demographic structure and a tendency to over-protect single male children, who experience psychological problems, characterised by the so-called "young emperor" syndrome.
The Government have stated:
"UK assistance for sexual and reproductive health anywhere in the world is provided in support of the principles of free and informed choice",
and that they are,
"totally opposed to any kind of coercion in matters related to childbearing".
However, the evidence shows that in China today, British taxpayers' money may be being used to promote forced abortion and sterilisation. I can therefore see no reason why the Government should not consider these amendments sympathetically. I hope that the Minister will do so because they are designed simply to promote compliance with the Government's own standards and to protect fundamental human rights. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Cox in bringing forward her amendment. Perhaps I may also say how much I regret the absence of my noble friend Lady Young. I know that she will read the Hansard report of the debate with considerable interest.
I have been approached by a number of NGOs to speak in support of the amendment. They have given horrific examples of some of the coercive population control practices, particularly in China, and their dramatic effect in Tibet, as my noble friend Lady Cox has already described.
It must be right for our Government to introduce conditions on how our money is spent, and not to continue to give millions in unrestricted grants to the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and others. That would be an excellent example of implementing an ethical foreign policy. I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the amendment. I trust that the noble Baroness, or whoever responds to the amendment, can give us that assurance.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it seems to me that two or three key words in this pair of amendments are, "any form of coercion". It was because of those words that I felt both willing and able to add my name to the amendments. I certainly would not deny to any family its right to plan the number of children that it has, their spacing, and so on. I am pretty sure that the great

729
majority of your Lordships would not object to any government having a population policy. However, what is objectionable—and, indeed, unacceptable—is the use of coercion to implement such policies.
A good deal of evidence has been accumulated over the years in the case of China to show that crude reproductive targets have been set leading to such practices as surgery carried out in totally insanitary conditions. That is bad enough in itself, but when there is added to that such practices as forced abortion, compulsory sterilisation of women and the compulsory fitting of intrauterine devices, the situation is compounded and made quite unacceptable, particularly when it is accompanied by such incidents as infanticide, the drowning of children in paddylields, and the torturing to death of a man who would not reveal the whereabouts of his wife (who was believed to be pregnant).
Of course, China is not the only country in which such occurrences are known to have taken place. Other countries where the UN Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation have been involved include India, Peru, and perhaps others. It is for all those reasons, as well as those already mentioned by the two noble Baronesses who have spoken, that I urge the Government to accept at least the principle of the amendment, even if, perchance, its wording may not be absolutely perfect.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, these amendments would require the Secretary of State not to provide assistance to any organisations or individuals who were involved in promoting or practising coercive population policies. In view of the importance of the issue, I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate some of the points that I made in Committee about the Government's approach towards population policy.
All UK, assistance for family planning is provided in line with the principles of free and informed choice upheld at the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994. The Government are totally opposed to coercion in matters related to childbearing. I said that in Committee and it is clear in all our publications. I am surprised that noble Lords imply that we agree with coercive practices in these matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke about China. During the discussion in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the policies of the Chinese Government. Let me reiterate: the Government disagree—we have made that absolutely clear—with China's one-child policy. Coercion should have no place in family planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, talked especially about the UNFPA's contribution to reproductive rights work in China. I repeat what I said in Committee:
"We have evidence that the work of UNFPA in the 32 Chinese counties has led to a decrease in the induced abortion rate. That is the aim of the work within the context of the principles agreed in Cairo".—[Official Report, 16/07/01: cols. 1341–1342.]
730
The Department for International Development supports the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation as forces for positive change in over 150 countries. We support their efforts to improve government policies and the supply of appropriate contraception. Last year, for example, in addition to our contribution to UNFPA and IPPF, we gave an additional £25 million to help avert a shortage of contraception in developing countries. Noble Lords will appreciate the importance of this, given the concerns expressed in the House about the rising prevalence of HIV and AIDS in many parts of the world.
I turn now to China. These organisations have programmes in China aimed at promoting better understanding of international standards in reproductive health, and are working to secure greater respect for reproductive rights. The UNFPA is engaged in high-level negotiations with the Government of China to secure a commitment that its programme could be conducted in adherence to the standards agreed at the 1994 conference. I believe we would all agree that that is a very important negotiation. The areas where UNFPA works have seen the abolition of birth quotas, evidence of a shift from administratively-oriented family planning services to client-oriented services, and, as I said before, a decrease in induced abortion rates.
The Government's policy is in line with the sense behind the proposed amendments. But embedding current policies and priorities in legislation could restrict our ability to make the most effective contribution possible to the elimination of poverty and to the welfare of people. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am grateful tot hose who have supported this amendment. Both my noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, joined with me in giving evidence and quoting examples that give rise to continuing and justified concern—facts that indicate forced and coercive policies with regard to the fundamental issues of abortion and sterilisation. I take note of what the Minister said about the Government's stated policy regarding such ethical issues. However, there seems to be a real divergence on the interpretation of the evidence.
The evidence quoted by noble Lords in this debate is both sound and substantiated. The amendments merely ask that the principle of restricting funding where there are coercive policies should be placed on the face of the Bill. I see no inconsistency between what the amendments propose, and the principles involved, and what the Minister said in her response. However, just in case I missed something in the Minister's reply that bears reconsideration, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment. Nevertheless, I may 'wish to return to the issue on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Brennan Lord Brennan moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) In providing any financial or other assistance, special consideration shall be given to reducing the effects of poverty on children, and where appropriate—

(a) any assistance project shall identify the expected benefits to children; and

(b) any such assistance shall require the recipient to report on the implementation of the assistance as it affects children."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to enhance the effectiveness of the Bill. It should assist it because it seeks to reflect in the Bill government policy, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, last February in his major speech on the impact of global poverty on children. A question arose after the Committee stage, during which I put forward a similar amendment, as to whether it would in fact achieve that objective.
My noble friend the Minister very kindly arranged a meeting between myself and some of her officials from the Department for International Development. It was an interesting meeting. Just as their enthusiasm for the conceptual framework of the Bill increased, so my understanding of it decreased. When I told the officials that the convention on the rights of the child to which we were signatories states that children in difficult circumstances deserve special consideration, as the introductory words to my amendment suggest, they said, "That's as may be, but it can't go into this Bill". When I pointed out to them on the question of the subparagraphs that my noble friend the Minister said in Committee that the Government already identified whether or not a programme would assist children, and that, if it was intended to do so, the recipients should report back on the effectiveness of the assistance, the officials said, again, "That's as may be, but it can't go into this Bill". They then gave up; and I gave up.
I contemplated the state of affairs whereby logical drafting suggests that an International Development Bill serves the best interests of children by not referring to them. From that rich vintage of the parliamentary draftsmen, which we common folk find difficult to appreciate, I turn to practical reality; namely, what will this Bill do to help children? I express that concern not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the consortium of over 20 charities in which I play a part, including the UK sections of Save the Children and UNICEF. They want to know whether this Bill will help children. I have passed on to the Minister their concerns.
They have four essential concerns: first, that the burden of poverty falls disproportionately on children; secondly, that donee states must—I emphasise the word "must"—be made to use resources to fulfil their responsibilities as governments to help children and not just leave it to NGOs; thirdly, that there is no such thing as a child neutral economic or development policy; and, fourthly, that development aid must prioritise children in general and include marginalised children, the displaced and the vulnerable in particular. They congratulate, commend and look
732
forward to the continuation of the efforts this Government make to help children through development aid, but they want to know whether the Bill will help the cause.
It may be that the Bill possesses such a state of legislative purity that my poor amendment cannot aspire to be included in it. No matter, it provides an excellent opportunity for my noble friend the Minister—which I am sure she will take—clearly to state the determination of this Government to use this Bill to help children. I beg to move.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment to which I have added my name. As he indicated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said on many occasions, perhaps the one purpose it will serve is to let us know how my noble friend the Minister would have drafted the Bill had she had full freedom to do so. That is, no doubt, a good thing because, after all, what is stated in Hansard has some kind of super status.
I do not see the amendment in any way as restricting the Secretary of State from doing anything. I hope that I have not misunderstood the matter. As I said before in the context of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Judd, I do not want to lay down special conditions. But, as I read it, the amendment directs attention to the need to measure certain effects. In as much as it requires those effects to be measured, it draws attention to the need to consider them properly. Therefore, I believe that it is a good amendment. I am sure that, if nothing else, the spirit of the amendment will affect DfID's thinking.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I declare an interest in that one of my sons works with street children in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and has done for the past seven years and my wife runs a charity, the Foundation for Children at Risk, which supports that work.
I feel as strongly as others who have spoken to the amendment that there should be some specific mention of children in the Bill. The case for singling out children has been clearly accepted by the United Nations in its work. After all, the United Nations has a specific fund, the United Nations Children's Fund, which is for children alone. We all know perfectly well that the huge sums of money raised for children by the United Nations would not have been raised if it had just simply been swallowed up in the United Nations Development Programme. That is an entirely worthy programme, but one which gets far less money and far fewer resources than the children's fund. Moreover, the United Nations has always taken the view—10 years ago it most prominently took this view—that the rights of children are somewhat different, additional and supplementary to the ordinary human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is why there is now a United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I believe that the United Nations has pointed the way for us in specifying children as being different. It is a sad fact that the second summit,

733
the 10th anniversary of the signature of the Convention on the Rights of the Child—the first meeting of which in 1990 I had the honour to attend with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who made a most moving speech on behalf of the world's children—was swept away as one of the innocent victims of the outrage of 11th September. It should have taken place the following week. Let us hope that it will not be too long delayed.
Children are different and separate. They should be recognised on the face of the Bill. The damage that is done to them by poverty, maltreatment and enrolment in armed forces is frequently irreparable. I feel strongly that the basic thrust of the amendment is a worthy one. If the Minister will forgive me for saying so, I find most of the arguments against specifying references to children either bureaucratic or legalistic. I admit that somewhere in my misspent youth I was probably responsible for producing bureaucratic and legalistic arguments in similar circumstances. However, the repentance of one sinner is perhaps worthwhile. I hope that in this particular case the noble Baroness will relent, if not repent.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I add my support for the amendment which was so eloquently and powerfully moved by my noble friend Lord Brennan. I pay tribute to the consistent and great work that he does in this area.
I believe that the amendment again highlights the fact that the Bill has raised more questions than it has answered. It has become so abstract and theoretical that I do not begin to see what it adds to what is happening at the moment. As I say, it has perhaps raised more questions than it has begun to answer. Therefore, I feel that, to be able to bring a bit of specific humanity into the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, suggested with all his experience, would be salutary. The House will forgive me if I slightly twist the tail of my noble friend Lord Desai—although that is a dangerous thing to do—who said that if one specified the words "environmentally sound", one ran the risk of having to include issues of gender. If we specify children, who are an overriding priority—I cannot say how strongly I support the amendment—we have to think also of the elderly in the midst of what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment and the disabled. There are many others who need to be mentioned specifically. However, the Bill emanates from MID. DfID is not about bureaucracy and legalistic considerations; DfID constitutes a campaign or it is nothing. It ought to break new ground in the form in which it drafts its legislation.
5 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in previous years I have had the privilege of piloting through your Lordships' House one or possibly two Bills that eventually helped to change government policy and convinced the Government that they needed to do more in this country to prevent the sexual exploitation of children, particularly in south-east Asia. I am currently involved in Anglo-Russian co-operation for the benefit of
734
children and young people at risk of a wide variety of dangers in and around Moscow. For those reasons I am sympathetic to and supportive of the amendment.
There is one extra reason why the amendment deserves to be accepted. If the lives of today's children can be enriched and made positive, they are the ones who are most likely to be successful in breaking cycles of poverty that have previously gone on from generation to generation.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the importance of dealing with the plight of children when we are talking about poverty elimination. As the core aim of the Bill is poverty reduction and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said when moving the amendment, the burden of poverty falls disproportionately on children, it follows that the Bill's:impact will be to help children.
As my noble friend knows, following our conversations after Committee stage on his amendment we put the point to parliamentary counsel who drafted the Bill. Their response was that any reference to children as a special case would seriously undermine the structure of the Bill and its core aim of poverty reduction.
The problem is not with the aspiration that underlies the amendment, but with the potential damage that might be caused to the structure and effectiveness of the Bill if we attempted to build that aspiration into it as a legal duty. Making it a legal requirement to have special regard to any given group or purpose would fetter DfID's ability to take a partnership approach to giving assistance and would put at risk our ability to support developing countries in the most effective way possible. For example, support for development in poor communities intended to produce long-term sustainable benefits for the children of such communities could be ruled out because it contained no immediate direct action to reduce the effects of poverty on children. We have to be free to look for long-term solutions that address the root causes of child poverty, not merely its effects.
DfID takes very seriously the need to address the problems of child poverty, which causes appalling suffering and jeopardises the well-being of future generations. The aim and purposes of the Bill—poverty reduction through sustainable development and the improved welfare of people—cannot be achieved without bringing children out of deprivation. Indeed, we will be unable to meet any of the international development targets if we do not succeed in tackling child poverty and its consequences. We cannot improve the condition in which children live without addressing the condition of their communities, realising their rights to the livelihoods and services on which they depend and having their voices heard. The best way to tackle child poverty is to address the causes of community poverty.
In view of the concerns that have been expressed. it would be helpful if I highlighted some of the ways in which the Government are working to improve the well-being of children and the realisation of their

735
rights. Each year, more than 10 million children still die before the age of five, with 95 per cent of those deaths occurring in developing countries. Action to improve child survival and health begins with measures to protect the health of women. Good health and nutrition in pregnancy, skilled care at delivery, and access to advice and treatment in the weeks that follow are key factors in the survival of mothers and infants. DfID is working with a number of partner governments and communities to enable poor women to access high-quality and affordable essential healthcare for themselves and their babies.
Education, even at primary level, remains beyond the reach of 113 million children who are not enrolled. of whom 60 per cent are girls. The less obvious consequences of that include poorer health and nutrition practices, greater risk of contracting HIV and greater social exclusion. Recent UNESCO studies have suggested that only 1 to 2 per cent of children with disabilities in developing countries receive an education, and most of those are boys. In many cases, children's education is severely hampered by their participation in the labour market to earn money for their families' survival. The best way of addressing those problems is to help countries and societies to develop appropriate strategies, build the capacities that they need to provide quality education for all their children and develop economies that support sufficient income-earning opportunities for families to survive without resorting to child labour, especially in its worst and abusive forms that put children in physical and moral danger.
We all know that children are affected by conflict. Conflict perpetuates poverty and reverses development. Of the 34 countries furthest from meeting the poverty eradication targets, 20 are in the midst of armed conflict or have only recently emerged from it. Ethnic and intra-community violence often leads to the destruction of families and brings a heavy burden of suffering on women and children. We are helping to protect displaced children in war-affected countries from the risks of living in an environment where traditional community structures and social provision have broken down. We are also working in a wide variety ways for the reduction of conflict more generally, to give communities, and their children, a better chance to escape from the burden of poverty.
The Government's commitment to fighting child poverty is clear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development underlined it at the Westminster conference on international action against child poverty in February this year. Leaders from around the world, including Kofi Annan and the heads of the IMF, the World Bank, the UNDP, UNICEF and the OECD renewed their commitment to meeting the international development targets that form the basis of the UN's millennium development targets as a means to defeat child poverty and offer this generation of poor children the opportunities that were denied to their parents.
736
Next year, at the postponed UN special session on children, the world will have the opportunity to renew and strengthen the commitment it made to children at the 1990 World Summit for Children. The plan of action that we expect the special session to endorse seeks to cover the full range of measures needed to ensure the realisation of children's rights, including their health, their education and their protection from conflict, exploitation and mistreatment.
We will wholeheartedly join this global commitment to the children of the world. The Bill will provide us with the legislative basis that we need to pursue the wide range of means available to help the children of developing countries to break out of the cycle of poverty and misery that so many of them endure.
With that full explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed on this important question. In particular I thank the Minister. First, I thank her for so nobly grappling, as a non-lawyer, with the dense reasoning of the parliamentary draftsmen, of which I, as one of Her Majesty's counsel, despair. Congratulations on that, but even more must we thank her for her clear statement of the Government's commitment to use the Bill and all their efforts to help children and for illustrating the strength of that commitment. When the special assembly on children, as part of the General Assembly, takes place later this year or next, I hope that that commitment will be further reflected in a landmark speech by whichever Minister there represents this country.
The issue of children will not go away. As Gordon Brown said in the speech to which I referred, the face of world poverty is the face of a child. The least that we, who are concerned about that, can do to match the generosity of the Government's position set out by my noble friend is to promise her an equal measure of devotion and to ensure that the Government do what they say they will. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may not appoint a date under subsection (2) until Parliament has enacted legislation to give effect to the Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before we debate this amendment, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for her courtesy and, in particular, for the very helpful letter that she wrote to me regarding other points in the amendments arising from the Committee stage.
When we debated this issue in Committee, given the Minister's response, I said that I would return to the matter. As I stressed then, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the International Development Bill does not become law before the Government have taken appropriate action to enforce the OECD convention on bribery and corruption. The Government have been promising to take action on the issue since 1997, but I am afraid that they have been hollow words. In April 2000 an International Development Select Committee report on corruption said:
"Simple and clear legislation should be brought forward as a matter of urgency".
Eighteen months later, still nothing has been done.
During the Committee stage, the Minister set out much of the action that the Government are taking in the international field and paid special attention to money laundering. This, we recognise, has become more pressing following the tragic events of 11th September. Nevertheless, the Government made a clear commitment, which we believe they must honour.
In Committee, as reported at col. 1349 of the Official Report of 16th July 2001, the Minister promised your Lordships that a criminal justice Bill would be brought forward with provisions to deal with the proposals of the OECD convention. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I make an error but, from the Library timetable of the complete list of public Bills before Parliament this Session, I am afraid that I cannot find any sign of such a Bill. In these vital times I ask: why not bring it forward now?
We know that the legislative timetable is apt to slip. Given that the Government will need time to bring in legislation in response to the terrorist threat, would it not be wise to act now? Perhaps I may suggest that that could be done either by the Government bringing forward an amendment or, more simply, by their agreeing to our amendment. That would, in turn, give greater impetus to the introduction of the criminal justice Bill, thus giving effect to the Government's international commitment to the convention.
Implementation of the OECD convention has wider implications for the development agenda. The Government cannot credibly continue to make improvements in governance a condition for development assistance when they have failed to implement the OECD Convention Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. As we know, the convention commits the 34 signatories—that is, 29 OECD member countries, and five non-member countries: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile and the Slovak Republic—to make it a criminal offence for any person to bribe a foreign public official in order to gain improper advantage in the conduct of international business.
The scope for corruption is wide. Nevertheless, l am pleased to say that corrupt politicians and businesses are finding it harder than ever to hide their activities from the mass media and anti-corruption activists, such as Transparency International, to whom I must
738
pay tribute. However, despite it becoming easier to detect corruption, Britons who bribe foreign officials still cannot be prosecuted under UK law. The UK is unique among developed countries in not implementing the convention. In June this year, Laurence Cockroft, chairman of the London chapter of Transparency International, said:
"It is high time the UK slopped dragging its heels in the fight against international corruption and put an end to the current situation where we have no adequate legislation to make bribery abroad a criminal offence".
It is a sad reflection that, of the few countries yet to incorporate the bribery of foreign officials into current domestic law, Britain is one.
In April 2000, the International Development Select Committee said:
"Corruption has a devastating impact on the poorest people in society".
The Government's 1997 White Paper on development recognised economic growth as the prime means of creating income and employment opportunities, and the private sector as the main impetus of economic growth. However, the persistence of corruption impedes both economic growth and the private sector.
Transparency International, too, says that corruption,
"reduces growth … scares away foreign investment, and channels investment and loan and aid funds into 'white elephant' projects of little or no benefit to the people but which carry with them the high returns to the corrupt decision makers".
The International Development Select Committee agrees. It found that corruption was the single most important factor which discouraged both domestic capital formation and foreign direct investment in poor countries. It is the poor who pay disproportionately for corruption. Corruption has a devastating impact on the poorest people in society by denying them access to public services as they are frequently unable to pay the necessary bribes.
A new extraterritorial! offence is needed as current laws are inadequate to enforce the convention. In the meantime, while the Government have failed to introduce effective legislation, they have damaged the good name of Britain abroad. George Moody-Stuart, chairman of the anti-corruption NGO, Transparency International (UK), said.:
"Tony Blair and Robin Cook are said to have an ethical foreign policy. It is difficult to claim this if you don't have support for the OECD convention".
Perhaps the new Foreign Secretary has a new foreign policy. Transparency International has said that slow progress on passing reform could cause concern among the other OECD members which have already updated their domestic legislation.
Time is pressing and, as the Minister is aware, passing legislation is simply the start of a long and hard process. Further delay could seriously harm the effectiveness of the convention, and the Government should make certain that bribery legislation is firmly in place before this Bill is passed.
We should like the Government to take action. We recognise that tackling corruption will bring benefits to business, to states and, more importantly, to the poor in developing countries who most need our help. The Washington File of 2nd July 2001 stated:
"We are hopeful that all the signatories will complete the process of ratification and implementation of the convention by the end of this year".
If the Minister acts now, she could meet that target and therefore fulfil our international obligations. I beg to move.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is very difficult to disagree with the noble Baroness's statement that we do not like corruption and must fight it; I agree with her. However, this afternoon's debate has been rather like bowling: we have knocked over different pins—care for the environment and for children, gender and human rights—and we have satisfied ourselves that by and large what is before us is a good way to encourage international development. What surprises me about the amendment is the idea that, unless one agrees to the convention, one cannot agree to the Bill. That is a rather drastic proposal whose nature I do not understand.
Although corruption among public officials in international business transactions is very bad and should be eliminated, much of the corruption that hits the poor is petty corruption, which has nothing whatever to do with international business transactions. It involves a local policeman walking around a bazaar extracting money from shopkeepers because they do not have a proper licence. I could take noble Lords to a street market in Delhi and show them that taking place. Corruption is important but the OECD convention will get rid of only a very small part of it.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that the Bill will give new powers to Scottish Ministers. Some of them, so far as I can see, are almost independent of the Secretary of State. Noble Lords may be aware that the Bill has already been the subject of discussion in the Scottish Parliament. On that occasion a member of my party raised that very point. In striving to answer poverty, the absence of legislation on corruption, such as the OECD convention, is a serious weakness. I raise that point merely to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that some form of acceptance of the sense, if not the wording, of the amendment would be well received north of the Border. I wish to support the amendment.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for her kind words and for being so helpful in our discussions on the Bill.
I assure the noble Baroness that the Bill will allow us to continue to support activities that help the fight against corruption in all of its forms in developing countries. I shall give the House two examples. In Bangladesh, DfID is working on initiatives that are
740
designed to improve budgetary processes and accounting practices in ministries, on strengthening parliamentary committees and other groups that monitor performance and resource use and on reducing opportunities for corruption. The sum of £2.75 million has been granted to support the local chapter of Transparency International—the noble Baroness discussed its work in some detail—to develop "committees of concerned citizens" to act as watchdog groups and to monitor the delivery of public services.
In Nigeria, DfID is supporting federal government reform, including targeting resource mismanagement and supporting efforts to improve the integrity of systems at state level. We are also working with the United Nations development programme in Nigeria to provide technical assistance for selected state judges who will hear anti-corruption cases.
I agree that transparency and accountability are important, as is the creation of environments in developing countries which will help business to invest. The Government recognise the need to support developing countries in their efforts to take action in these areas. We believe that the OECD convention on the bribery of foreign officials is a major advance in the fight against corruption.
We are committed to introducing legislation that will give effect to that convention. I am unable at this stage to say when that legislation will be introduced. It is important to remember that there is no link between that legislation and the passage of this Bill. That is especially important in view of the assurances that I gave to the effect that we can continue to support activities that help the fight against corruption. In light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I extend my appreciation to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for supporting the amendment. I am most grateful to the Minister for her response. However, I believe that a criminal justice Bill, which will implement the OECD convention, will be introduced but that it will no longer be introduced during this Session. I therefore do not understand why the Government should have anything to fear from the amendment. It is a shame that the Minister will not agree to it. I shall return to the matter on Third Reading, when we hope to have a more satisfactory reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

European Communities (Finance) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Clause 2 [Commencement and transitional provision]:
Page 2. line 10, at end insert—
"( ) Before the making of an order under subsection (1), the appropriate Minister shall set up a scheme to compensate local authorities for the additional costs incurred by them in consequence of the changes in eligibility to receive travel concessions under the provisions of this Act."
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House with this lone amendment, which was most eloquently proposed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It pursues the issue that I raised on Second Reading. I also apologise for the fact that, due to other engagements, I was unable to attend the debate in Committee.
The amendment would ensure that disabled and elderly people do not lose their more generous travel concessions as a result of the Bill. Those travel concessions provide an essential means of enabling blind or other disabled or elderly people to remain part of their communities, which maintains their physical and mental health and their general well-being.
I ask noble Lords to consider the amendment again because there is evidence that many local authorities have withdrawn their more generous concessionary travel schemes and that others will do so. For instance, although a campaign by Birmingham Focus on Blindness during the summer led to the reinstatement of free travel for blind people for the remainder of the financial year, the lead councillor is concerned about the fact that the lack of adequate funding for concessionary fares for men aged between 60 and 64 may force free travel for blind people to be cut again. That would happen despite the fact that the reinstatement gained huge public support—96 per cent in a telephone poll were in favour.
Another example involves Lancashire county council, which proposes to stop issuing passes to blind people—the pass allows them to travel for a flat 30p fare. In future, blind people will be issued with only the statutory half-price pass for buses.
The Minister said in Committee that a compensation scheme is not necessary. I ask him to reconsider that. The evidence suggests that the extra subsidy in the revenue support grant will be insufficient to cover the costs of introducing the statutory minimum half fare for men aged between 60 and 64.
Would the Minister consider offering a transitional grant to those local authorities that offer more generous concessionary fare schemes and protect disabled and elderly people? That arrangement would be similar to the way in which they were protected by a transitional grant when care in the community was transferred from the then Department of Social Security to local authority social services. If that was offered for only a fixed-term transitional period it would give local authorities time to adjust to the costs of their new duties and prevent cuts being made as a result of budget crises.
Furthermore, would the Minister consider altering the revenue support grant formula to give more money to those local authorities that demonstrate good
742
practice by providing more generous concessionary fare schemes for blind or other disabled and elderly people? The Government said that they wished to encourage that. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. I declare an interest as a member of Suffolk County Council and as vice-chairman of the Local Government Association transport executive. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has any need to apologise to the House for raising this important issue. Funding for the concessionary scheme and for this additional scheme has concerned us for some time. It was discussed fairly fully during the passage of the Transport. Bill and again at Committee stage of this Bill.
We must understand that before the Act which brought in a national scheme, the pattern of provision for local authorities was varied. Some local authorities have now had to find a considerable amount of extra money in order to implement this provision. As a result of representations made in your Lordships' House, among other places, the Government have made available extra money through the rate support grant.
One of the difficulties is that decisions are currently being made about the level of support for future years. At present, it is too early to tell how much the scheme costs. Local authorities report that in some cases the bus operators in their areas simply have not given them the figures. Other local authorities which are bringing in schemes for the first time report that take-up is slow but is rapidly increasing.
We also know that the Association of London Government expects take up of the additional scheme to be very high. Many men who are eligible under the new scheme will still be working. Therefore, the cost will be high. If local authorities with cash-limited budgets have to find extra money for the scheme, they will simply have to spend less on something; else. That has given rise to the situation about which we have heard today in which some of the more generous schemes are being withdrawn.
It is also possible that in other areas, local authorities will be forced to reduce the subsidies on buses. We could easily end up with a situation in which we have concessionary fares and fewer buses on which to use them. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government. During the passage of the Transport Act, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave an assurance that the cost to local authorities would be monitored. I should like clarification of how that monitoring will take place. How will local authorities be recompensed if they find that the costs are significantly higher than what the Government estimated?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, presumably the funding given by the Government comes under the standard spending assessments, which are constantly monitored and rated. Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that when the scheme comes in there will not be

743
a lag? Will the standard spending assessments be reassessed in time, so that those local authorities which find that it will cost them considerably more will not be greatly out of pocket?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that point first. It is a factual point of importance and at the heart of this matter. The extra money will be distributed by formulae in the normal way. Concessionary travel falls within the EPCS (environmental protection and cultural services) standard spending assessment. The other option would have been to pay the money by ring-fenced grant. We are opposed to that. The right course is for local authorities to decide how they best wish to spend their money. In the past we have perhaps been criticised for ringfencing grants. The right way would be to do it as part of the SSA process.
The issue of funding was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and others at Second Reading and in Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, stated, there is no need to apologise for raising the matter again. It is obviously an important issue. I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. I am grateful to her for informing me in advance of the particular points she raised. I am afraid that I will disappoint both her and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, with what I am about to say.
As we made clear both at Second Reading and in Committee, we are strongly committed to the new burdens principle. That requires us to reimburse local authorities for the extra costs they face. We shall be working hard with the local authority associations as we finalise our estimates of the financial implications for councils of the extra provision for men aged 60 to 65, which will be included in the annual local government settlement. We shall therefore be working with the relevant associations to ensure that we are giving the extra money to enable local authorities to provide the additional concessions due to the age change.
Perhaps I may reassure the House once more that the local authority associations will be consulted on all our proposals for the local government settlement. We shall listen carefully to the points they make, alongside all other representations, before making final decisions.
As the noble Baroness stated, it is regrettable if local authorities have taken the decision to offer their elderly and disabled people less generous schemes as a result of a statutory minimum requirement. The noble Baroness cited examples, particularly in the West Midlands. I am pleased that one of the local authorities involved has now decided, as she rightly pointed out, to continue the previous concession.
The purpose of the statutory minimum requirement is to guarantee all elderly and disabled people the opportunity to take advantage of cheap travel on their local bus service and to ensure some uniformity of provision across the country. That is a considerable improvement on the previous situation. We are
744
presently undertaking a survey to measure the effects of the implementation of the statutory minimum requirement. The survey is one of a series undertaken whenever there are significant changes to the concessionary travel regime. The results of the survey, which should be available early next year, will identify whether there is a problem of concessions having been reduced or whether there are just a couple of isolated examples.
I turn to the two specific points raised. I refer, first, to a transitional fund to help the change. We have carefully considered that point. However, that would simply be an additional grant to fund the proposed effect of the change. We are trying to deal with the cost of the change under the revenue support arrangements, which we will work hard to ensure genuinely meet the costs. Secondly, I refer to changing the formula. The formula is one that applies in practically all transfers of this size, and there is no scope to change it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the costs would be closely monitored. I hope that I have referred in my reply to the kind of processes we are adopting to ensure that that is the position. That is an important issue. The principle underlying it is that the Government will fund the extra cost of the effect of the Bill. Therefore, there should not be the need for local authorities to reduce other concessions they give. However, because of the way in which local government finance works in this area, it is for them to make the vital decisions about what other travel concessions they apply over and above the minimum required by the Bill.
In the light of the reassurances I have given about consultation and the purpose of the Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for her support for my amendment. I am disappointed by the Minister's response. The Minister mentioned a survey to measure the effect of the changes. If that survey reveals that there is a damaging effect, I would ask that further funding be provided. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Contracting Out of Functions (Tribunal Staff) Order 2001
5.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 enables the Lord Chancellor, by making an order, to permit the authorisation of functions conferred on him to be carried out by another person, or by the other person's employees.
The purpose of the Contracting Out of Functions (Tribunal Staff) Order 2001 is to enable the Lord Chancellor to authorise an external contractor to provide staff for the Lands Tribunal and the Immigration Appellate Authority. In simple terms that means that agency staff can be used to help service these tribunals when necessary; for example, when resources are required quickly or temporarily to cover for staff shortages or to manage peaks in the workload. The current provisions governing the appointment of staff to the Lands Tribunal and the Immigration Appellate Authority require the administrative work of these tribunals to be undertaken by officers and staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor for that purpose.
I shall confine myself to making four points. I understand that this may not be an issue that will disturb your Lordships for very long. The first is that the employment of agency staff in our courts and tribunals is not new. For much of the time since the creation of a unified court service in 1972, no one appears to have questioned whether the use of such staff—typists, ushers and the like—was permissible. Since the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, a mechanism exists which provides the structure to authorise an external contractor to provide agency staff. It is an order under that Act that is now before your Lordships.
Secondly, all the order does is to give the Lord Chancellor the power to contract out. Once the order is made the Lord Chancellor will need to give specific authorisations to, for example, the appropriate employment agencies. The Act does not require the order to be limited in duration; but the Act itself expressly provides that any authorisations granted under the order must be for no more than 10 years.
Thirdly, I want to make it absolutely clear that this order does not, indeed could not, permit the contracting out of any judicial function or power of arrest. That is specifically prohibited by Section 71(1) of the 1994 Act.
Finally, it is proposed that another order should be brought forward in due course to deal specifically with courts. That is to ensure that the employment of agency staff in the courts is also on an entirely sound footing and a separate order will be brought forward for that purpose that will require prior consultation with the senior judiciary to make it practical before it is laid. Such art order is made under a different statutory provision and is not subject to affirmative resolution. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2001
5.42 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers.' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 were laid before the House on 17th July 2001. These regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 3.8 per cent the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st December 2001.
The 1979 Act provides for lump sum payments to be made to sufferers from certain dust related diseases, or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants, where there is no realistic chance of success through the courts. Payments under the Act are additional to any industrial injuries disablement benefit awarded by the Benefits Agency.
We do all we can to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic way. Although rules have to be kept, we recognise that each case is an individual tragedy and are as generous as the legislation can allow. The Government have given an undertaking to Parliament to review the amounts payable under the scheme regularly to maintain their value. These regulations aim to fulfil that commitment.
Noble Lords will recognise that no amount of money will ever begin to compensate individuals and families for their suffering and loss. However, these regulations will allow us to maintain the value of the compensation, which does provide some practical and material help. I commend these draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have a number of brief questions for the noble and learned Lord. Can he tell the House how many awards have been made under this scheme in the past financial year and how many people have applied in the current year and are waiting for adjudication? I understand that in the past there has been delay between applying and being granted an award. Does the Minister believe that in the future the number of applications will increase or decrease?
It is surprising to see that the maximum payment to a disabled person, who is 37 years or under, is £58,000, and the maximum payment to his or her dependant, who is 37 years or under, is £26,000. Those are incredibly small sums compared with the sums that are awarded in the courts under various compensation schemes. As the Minister is a lawyer perhaps he would care to comment on that. In relation to awards made to

747
police officers and other such people, the figures that I have mentioned, for a very nasty disease which makes life absolutely miserable, are not large. I am not sure how the Government justify that.
The Minister has said that the Government will review the awards regularly and retain their value. I note that they were last reviewed in 1988, some 12 years ago, and we now see an increase of 3.8 per cent. That is substantially below the rate of inflation through those years. I realise that for some of those 12 years we were in power, and we did not increase them, but that does not explain why the present Government, having won two general elections, have not done something about this. If this matter is to be reviewed regularly in the future, can the Minister say whether we shall have to wait another 12 years before the next review?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for those questions. Since the scheme was introduced—from 1980 to 31st March 2001—there have been 13,599 claims; the number of payments made to date is 9,396; the claims received in the last complete year numbered 1,352; and in the current year—1st April till 28th September—the claims received so far number 942. On whether the numbers are going up or down, they appear to remain pretty steady.
The noble Viscount also said that the payments are much lower than would be awarded under a full liability basis if a personal injury claim had been brought. That is broadly correct. However, one must remember that the 1979 Act provides for lump sum payments when there is no realistic prospect of success in the courts. This is not a scheme that is intended to ape the way that the courts would act; this is a scheme that is intended to provide additional funds for people suffering from these terrible diseases. I believe that the approach is correct.
Finally, the noble Viscount, having closely perused the two paragraphs of the Explanatory Notes at the back of the document, referred to the fact that the last time the amount was increased was in 1988. That is wrong. Practically every year, since 1985, there has been an increase. The last increase was in June 2000. It was decided that another increase would take place in June 2001, but unfortunately a Recess intervened and that is why we have not brought the increase before the House before now. The principle is that we have increased it regularly and, as a result, the level of compensation has risen with the RPI since 1980 when the scheme was introduced.
Lord Walker of Doncaster: My Lords, I am not sure that my noble and learned friend is right in referring to the purposes for which the scheme was introduced. The purpose was to give the opportunity to workmen and others who may not have had the chance to pursue a civil case in the courts because of the insidious nature of the disease and the fact that their employer had gone out of business or had ceased to exist in the mean time.
748
Therefore, the scheme provided the opportunity for a disabled person to go to the Department of Employment instead of the court.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not dispute that account, but the point is that the courts would not provide a remedy. As the employer had gone bust, or could not provide insurance, or there was no money or no time, there was no realistic prospect of success for an employee in the courts and so the scheme was introduced. I hope that I did not suggest otherwise.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drug Abstinence Order (Responsible Officer) (No. 2) Order 2001
5.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Drug Abstinence Order (Responsible Officer) (No. 2) Order 2001 be approved.
This is a technical adjustment to the law. The law was passed in error, using the negative resolution procedure, in May of this year, whereas this order requires the affirmative procedure. In all my years in the other place I have never come across this error, though I suspect this is not the first occasion on which it has happened. It is a minor but very important amendment to ensure that we get the affirmative procedure absolutely right.
The person responsible for the supervision of an offender subject to an order would normally be a probation officer; the more modern terminology is "responsible officer". A responsible officer can order an offender subject to an order to provide necessary samples. The new community order, which is to be piloted initially in Nottingham, Staffordshire and Hackney, is intended to apply to offenders thought to be unsuitable for other types of community order, with a view to getting them off drugs.
We know from a previous debate in July, when we passed a similar order, that there is a requirement for a trigger crime, usually connected with the acquisition of class A drugs. We need to have in place measures requiring young persons subject to orders to give samples on a regular basis to ensure that they are not taking class A drugs. It is therefore necessary under the relevant powers to define correctly the responsible officer. The prescribed responsible officers will be the officers of local probation boards, within the meaning of Section 4(4) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.
I commend the order to the House.
Moved. That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Roper: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for explaining in such a frank way to the House the previous technical errors that we made. The pilot project to be facilitated by this order will be of considerable value. We are very glad that we shall now be able to do it in the proper way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Postal Services Act 2000 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) (Amendment) Order 2001
5.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order can fairly be described as a small technical measure. It amends the principal order in the manner promised when we debated the order last March.
Noble Lords will recall that the principal order specifies the way to determine turnover for the purposes of calculating the maximum penalty that the regulator—the Postal Services Commission, or PostComm as it is now generally known—can impose in the event of a licensee breaching his licence conditions. The general principle of setting a limit on the maximum penalty has been widely accepted by your Lordships' House, and indeed the provisions were introduced following representations made during the debates on what is now the Postal Services Act.
Unfortunately, as I acknowledged when we debated the principal order on 21st March, there was a small glitch in the order. Generally, the turnover by reference to which the maximum penalty is calculated is based on a licensee's annual turnover in the licensed area. However, for breaches lasting more than 12 months we had provided for the turnover in question to be based on twice that annual turnover where the breach continues for a period of more than one year but fewer than two years. In a case where the breach continues for a period of more than two years, we had provided for the turnover in question to be based on three times the annual turnover. But we made no special provision for a breach of exactly two years, so the maximum penalty would be based on only the annual turnover. I admitted that that was not intended.
The amendment order removes the anomaly, by including, in circumstances where turnover is based on twice the annual turnover, cases where breaches last exactly two years, as well as the period of more than
750
one year but fewer than two years. There will therefore be a steady escalation of the maximum penalty. I trust that noble Lords will consider that to be perfectly fair.
I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The Minister said that the Government would correct this error as soon as was convenient. My only comment is that this is yet another instance of the Government legislating in haste and having to amend at leisure. It has taken seven months. We do not oppose the making of this amendment order.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am very grateful for that comment. As this order cannot have any effect until two years after the passing of the original Act, it was felt that it was not an issue of the greatest moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Terrorism
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean rose to move, That this House takes note of recent developments in relation to the coalition against international terrorism.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the fourth time since 11th September that the House has had the opportunity of debating the international community's response to the threat of global terrorism.
In the three debates that we have had so far there has rightly been much questioning of the decisions taken by the Government. The proceedings have also been characterised by wholehearted, bipartisan support for our comprehensive approach, in which military, humanitarian and diplomatic efforts are of equal importance.
The breadth of that support has been a great source of strength for the country, for those of us with the responsibility of government and, very importantly, for our Armed Forces. We have been united in our admiration of the professionalism, effectiveness and, above all, dedication and courage of those who willingly risk their lives to make the world a safer place. Ours are the finest Armed Forces in the world, and we should again pay tribute to them today. Our thoughts are also with the patient and brave families who wait at home for their loved ones.
The previous Statement and debate in the House took place on the day after the start of military action. It has since continued for the past 11 days, with one pause last Friday. Cruise missiles launched from a Royal Navy submarine were involved on the first night and on 13th October. We have continued to be

751
involved in the military action through the provision of refuelling and reconnaissance aircraft and the use of our facilities at Diego Garcia.
Our overall assessment of the strikes that have so far been carried out is that we have significantly impacted Al'Qaeda's capacity to train terrorists and have inflicted real damage on elements of the Taliban's military infrastructure. Achievement of the latter is, of course, essential if we are to end its support of Al'Qaeda. My noble friend Lord Bach will say more about that later.
Few conflicts are resolved by military action in a matter of days, and this was never going to be one of them. As both President Bush and the Prime Minister made clear from the outset, the terrain, the weather and the complexity of the targets mean that we can expect no early conclusion to this campaign. It will indeed be a long haul. It may take months, not days or weeks. As the United States President and the Prime Minister have underlined, a range of military tactics will be deployed. That is because we must eliminate the threat posed by terrorism. We need to remember that the threat is to our nation as a whole, to our families, to our places of work and to our communities.
The campaign objectives are set out in detail in a document lodged in the Library of the House. That document shows that the action has been carefully calibrated, that every effort has been made to ensure that it is proportionate to the task and that it meets our obligations under international law. Our objectives bear repetition here. They are clear and they are achievable. We must bring bin Laden and other Al'Qaeda leaders to justice and eliminate the terrorist threat that they pose. We must ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism. If the Taliban regime does not comply with that objective, we must bring about sufficient change in that regime to ensure that its links with international terrorism are broken. The goal is to re-build stability in Afghanistan and thus help stabilise the region.
And let us be clear on this: our military action is focused on Osama bin Laden, the Al'Qaeda network and their Taliban allies. No further action is contemplated by the UK Government at present. The US President is also clearly focused on the operation in Afghanistan.
Some individuals may ask why military action is necessary and we should be clear about that. No one wants military action; it is always an awesome responsibility to decide to take it. By its very nature, it risks the lives of our servicemen and women and the lives of those who may get caught up in the conflict. We wanted a peaceful solution to the crisis following 11th September but the Taliban chose a different route.
A peaceful and achievable path was laid out very clearly by the US President and our Prime Minister from an early date: an ultimatum to the Taliban regime to hand over Osama bin Laden and his associates; to close down the Al'Qaeda network and terrorist camps;
752
and to enable us to verify this. It bears repeating, and repeating again, that by rejecting this approach, by continuing to harbour and give support to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, it was the Taliban who chose to reject the path of peace.
The international community agrees with us. They know that this military action is needed. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal have all offered direct military support. The 15 countries of the European Union and the 19 members of NATO have all endorsed military action. Only yesterday, the Foreign Ministers of the European Union declared total solidarity with the United States. The United Nations Security Council in a unanimous resolution on 12th September expressed its readiness to take "all necessary steps" to defeat this terrorism; and the action taken is fully consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter. We have not only justice on our side; what we are doing is justified under international law.
Rightly, questions are raised about civilian casualties. I assure your Lordships that we are making every effort to avoid civilian casualties in the present conflict by rigorously targeting military and terrorist assets only. Of course, the possibility of accidents and errors cannot be eliminated altogether. Fortunately they are rare, but there is always the chance that things will go wrong, however much care is taken. That is one of the huge responsibilities of those who decided that military action was necessary in the first place. But let us be crystal clear on one point: there is no moral equivalence between us and our enemy. While we seek to minimise civilian casualties, the terrorists seek to maximise them. That is exactly what they did on 11th September.
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 Taliban regime and Al'Qaeda are the latest in a long line of calamities to befall them. But it should be perfectly clear that we cannot give the people of Afghanistan all the help they need until the influence of the terrorists is broken.
Perhaps I may try to deal with some of the issues which I know are troubling your Lordships and others about the humanitarian problem. The international community has been trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan for years. It was a humanitarian crisis that was exacerbated by the Taliban regime and its policies. For years the Taliban regime has been obstructing international efforts to help. And right now, the blockage to the delivery of humanitarian assistance is being created by the Taliban. Even now, the Taliban continues to hamper aid deliveries by imposing unacceptable taxes, looting supplies and offices and harassing local United Nations and NGO staff.
Humanitarian assistance is as important a part of our strategy as the military campaign. We are working with other donors to relieve the suffering. The International Development Secretary has pledged a further £15 million, on top of the £25 million pledged

753
since 11th September and the £32 million we have committed to the Afghan crisis since 1997. We have also earmarked £11 million for the poorest communities within Pakistan. The European Union has undertaken to mobilise without delay aid amounting to more than £200 million.
Aid is getting through. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some figures which I hope will answer some of the points. The World Food Programme deliveries have increased from an average of 200 metric tonnes per day to 900 metric tonnes per day. Since 7th October, the WFP reports that more than 5,000 metric tonnes of food has entered the country.
Of course much more needs to be done to get vital relief supplies into Afghanistan. The WFP's target is to transport 52,000 metric tonnes of food into Afghanistan every month. So far this month, it has dispatched 11,000 metric tonnes, of which 6,000 metric tonnes has managed to reach its destination. The remainder is either in transit or stuck at border crossings.
This must be an international effort. The appointment of Lakhdar Brahimi, a former Foreign Minister of Algeria and a distinguished and able 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 we attach to the humanitarian coalition. When the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary saw Ambassador Brahimi last week, they assured him of the United Kingdom's wholehearted commitment.
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. And even before we embarked on this fight against terrorism, Britain was taking a leading role in shaping international thinking on the long-term future of Afghanistan.
Some of your Lordships will be concerned about what more the international community can do; for example, what more the United Nations can do. In the weeks since the atrocities in the US, we have worked towards a shared vision with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and regional players. A senior Foreign Office official, Robert Cooper, has been appointed to develop our thinking on the future of Afghanistan and to work with the UN on building a consensus on the way forward as the situation develops.
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 grouping which produced them cannot simply be replaced by another narrow faction, whether it be the Northern Alliance or some other group, because no regime will be sustainable unless it commands broad consent among those it would seek to govern.
Therefore, the United Nations will play a key role. I am sure everyone will join me in congratulating 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, just as they have done so often in recent years; for example, in Kosovo, in East Timor and across the continent of Africa.
The United Nations is the only truly global organisation. It alone has the global reach, the instruments and the expertise to help the Afghan people establish the conditions for successful government in their country. Our task is to make sure that Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi also have the resources and the political backing to make that happen. We will do all we can.
The broader objectives of our campaign are to root out terrorism wherever it exists in the world. This involves strengthening domestic legislation and international co-operation against terrorists and their funds. It will involve sustained pressure on those states which aid and abet terrorism.
Domestically, the Government are taking steps within the United Kingdom to address this long-term threat. There can be no safe havens for terrorists. We will systematically attack their finances and movements until the machinery of terror is dismantled.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary both made Statements to the House of Commons on 15th October on freezing terrorist assets and emergency legislation to strengthen our own antiterrorist laws. The measures include making it an offence for financial institutions to fail to report suspected terrorist transactions and giving law enforcement agencies full access to passenger and freight information which air and sea carriers will be required to retain. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will be overhauled to prevent anyone suspected or convicted of terrorist involvement being considered for asylum.
Internationally, UN Security Council Resolution 1373 is the centrepiece of the global efforts. It represents a significant crackdown on those who fund and provide safe havens for terrorists, and Britain as chair of the Security Council committee which oversees the implementation of Resolution 1373 will play a key role in its success. I am sure that everyone will join me in expressing our thanks to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our Ambassador to the UN, who will oversee that task. There is no better man for the job.
We are now supported by the broadest possible range of countries from east and west, north and south, Muslim and non-Muslim. We are not at war with Islam; nor do we seek a clash of civilisations. Islam is part of our civilisation—a full and valuable part—and Muslims are part of our communities and a part of what was attacked on 11th September. Our quarrel with Mullah Omar and the Taliban regime is not over their religious practices, but the terrorism that they propagate and support. I know that the Prime

755
Minister and Secretary of State—indeed, all Ministers—have repeated that over and over again, but it bears repeating over and over again. We cannot say it often enough. There are those who want our Islamic community here and overseas to believe something quite different—of course they do—to try to justify the murders that they have committed and the murders that they say they want to commit. Bin Laden wants to drive a wedge between the Islamic world and the West, and we must not let him succeed. The terrorists are the enemies of the Islamic community, as they are the enemies of everyone who believes in tolerance, fairness and inclusiveness in our society and in global society.
We all suffer from the threat of terrorism, no matter from which part of the world we hail or which religion we practise, and we all have an interest in removing it. The Government and people of Pakistan recognise this. We should once again praise their courage in taking a firm stand against terror and supporting the military action.
We have to resolve the conflicts and the perceived injustices which terrorists exploit for their own ends. I know that a number of noble Lords have concerns about how all that is now happening will affect what is going on in the Middle East. At a time when the rest of the world is coming together to combat terrorism fighting continues in the Middle East. Our efforts to secure a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement are more important now than they were before. We were all profoundly shocked at the news of the assassination yesterday of the Israeli Minister for Tourism, Rechavam Ze'evi. The Foreign Secretary telephoned Shimon Peres immediately to express the shock of the British Government at what had happened and to ask that our condolences be passed to the Minister's family. This terrible news underlines so vividly the need for a peace process. It also underlines the potential of extremists who aim to disrupt that process. They must not be allowed to achieve their objectives. We call on the Palestinian Authority to do all that it can to bring the perpetrators to justice and we call on Israel to demonstrate the utmost restraint.
But the peace process was important before yesterday and before 11th September. The Mitchell plan was on the table for months. Resolving the Middle East peace process had been a top priority for this country, the US and the EU long before that. On 15th October my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed the way forward with Yasser Arafat. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through a political process which implements "land for peace" and brings security for Israel within recognised borders and an end to occupation and leads to a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state. It is time for the political will which exists on both sides to be turned into reality, and it is time that the men of violence have the wisdom to recognise that a concession which helps secure a lasting peace for the young people 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 the fears which 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. The closure of the House of Representatives is another reminder of the will of some to undermine democracy. Military action is essential to avert more terrorist attacks.
But the military action is only part of the fight against terrorism. The surest way to defeat these evils is to build a more inclusive world where the cries of the people of Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Kosovo do not go unheard. Of course the critics will say that we cannot succeed and we shall make the situation worse, but they said the same about the Kosovo campaign and look what happened. Now there is a democratic Serbia, Milosevic is in the dock, refugees are returning and new prosperity is on the way.
I believe that the world is coming together in a new community to tackle terrorism, but in that process we must consider honestly what allows terrorism to grow and why some ground appears to be so very fertile for the men of violence to propagate their terrible evil. We must try to learn from this process, use all of our formidable assets to understand how terrorism can flourish and do everything that we can to extinguish injustice and suffering. We have a huge responsibility not only to defeat terrorism but to deal with the circumstances that terrorists exploit in their desire to spread their evil. We believe that there will be a better future for the people of Afghanistan and, we hope, a safer world for all of us. This Government are committed to that task. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of recent developments in relation to the coalition against international terrorism.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
6.16 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, five weeks after the carnage in New York and Washington I again repeat from these Benches our full endorsement of what we understand to be the Government's high purposes and the policy of standing shoulder to shoulder with our American allies and the whole coalition of nations, which I believe now numbers up to 36. We give this endorsement and support not just for tactical reasons but because we believe that that policy and direction are right and just and are the way to peace and to stopping the perpetrators killing again, which they almost certainly will do unless they are stopped.
Nevertheless, I suggest that our support justifies putting a number of questions where perhaps greater clarity and reassurance are needed and asking the Government to extend their thoughts a little into the future about how the scene will shape itself. First, the immediate military objectives are set out very clearly. The Foreign Secretary's paper which was placed in the Library of the other place outlines without any

757
difficulty or blurring the immediate objectives: to destroy the Taliban infrastructure, get the troops on the ground and then, presumably, surround and corner Osama bin Laden and his odious and evil crew. Those are military objectives which we understand. They will not be easy but they are clearly definable.
But we come to the wider objectives in the Foreign Secretary's paper which the noble Baroness has also mentioned. As to those, it is perhaps time to explore a little how we are to advance towards them. The wider objectives are fairly bold rhetoric; they speak of eliminating the threat of terrorism—the noble Baroness repeated that phrase—and changing the entire climate in which terrorism is conducted. They are very big ambitions. We certainly welcome what has been proposed so far, in particular the Government's measures to cut off the lifeline of funds to terrorist operations, where they can be identified—that is not easy—and the efforts of other members of the coalition and the European Union package which has been agreed. I am not sure that it adds all that much to what nations are agreeing by international co-ordination, but the general direction is welcome.
But one must ask: what are the limits of the campaign and at which terrorism is one to begin to aim? We have spoken a great deal about Al'Qaeda. That seems to be Mr bin Laden's organisation which he manipulates. The world is full of other networks of organisations. We have the Tamil Tigers who are said to be financed in part from London. I was reminded only yesterday by the Sri Lankan High Commissioner that, in the past five years, of the 250 suicide bombers who have assassinated people, 163 have been Tamil Tigers. Of course, many Tamils are peaceful, but these were the dedicated terrorists.
What do we say about that? What do we say about A1-Gama'a t A1-Islamiya, Hezbollah, the Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, Abu Nidal, ETA, Mujaheddin e Khalq or the Colombian Marxist guerrillas, all of whom are highly committed to assignation, killing and terror of the most brutal and poisonous kind?
The noble Baroness mentioned the news from America about anthrax. I am the first to concede that we do not know the source. It may be exaggerated. It may be inside America, although high authorities in America are already pointing to Iraq as a country which has the facility to produce the higher-grade anthrax which is causing the scares. We need to be kept up to date on that in case our assumption that it is local is too complacent.
Above all, we need to think about our own back yard. By that I refer to the terrorism that has bedevilled Northern Ireland for many years. We on this side of the House very much want the peace process to work. However, the lesson of Northern Ireland from 20 years ago when I had the privilege of serving there—it is a lesson that echoes down to today—is that peace processes work only if at the same time terrorism is under constant assault. It must be a twin-track process. That applies as much in the Middle East as in Northern Ireland.
758
On Tuesday, some of us felt that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had difficulty in grasping this central point; that one cannot proceed to negotiate with those who are still half committed to terror and that terrorist extremism can always undermine the processes of reconciliation. It did in the early 1970s when I was involved, and it could again today if we are not careful. We are of course at a very delicate moment in the Northern Ireland scene. We must be absolutely firm and clear-sighted. My noble friend Lady Park intervened with a devastating comment, reminding us that the bloodstained killers of ETA and the equally bloodstained Colombian guerrillas are apparently in association and have connections with part of IRA/Sinn Fein. We must be absolutely frank and open about that if we want to see these people stay at the table together and not pull away in a swirl of mistrust, as has happened in the past. Until that is fully understood, the peace process in Northern Ireland will not fully go forward as it should.
We need a firm and clear-sighted view from Ministers and from the Government about what is terrorism and what is not if the full stand of the Government, which we totally support, against terrorism worldwide is to be rounded out and given full validity.
My second question concerns the next stage in the politics of Afghanistan and the changes in the Afghan leadership. I was pleased to hear that the excellent Mr Robert Cooper is turning his considerable brain to this matter. He will have his work cut out because the complexities are enormous. I suppose that question number one is: What about the Northern Alliance? Has it within the past 48 hours become acceptable in a way that it was not before? Suddenly, the news from Washington seems to have changed in its favour. Is it right? What do we think of its offer for a month's delay before it attempts to march on Kabul? Is that some kind of arrangement between the Northern Alliance and Washington? Is that wise? I do not know. The experts say that "General Winter" will sweep in and prevent anyone marching anywhere in a few week's time. Is there a danger that an initiative is about to be lost; that winter will entrench the Taliban and will by the spring leave it in a more powerful position instead of in a weaker one?
Is there a means by which the allies and the coalition can find a third way—a middle way—between what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in a very interesting article, described as "intervention and indifference"? Is there a way between those two? Last time indifference led to total tragedy. In past times too much intervention and the insertion of puppet rulers have also led to tragedy. Is there a middle way between them? Can we hear more thoughts from the Government on that matter?
Who and what will form the broad-based coalition that will not be quite Northern Alliance and not totally Taliban and will not cause too much trouble in Pakistan and somehow will satisfy the Iranians in Tehran? How will that be sorted out? Have UK Ministers met the ex-king, Mohammed Zahir Shah? I read that the foreign ministers of Italy and France and

759
a number of other countries have met him in Rome and discussed issues with him. In particular, they have discussed the development of the Supreme Council of National Unity. That may be the nexus, the formation point, for this future broad-based government. We need to know whether our Ministers have been included or excluded from that.
We have heard much about the important role of the UN. But what about the idea of a UN peace-keeping force? It is not one that immediately attracts me, but the suggestion has been around that it should be led by Muslim countries, or possibly by Turkey—part Muslim, part Christian—and that there is a role for such a force. I know that Turkey is obviously a key player in that. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has been there overnight, seeking to keep Turkey well within the coalition because obviously it has a crucial role to play.
A host of other issues have come swirling up. I agree with the noble Baroness that they should not be directly confused with 11th September and the need to corner those who did that frightful thing. Nevertheless, they should not be neglected as they are related to the broader underlying sentiments in the crisis. There is the appalling situation in Israel as tit-for-tat killing continues. I join the noble Baroness and others in pleading and urging on Israel, despite the terrible provocation that it has had, maximum restraint. I hope that we go back not only to the Mitchell recommendations but to the Barak proposals. They went a long way toward meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people. I still do not understand why Mr Arafat and his colleagues turned them down so flatly. It would have been better if we had been able somehow to build on those.
But this is the oldest argument in the world and there is no time for it now. We know the feelings of the two sides. We share the idea of a guaranteed Palestinian state, but we also share and need to repeat the commitment of the guarantee for the continued existence of Israel and not its destruction, in which too many Palestinians are brought up to believe.
This stage in the campaign is inevitably a time when there are a few waverers and a little despondency begins to creep around. I have heard that wavering from all political parties. I have even heard one or two discordant voices from the right reverend Prelates' Bench. I certainly have heard it from the councils of the European Union where there appear to be sharply different views on the virtues of the present policy.
From our point of view the military objectives are clear. We support the Government in that. We agree with the Prime Minister that the testing time is clearly to come. People say that we are losing the propaganda war. That is a wrong phrase because it implies that what we have to say is propaganda. It is not. We have a message of truth and good intent. However, it is worth reminding ourselves that while people talk of terrorist networks there is a much bigger network of millions of selfless individuals, voluntary groups, agencies, organisations and well-intentioned governments, Christian, Muslim and secular, all of whom are
760
determined to use the vast resources of the capitalist world—that is where the wealth lies—to bring food, medicine, education, skills and, in the longer-term, better governance and better life. That is what we are trying to bring to the Afghan people and indeed to the poor people of the world generally.
Are those western values? I prefer to call them the values of common humanity. Compared with the repression, intolerance, hate, murder and depravity of those who have distorted the good name of Islam and seized it for terrorist purposes, I have no hesitation in saying that those values of common humanity are superior. If we lose faith in that, we lose everything. But if we proclaim it, then there is a chance that we shall begin to win over hearts and minds more effectively than in the past. However, to do so we need—I shall repeat the words that have been used by the noble Baroness—
"the utmost resolve to see the matters through to the end".
Those were also the words used by the Prime Minister. We want him very much indeed to mean them.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on being so accountable to Parliament and on consistently allowing another opportunity for discussion of this continuing crisis. We are grateful to them and I am sure that the whole House appreciates the time that has been made available for these important debates.
I should like to follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, with regard to the paper provided by the Foreign Secretary. It is extremely helpful. I shall make two comments on it. First, the battle to destroy the terrorist network that supports Osama bin Laden could be a very long business indeed. The Minister made that point clearly. It is not easy to track down even the leader of a terrorist group. Furthermore, the spores of this terrorism—to use a metaphor from the anthrax threat—have spread throughout almost the whole of the civilised world.
Just before I came into the Chamber for our debate, the latest piece of news suggested that an anthrax outbreak has taken place in Kenya. One can say now that continent after continent is being caught up. I recognise that we do not yet know who is responsible for causing these attacks, but we do know that the entire world is moving into an area of deep uncertainty in which we do not quite know where the enemy is to be found, or even exactly who is the enemy. That is a different form of warfare from that which any of us has experienced in the whole of our lives. That is what will make it particularly hard for the Government to sustain public support over a long period of time. Those of us who recognise and support what they are trying to do are aware of the difficulty.
Secondly, efforts are now concentrating more closely on replacing the Taliban government. Understandably, that is a tangible and probably relatively more achievable goal. It may well be that developments over the coming few days—although I

761
am in no position to forecast what those might—be will offer some indications that very great tensions are developing within the Taliban coalition. Rumours and reports are now circulating that senior members are now beginning to break away and that junior members are starting to realise that there may be other loyalties that are more attractive to them than the Taliban.
In that context, and without wishing to embarrass the Government in any way, perhaps I may take up an aspect of a theme raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I hope that the Government can assure the House that, at least for the time being, our targets will remain clearly focused on those two ends and their associated aims. I say that because I have been somewhat disturbed by suggestions that certain elements within our own coalition would like to widen the goals of the objective without clear evidence that that would be a sensible or constructive course. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a disturbing article which appeared on 12th October in the New York Times. It reported that a letter sent by Mr Negroponte, the new US Ambassador to the United Nations, to the Security Council suggesting a widening of the objectives of this war had not been seen by the Secretary of State. If that is the case, that is a very disturbing report.
I turn now to the question of what kind of administration might succeed the Taliban. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I am delighted to hear that Mr Cooper is to be associated with that effort. Perhaps I may suggest that, as well as considering the importance of representing the different tribal peoples of Afghanistan—many Members of the House with greater historical knowledge of that country are aware of how profoundly fragmented along tribal lines it is—Mr Cooper should be invited by our Minister to look at how the non-governmental organisations in Afghanistan might be brought into some kind of transitional council. Furthermore, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that, among others, I have in mind those struggling organisations which represent women in Afghanistan. They have not been included in or offered any kind of role in any government of that country since the days of the former king, who appointed several women Ministers to his administration.
Afghanistan is a country steeped in hatred and blood. It is extremely important that we hear a voice other than that of the warrior tradition bent on revenge and retaliation which has characterised the country for a period of 70 to 80 years. That means that we must look for voices in the population other than those which have traditionally represented the governments of Afghanistan. However, I fear that the traditional voices will dominate any durbar or council of the tribes. While obviously those voices must be heard, other currently suppressed voices need to be heard as well.
Like the Minister, I shall address the humanitarian crisis. None of us needs to underline how desperate the situation is. The Minister has made it plain. Let me also say that we on these Benches fully recognise the obstructions put in place by the Taliban—whether
762
official or unofficial, I do not know. Those include attempts to stop and attack convoys, harass the drivers and so forth. But we would be less than honest if we did not recognise that one of the main reasons why the truck drivers are reluctant to enter Afghanistan—many reports to this effect have been filed by the various aid organisations—is that, like us, they are human beings and understandably they are frightened of being strafed, bombed or burned. It would not matter much which side committed the attack.
Yesterday in the other place, my right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrats raised the question of whether we had carefully explored the possibility of establishing demilitarised corridors through what is largely but not entirely Northern Alliance-held territory. The Prime Minister was kind enough to give the query a reasonably affirmative response. Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about that proposal, because if the Taliban does not implode quickly, we all know that we shall encounter the desperate situation of the winter closing in. That will affect at least 1.5 million people who do not have enough food to sustain them through to next spring.
In that context, we all know that it is absolutely vital to retain a coalition of people of many different races and religions. That coalition will be profoundly affected by whether all those people believe that the twin track of the Government's policy, incorporating the humanitarian arm, is being pursued as assiduously as possible.
I should like to raise a question which has not received much attention during our debates. Here I declare an interest as a member of the board of the International Crisis Group. Yesterday I met a team which has just returned from Central Asia. I am not sure that many of us are aware of just how extraordinarily fragile is the situation in that region. A significant and important base for aircraft and other military units has been established in Uzbekistan, which is a majority Muslim country. It has a relatively small, rather weak fundamentalist Islamic group called the UMI. Until now that group has not caused any serious trouble because it is relatively small, but there is a considerable danger that, in the course of bringing into Uzbekistan more military equipment, we may begin to create an active fundamentalist movement, which has not existed so far.
A second point I should like to make in the context of Central Asia is this. They, too, have a desperate need for support and food. The International Crisis Group team, which I believe is a well-respected and professional organisation, estimates that around half a million Uzbeks are fleeing from the drought-ridden Aral Sea for lack of anything to eat. About the same number of people in Tajikistan are already filling the refugee camps there. I hate to add to the Government's burdens, but the truth of the matter is that, as well as Afghanistan, as well as the refugee camps in Pakistan, that fragile area of Central Asia on which we now depend for strategic reasons is itself moving very close to a humanitarian crisis.

763
I do not wish to delay the House, but there are a couple of other points I want to raise. The first point may not immediately seem relevant, although I believe it to be profoundly relevant. We have not talked a great deal about the way in which the Taliban is fundamentally financed by drug trade interests, although the Minister did refer to the issue on one or two occasions during the early stages of the crisis. Those drug trade interests carry on into the countries bordering Afghanistan to the west. They are not exclusive to Afghanistan.
In our efforts to root out terrorism, paradoxically we are also engaged in the effort to root out the drug trade. That is why the Minister's remarks about the extreme importance of strengthening the whole of our legislative, financial and supervisory structure go well beyond terrorism itself—terrible though that is—to another of the scourges which today confront the human race. They all hang together.
I turn now to the final part of the Minister's remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, which concerned the absolutely vital necessity of tackling not only the symptoms but also the causes of terrorism. We have a great deal to teach in this respect from our own experience of Northern Ireland. I do not differ from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in recognising that we have had our own terrorist problem and that in the Real IRA we still have a terrorist problem—although, thank God, smaller than it was. But, for all its weaknesses and all its qualifications, the hard and rocky road of the Good Friday agreement is the only way towards a political solution.
That brings me to one comment I wish to make on the Middle East. I fully share the condemnation of the House and many others of the unacceptable assassination of Minister Ze'evi. However, it is also true that to pursue a peace process which becomes hostage to any act of terrorism is to encourage the most extreme elements to produce such acts of terrorism. I believe that the consistent position of Prime Minister Sharon of breaking off the peace process every time there is a terrorist outrage simply puts the peace process in the hands of those who have the least conscience, the least wisdom and the least commitment to a peaceful outcome.
Lastly among the causes of terrorism, we have to address the profound inequalities in the world. This morning I was talking to no less a figure than Peter Sutherland, the former secretary-general of the World Trade Organisation and now the chairman of Goldman Sachs—not a person one would expect to say, loudly and clearly, that there must be a much more generous division of resources by the rich world; a much more generous attitude towards overseas aid; and a much greater willingness to accept a wider decision-making structure than the G7, which would include the needs of large and significant developing countries on behalf of the third world. Sooner or later we shall have to address the profound disformities in our own world if we are to produce at any time a long-term answer to some of the problems that today trouble us.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister who has, despite the immense pressures that must be bearing in on her, come again to the House to share so fully the Government's thinking and approach. It is important and we should not take it for granted. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, the Government have been very forthcoming in this respect.
It is always challenging to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I make only one point about her speech. Of course the toughest, most exacting and demanding political challenge of all is peace-making. If I were to pick out one reason to explain why I am proud to be on these Benches, it would be the consistent determination of the Government now in power to follow through, whatever the difficulties, the cause of peace in Northern Ireland.
I should perhaps declare an interest at the outset of my remarks as a member of the Oxfam Association and as a senior Fellow of the independent charitable think tank on security questions, Saferworld.
I am glad that my noble friend the Minister placed so much emphasis on the UN. As I have said before in these debates, we have to recognise that in the world as a whole there is an anxiety, if not a growing impatience and cynicism, about what is perceived, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, as an attempt by the privileged minority of nations of the world to run the world. If we are to build a lasting peace and stability, the world itself, if I may speak in those rather loose terms, has to be brought in on the act. The stakeholding has to be increased.
But, of course, there is another reason why that is so important. As we all know, the alliance is fragile. We are all anxious about how long the alliance will withstand the pressures as the campaign goes forward. It would be sad if all our energy went towards keeping the alliance together for the sake of keeping it together, rather than being directed towards a broader strategy of getting the world behind us, getting the world engaged, through the one organisation that represents the world, the United Nations.
There has been talk about the role of the United Nations in helping to find a political solution. It would be interesting to hear more from the Government, if that is possible, about the current thinking in this respect. Indeed, how representative will be any future government in Afghanistan? Do or do we not believe that there are even elements within the Taliban that may be involved in that government? How will we ensure that whatever government emerges will be a government that belongs to the elements it represents as distinct from being a government which is imposed from outside? My reflection on history is that governments which are imposed from outside virtually never survive. So how will that government have authenticity and authority in the context of the situation itself?
Another issue concerns the contradictions which inevitably arise as one goes forward with an alliance. How far are some of the parties to the alliance viable

765
in the long term within their own political systems? How far are we building relationships of great significance and great dependence with people who are themselves living on borrowed time? There is a question here. It is no good brushing it aside or burying it in the sand. If we do, we may find ourselves in very dangerous waters.
Perhaps I may make a personal observation. At the Council of Europe I am joint chair, together with the chair of the foreign relations committee of the Duma, of a committee trying to develop within Russia a sense of greater political responsibility for what is happening in Chechnya. I have been appalled by the disproportionate and indiscriminate action in Chechnya and the abuse of human rights. These are matters that we cannot easily accept. Indeed, we should not accept them at all.
Interestingly, I get most angry about the counter-productivity of the way the campaign has been waged. Instead of winning-over reasonable Chechens to working positively towards a future together with their colleagues m the remainder of the Russian Federation, indiscriminate and disproportionate action is all the time driving people into the arms of the extremists. This is an issue which is related to the point I have made about the complications which arise in an alliance, the need to be honest about them and face up to them.
That brings me to the question of military action. I thought that my noble friend the Minister—I hope she will forgive me for saying this—was almost moving in the way in which she addressed the issue today. I believe that one of the heaviest and most difficult responsibilities of Ministers is to commit a country to military action. There is the issue of military personnel and their families and, as my noble friend said so honestly, the human consequences that flow from military action. I was glad to hear the Government share their anxieties so openly in that regard.
But having embarked upon military action, one has to do what is necessary. It is no good just picking off bits of military action, like ripe fruits in an orchard, and saying that we like this or that. We must be prepared to go through with it. In so doing, it is important to remind ourselves of certain principles which must always be kept in mind.
The first is that military action must be proportionate, not indiscriminate. The second is that it must be in keeping with the international conventions and civilised values which we say we are defending. Yes, there is the inevitable danger of people becoming innocent victims—and it is true that the ultimate responsibility for that lies with those who made such action necessary. But to speak candidly—I hope that my noble friend will accept this point—I am never convinced by an argument that merely says, "It is their fault". Of course it is their fault; but we, too, have a responsibility. Although the terrorists created the situation that has resulted in the present action, it is our duty to demonstrate in our response that our aims are about something different. We must always face up to our own responsibility in this context. Every
766
innocent life that is lost is one too many. But every innocent life lost also offers potential ammunition to our adversaries. That is why we must keep civilian casualties to an absolute minimum. That should be an overriding operational priority at all times.
Bombing is a blunt instrument. It may be essential as a supporting part of a military campaign, but it must be strictly controlled. It must never be allowed to generate its own momentum or to become a substitute for other more appropriate, and—let us face the fact—more costly, military action.
Our primary objective is to bring bin Laden to justice. It is clear that bombing will not in itself capture bin Laden. Therefore, it is essential to remain clear about how bombing supports the action that will achieve that end. Indeed, we must be clear about what is the action that will achieve that end. Not least, public opinion needs to be prepared for casualties.
We are constantly reminded that the war is not against the Afghan people. We are constantly reminded, and endorse the fact warm-heartedly, that the humanitarian action is every bit as important as the military action. However, reports indicate that the bombing is making this dual approach impossible in some instances and very difficult in others.
I therefore put this question to my noble friend. What specific arrangements exist for co-ordination between the humanitarian agencies and the military for resolving any contradictions between the two approaches? As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the urgency is underlined by the approach of winter. Having worked for most of my professional life in humanitarian agencies in many difficult situations, I can tell the House that we should not underestimate the horrors of winter that lie ahead. At this point, perhaps I may interject a genuine tribute to those aid workers in the area who operate so valiantly in such a complex situation—and especially to the nationals of that part of the world who so often support the international staff. A tremendous demand is made upon them.
I pose a further question. I am sure that the matter has been addressed and it may be difficult to spell out the detail. There is anxiety about what exactly will happen when bin Laden is captured. How will the justice to which we are committed in fact operate? The point has been well made that this was not an attack merely on the United States but on the world. It has been pointed out that it was the biggest single terrorist incident affecting British subjects. What are the implications of that? How will the matter be handled? It is rather like the issue of the UN itself. It is reassuring to hear the Government state their commitment to the UN. I am extremely glad to hear it. On that and the issue of justice, how close are we to our dear friends in the United States in our thinking as regards the answers?
My final point is not original; I make it merely to emphasise a matter that preoccupies many. In this war, the psychological dimension is very significant. Bin Laden and his collaborators clearly aim to provoke. They aim to demonstrate a contradiction between our

767
rhetorical objectives and what we actually do. We must not give them any victory whatever in that respect. We must retain our unremitting commitment to civilised values. It is an extremely difficult area, but as a former Defence Minister perhaps I may say that I sometimes find that commitment at its highest among some of our serving officers and men. It is a commitment that must always be present. Not merely are we fighting against actions that are unacceptable; we are fighting for civilised values—for peace and for justice. If we are fighting for those values, the way in which we fight must demonstrate the fact.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the international crisis over global terrorism has many novel and repugnant features that distinguish it from the wars and campaigns of recent years. But it also has some similarities. One is the way in which, at the outset, most commentators were inclined to be totally dismissive of the role that the United Nations might play in its solution. Now, some five weeks later, as the complexity and intractability of the problems that we face become clearer, each day brings forth a new suggestion for United Nations involvement: peacekeeping, a protectorate for Afghanistan, reconstruction aid, and nation building. It is a familiar cycle: one day the UN is fit for nothing; the next, it can be asked to do anything. The humdrum truth and reality lie somewhere between those two extremes.
It could be useful, therefore, at this stage to focus carefully on what the UN can do and also on what it cannot reasonably be asked to do. I welcome the emphasis placed on the UN dimension by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the thoughts that she expressed in her opening remarks. I also welcome the news that my friend and former colleague, Robert Cooper, will be involved. He is renowned for his capacity for lateral thinking—a quality not always to be found in every member of the Diplomatic Service but which he has in large quantity.
Many of the most shaming setbacks for the United Nations in recent years, in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda, arose from that organisation being set tasks for which it was not equipped and for which it was not given adequate resources. The war against global terrorism is far too serious a matter to risk going down that road again.
Let us consider the UN dimension. First, there is the UN's geo-political role, which resides principally in the Security Council but also in the General Assembly. The UN got off on the right foot from the very beginning. Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 were both unanimously adopted. One is nonbinding and the other is mandatory on all states. They represent a clear condemnation of terrorism and a singularly far-reaching programme of action against all its aspects: the protection of terrorists, the provision or movement of funds and weapons and state terrorism itself. Taken together with the right of self defence in Article 51 of the charter, the international legal framework has been set for the
768
struggle ahead. It was set with the invaluable support of the five permanent members of the Security Council, which has been so lacking since shortly after the end of the Gulf war in the early years of the last decade.
The priority now is to put the instruments in Security Council Resolution 1373 to good use, to ensure that the UN has the resources that it needs to follow them up and for the international community not to flinch if that follow-up shows the need for sanctions of some sort, whether economic or military, to achieve compliance.
Secondly, there is the role of the Secretary-General and his staff in helping to put Afghanistan on a better course for the future, and one that denies it as a haven for terrorists and drugs. They must ensure that Afghanistan is neither a threat to its neighbours, nor, as has more often been the case in the past, that they are a threat to it, through meddling in its affairs and destabilising the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was kind enough to refer to an article that I wrote in the Financial Times yesterday. If I had to single out one of my ideas in the article to which insufficient focus has been put so far, it is the idea of somehow finding an internationally legally binding regime that would commit all Afghanistan's neighbours and major powers not to meddle in Afghanistan in the future, when this present phase is accomplished. I am thinking of something a little like what was done for Belgium in the 19th century and which was done for Cambodia after many years of meddling by far too many people.
The objective of a broad-based Afghan Government, which reflects all the main ethnic communities, is clearly much easier to wish for in this House than to bring about. The Secretary-General and his experienced and able special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, could make a real contribution to achieving that, as long as we do not ask them to do too much too quickly. Talk of a UN protectorate is unrealistic in the case of Afghanistan and will not help to win the co-operation of fiercely independent Afghans who will not find the parallels of Kosovo or East Timor at all appealing or compelling.
The Secretary-General will need plenty of help if he is to achieve anything. Above all, he will need the unstinting political support of the main member states—the five permanent members—and of Afghanistan's neighbours, any one of whom could destroy many weeks of painstaking work in a few hours of meddlesome intervention.
Thirdly, there is the option of peacekeeping or some kind of international military presence to help Afghanistan implement a political settlement. I counsel considerable caution, as others who have spoken before me have done. Afghanistan is neither historically nor geographically an obvious candidate for a peacekeeping operation. It is not a question of keeping opposing sides apart, nor could Afghanistan's borders conceivably be policed without the full cooperation of its neighbours. If they were to co-operate fully, would we really need to police the borders? It is

769
conceivable that the UN could play a peacekeeping role of a nature yet to be defined, but my view is that it might be wise to give no great prominence to that idea at this stage.
Fourthly, there is the question of reconstruction—or rather construction as there is little enough in Afghanistan to reconstruct. Clearly a massive international effort must be made on behalf of a post-Taliban Afghanistan so that it does not simply slip back into despair and anarchy. The sooner we can set out that prospectus in outline, the sooner Afghans will realise that there is a preferable alternative to their present appalling predicament.
I have not so far mentioned the humanitarian catastrophe that looms over a country ravaged by drought and civil war. Responding adequately to that is clearly imperative, whatever happens on the other fronts—military, political or economic. Any adequate response will necessarily require the full co-operation and co-ordination of a whole range of UN specialised agencies, the High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Programme and the dovetailing of their work with that of the many non-governmental organisations already on the ground. It will surely also need the use of the military assets of the coalition allies, without which it is really hard to believe that some of the more remote mountainous regions will be reachable during the coming winter.
So far, there has been rather a lot of discord and cacophony and not too much co-ordination. That is not unusual. Much the same thing occurred in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda. The capacity of often anonymous spokesmen for NGOs to go on air with contradictory political and military advice is almost unlimited, as is the appetite of the media for reporting them. The sooner the UN can get some effective coordinating machinery up and running, the better.
That is all a huge agenda for the UN, which is an organisation that is not over-endowed with resources and political support. As usual it presents us with a quandary. We can pile up tasks on the UN's back: like an overloaded donkey in a bazaar until its legs crumple beneath it, and we can then walk away washing our hands, saying, "What a useless organisation this is". Or we can proceed with realism, by not giving the United Nations tasks for which it is unsuited, or which are beyond its capacity, and then proceed with commitment, making sure that the UN gets the resources in men and material that it requires and the political support that it needs when the going gets rough. Nowhere will that quandary be felt more sharply than in Washington where there is a tendency in some quarters to allow ideology to displace a utilitarian approach to the UN.
I hope that we shall be able to get across the message that in the war against terrorism, making imaginative use of the UN's potential will be a war waged far more effectively than one that either marginalises the UN or leaves it to twist in the wind.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in this debate I want to focus on one specific aspect of the coalition against international terrorism, namely, the root causes of such terrorism. Terrorism is a malignant disease, and like all diseases, prevention is better than cure. While it is important to treat the symptoms—here I am in total agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—it is critical to find the source of the pernicious infection and minimise it in the future.
I am sure that, like me, many of your Lordships listened to Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" last Thursday. I believe that Hamza Yusuf summed it up perceptively when he said:
"The vast majority of humanity is not extremist but in key times can easily be driven so".
To attack the seemingly intractable problems of terrorism at its roots, we must address the condition that produced it and not just its ugly branches.
I agree. The attacks in America were the bitterest examples of terrorism I have ever seen. We now need to direct our resources against terrorism. We can try to understand what spawns such appalling acts in the belief that a better understanding of the underlying causes will help us to prevent them. We can, and must, concentrate our resources on eradicating the symptoms. The latter has risks: meeting violence with violence and terror with terror. It satisfies our need to punish the perpetrators, but we must seek more than a short-term tourniquet. At best it will afford a remission, but it is no ultimate remedy.
As your Lordships are aware, I fully support the Government's commitment to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism, but I do so in the knowledge that the only way in which to eliminate the terrorist threat is to understand and treat its causes. To heal the symptoms alone can only ever be a temporary, albeit important cure.
It requires no great study to identify the root causes of terrorism. They are as old as humanity itself. The seeds of terrorism grow fast in the fertile soil of poverty, resentment, injustice and oppression. Poverty breeds resentment; resentment breeds hatred; and hatred breeds terrorism. In certain conditions terrorism is the response of the "have-nots". The recipe for terrorism is a simple one. If poverty is combined with the perception of injustice and oppression and then mixed with a strong dose of religious fanaticism, the conditions for terrorism to thrive are optimal.
There is no justification for what was done in America. Destitution and poverty are never an excuse for evil acts, but we cannot ignore the fact that evil often flourishes in their midst. Osama bin Laden has a lot to lose, but many of those whom he attracts to his cause have very little. They have very little in the way of material possessions, very little in the way of education and very little in the way of hope. Would there be the same level of popular support in Pakistan for the Taliban if Pakistan were not one of the world's poorest, most illiterate, most malnourished and least

771
gender-sensitive regions in the world? Thirty-six million of the 131 million people in Pakistan live in absolute poverty. Over two-thirds of Pakistan's adult population is illiterate: 60 million people do not have access to health facilities; 67 million people are without safe drinking water.
We can talk about the poverty of the Palestinians in the same way—their standard of living has fallen by some 40 per cent since the signing of the Oslo accords, while unemployment rates are between 20 per cent to 30 per cent on the West Bank. A life lived in poverty, a life of hardship, a life devoid of hope, is one where terrorism may find the support that it needs to succeed.
It is no coincidence that the seeds of the Taliban government sprang up in Pakistan in the camps of the refugees escaping from the Afghan war. Hundreds of Islamic madrasahs fed the appetite for the extreme interpretation of Islam that they advocated by providing Afghan refugees and young Pakistanis with free education, food, shelter and military training. In other words, they offered something that looked like a better future. But the hope offered by terrorism is no more than a malevolent mirage. Perhaps the Minister will confirm in his response a point well made by the noble Baroness who opened the debate; namely, that the Government's humanitarian goals—the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the protection of the vulnerable—remain as high on the agenda as the military action, so that the young men of Pakistan, Palestine and Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world, are offered real hope for a better future. Only then will the siren call of terrorism and violence fail to beckon them.
At this point, it is clearly necessary to address the fact that the perpetrators of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks did not fall into this category of the poor and the hopeless. We have yet fully to understand the motivation of these young men. But one thing we know for sure: it was rooted in a combination of hatred and religious zeal. Hatred is the second string of terrorism's bow. September 11th brought it home to the heart of America that there are many in the Muslim world who hate what America and the West stand for and who wish us harm. To understand the hatred that has fuelled such evil, we must see the world through Middle-Eastern eyes. Those eyes are as likely to see hypocrisy and self-interest instead of the benign and responsible superpower we see.
For the West, September 11th was a milestone in the infamous history of terrorism. It caused us to hold up a mirror to our civilisation and to resolve to create a better world. But for many in the Middle East, September 11th was a milestone for another reason. It was the day that the war which has raged across the Middle East for decades, and which has claimed so many victims, was finally brought to America's shores. For years, people in the Middle East have lived with countless images not unlike the appalling scenes in New York, albeit never on such a concentrated and vast scale. While I have no doubt that there was a great and deep well of sympathy for the individual tragedies,
772
some in the Middle East have expressed the nagging sense that decades of amassed hatred somehow found a most fatal and poisonous expression on 11th September.
We must find the way to draw the venom from that poison, to melt away the anger, to end the despair and to remove the sting from the hatred—be it through fresh efforts to bring peace to the region, or renewed strategies to exchange a future of poverty for one of prosperity. The two are inextricably bound. It is a simple truth that, without prosperity, peace cannot take root; and without peace, prosperity cannot grow.
Peace was dealt a blow yesterday with the assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minister, but we cannot, and must not, allow it to be a mortal blow. I believe that it is time that we vigorously renewed our efforts in the Middle East and persuaded our colleagues and friends in America to do likewise. Can the Minister also confirm whether such an assessment of our foreign policy will form part of the wider campaign against international terrorism? I hope so.
We are now engaged in a military operation against Afghanistan. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It is intended, rightly, to be part of the first phase of a campaign—an important phase—to remove Osama bin Laden, destroy his Al'Qaeda network and, as is looking increasingly necessary, to topple the Taliban from power within the context of the wider goal of ridding the world of the scourge of international terrorism. I am sure that the Minister will tell us what he can about the next phase of this operation, for, on both the military and political levels, the only point upon which I take issue with the Minister—the only one in all the speeches that she has given in the past four debates—is my absolute view that speed is of the essence before the harsh Afghan winter sets in, and before unease risks splitting the international coalition.
There are those who find it difficult to distinguish where the fine lines lie between justice and revenge; and between righting the wrongs of the guilty and wronging the rights of the innocent in the most conventional of conflicts—let alone in this new kind of campaign waged in an already wretched and war-torn country, brought to the brink of destruction by the internal conflict of its warlords and the external aggression of its neighbours and its sheltering of Al'Qaeda. In London and Washington it is easy to differentiate between a war against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and a war against Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it is not so easy. That will make the formation of a new government a huge task.
Because we do not distinguish between the terrorist and the state sponsors of terrorists, the Taliban is now our enemy. The use of force against terrorism thus becomes a campaign that we understand—a campaign against targets within clearly defined geographical borders, even though the terror it fights knows no borders.
The operation against Afghanistan bears all the hallmarks of a conventional war, yet this jars in a reality where the conventional language of war is

773
redundant. Clear objectives and exit strategies do not exist in a world of suicide bombers and terrorism, in a world where, suddenly, the sight of white powder instils panic, lest it is lethal anthrax, and in a world where normal life is gradually being rendered abnormal by the contagion of fear.
In this new reality, it becomes all the more difficult to judge the effectiveness of a conventional military operation. The military action is the first phase of the campaign. It has my full support. It is by this means that we can bring bin Laden to justice, root out his network and destroy its training camps and infrastructure. But, when we have done that—it may take a long time, as the Minister said earlier—it will close only the first chapter in the coalition against international terrorism; it will not be the end of the story. We will not have ended terrorism; we will not even significantly have decreased the threat of attack from any one of the many proscribed terrorist groups born out of hatred and religious fervour. We will not have touched our wider objective to do everything to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism.
We are all agreed that the events of 11th September stained humanity's record with a new evil and left our civilisation, for all its advances, vulnerable. I conclude by saying simply that if we are to succeed in the coalition which has been built, fighting terrorism must go hand in hand with fighting injustice and poverty. We must send the positive message that the coalition is a constructive one and that it aims to spread and share our vision of a more secure and equitable world.
The endgame of this military action must be to make the world a safer place. The bombs must place a greater distance between us and terror. The only way to do this s to tackle the causes of terrorism hand in hand with the military action. Then and only then will this campaign be judged a success.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I think we have always realised that a terrorist to some of us is a freedom fighter to others. The appalling events of 11th September were so clear that there could be no other view. It is therefore disturbing to find the number of people who are cheering, if you like, the events of that day all the way from Indonesia to Morocco with Pakistan in the middle. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has just said, we have to consider the causes of that and what is bringing that frightening phenomenon about.
I suppose the major underlying cause is the political problems in Israel/Palestine over many years. We all say that we do not want to take sides but we are all horrified at the tit-for-tat assassination of the Israeli Minister a couple of days ago. A few days before that we were horrified at what happened to Palestinian refugees. Tomorrow God knows what the problem will be. We must consider the causes behind these problems and consider what on earth we can do to try to prevent them occurring. Here, again, the United States has an enormous role to play as its influence is so great. However, it behoves us all to consider the matter.
774
It also behoves us to consider the nation in the middle of all this. I do not mean Afghanistan but Pakistan. One has to accept that Pakistan has taken a brave step in agreeing to support the coalition in all it does. When I was in Pakistan some months ago, President Musharraf wryly stated that he could not understand why he was thought to be a supporter of the Taliban and that he was no more a supporter of the Taliban than anyone else. He abhorred its attitude towards women's rights, its policy on torture and other matters. However, as he correctly pointed out, all that time he had a large enemy to the east—he meant, of course, India—and he did not want another to the west. Now he has taken the brave step of supporting the coalition against the Taliban. We therefore should consider our duties towards Pakistan.
It is rather strange that under the conventions of the Commonwealth Pakistan is now suspended from membership whereas, not too many thousand miles away, Mr Robert Mugabe, who has flouted almost every rule of civilisation one can think of, is allowed full membership because he is, apparently, a democratically elected leader. We need to consider some of the rules with regard to the Commonwealth and consider how we can help Pakistan. Pakistan has enormous debts around the world, most of which Musharraf inherited from previous governments. Pakistan has a debt of about 35 billion dollars. Much of the debt—over 5 billion dollars—is owed to Japan and over 3 billion is owed to the USA. A large debt is also owed to the EU. We have a sovereign debt in Britain owed by Pakistan of about £400 million to £450 million.
Not so many months ago in this House we heard of the steps that were being taken to help heavily indebted third world nations. Many of those debts have been written off. Will the Minister approach the Treasury on this matter? Some £400 million to £450 million is not a small amount and would certainly keep some of your Lordships over the weekend, but it is not a huge amount in the context of international debt. We could take the practical measure of writing off that debt to help Pakistan.
Mention has been made of recent wars in Kosovo and the Congo. The difference between those wars and the war against the Taliban is that the latter is not a political war so much as a religious one. We all know that religious wars can last, sadly, for many years. We must tackle that issue.
Terrorism in the context of this debate is rather focused on what is happening in Afghanistan, but there are problems with terrorism all over the world. Earlier this week a Starred Question was raised in the House about the IRA. We were given a rather evasive and, if I may say so, a rather foolish response. No one is against the peace process in Ireland. We all hope that it will make progress. However, we have, quite rightly, given unqualified support to the USA in the present crisis. We should seek support from them as regards Ireland. For many years some people in the LISA have supported the IRA by raising funds for it. They claim the funds are raised for all kinds of reasons but often those funds are channelled into terrorist activities.

775
Perhaps the recent news of the IRA's connections with Colombia has made the use to which that funding is put more apparent. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to talk seriously about that matter in Washington in terms of obtaining support to combat that problem.
I congratulate the Minister on introducing the debate as we need to discuss the matter. I am sure that we shall discuss it again as we need to keep track of it constantly. All we can do is to support the Government in what they are trying to do.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to offer my support for the initiatives undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in promoting the coalition against international terrorism. There are three issues on which I should appreciate some clarification—issues not so far raised this evening. I delete from my notes issues which have already been comprehensively covered by other noble Lords.
The first concern is whether measures proposed by Her Majesty's Government will prevent penetration by terrorists, or those who have terrorist sympathies, into the financial systems of key strategic organisations. I give one example which has already been mentioned in your Lordships' House. However, new information has since become available. I refer to reports relating to the Sudanese businessman Salah Idris, who allegedly had links with terrorist Islamists such as Osama bin Laden and who also had financial investments in Sudan, where the Islamist National Islamic Front regime is widely known for its support of terrorist activities.
Recent reports indicate that Salah Idris—this businessman with such interesting connections—owns 75 per cent of the shares of the firm IES Digital Systems, which specialises in high technology surveillance and security management. Reports also indicate that the company has contracts with the British Army, the Foreign Office and the Houses of Parliament. Additionally, Salah Idris owns 20 per cent of the shares of Protec—a security company with special security projects with the Ministry of Defence and the nuclear power plants at Sellafield and Dounreay. Is there any truth in those reports? If so, is there any cause for concern?
I also have a wider question. Do the recently announced measures for imposing financial constraints on funding terrorist activities deal with the risk of infiltration by shareholders with terrorist sympathies into firms with strategic significance, such as those involved in security, defence, nuclear energy, public utilities or other key political and financial institutions? If not, might that not merit urgent consideration?
Since the tragic events of 11th September, there has been great media interest in the activities of extremist Islamists in this country who originally came from abroad, such as Skeikh Omar Bakri Muhammad and
776
the Afghan veteran Abu Hamza. It has been suggested that they might be liable to prosecution if evidence were found of their involvement in inciting violence or religious hatred. However, I have repeatedly pointed out on previous occasions in your Lordships' House that there has been ample prima facie evidence, including a "Dispatches" film broadcast in 1999, which clearly showed them inciting violence and teaching terrorist activities here in London, such as methods of bringing down aircraft coming into London airports. I have asked previously whether there had been any prosecutions or convictions for such offences, but I have not yet received a reply.
There is real concern, particularly among moderate Muslims who fear that the activities of the Islamist terrorists will generate a backlash against them. They fear that such extremists have been allowed to carry out their activities with impunity. I ask again whether that is the case. If so, why has no action been taken?
I greatly respect the Prime Minister's tireless endeavours to promote the coalition, but I am concerned about the need for balance between obtaining international support and the price being paid to certain regimes for their co-operation. My specific example is Sudan, which is ruled by a brutal, violent, extremist Islamist military junta with a long record of complicity with international Islamist terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, of harbouring Islamist jihad warriors and of providing terrorist training camps inside Sudan. It was also reportedly one of the sponsors of horrific terrorist attacks such as those on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
One of the prices paid for Sudan's co-operation with the coalition has been the lifting of sanctions against the Sudanese National Islamic Front regime. That has caused acute distress to the Sudanese people, the vast majority of whom hate and loathe the regime and suffer at its hands. The toll of human suffering in recent years is 2 million dead and 5 million displaced—greater than the toll of suffering for Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia put together. I was speaking at a meeting convened by the Sudan Human Rights Organisation last Saturday. Those present represented the whole spectrum of the diverse population of Sudan, including Arabs and Muslims from the north, the Beja Muslim people from the east, and African people from diverse tribes and regions in the south and the Nuba mountains. They all gave abundant evidence of the enormity of violations of human rights being perpetrated by the National Islamic Front against its own people. In addition to first-hand evidence from on-site visits by me and others from Christian Solidarity Worldwide, there have been numerous authoritative reports from many organisations, including Christian Aid and Amnesty International. This week a new report was published, An Investigation into Oil Development, Conflict and Displacement in Western Upper Nile, Sudan, which documents the continuing attacks against civilians by the National Islamic Front, the forcible recruitment of young teenagers into the government of Sudan armed

777
forces to attack their own people and an increase in military expenditure by the government of Sudan consistent with increases in oil revenue.
It is imperative to ask: what price coalition? Are the alleged benefits to be expected from lifting sanctions against Sudan's military junta worth the costs, not only in terms of human rights abuses, but in terms of threats to international security? Excerpts from a recent statement by one of the main Sudanese opposition groups, the SPLM/A, summarise some of those concerns:
"The Government of Sudan (GOS) popularly known as the National Islamic Front (NIF) regime, has been issuing false statement to the effect that the regime is not only fighting international terrorism, but has completely dissociated itself from sponsoring and harbouring terrorists. On Monday 1st October 2001, the titular head of the National Islamic Front regime, General Omer El Beshir, reiterated the same position. El Beshir also claimed that the regime was becoming democratic and is promoting national reconciliation in the country.
This of course is not true. The NIF is part and parcel of the international terrorist network … It has declared Jihad against its own people … in a Fatwa they issued in El Obeid in 1993. It is the same Jihad the Al'Qaeda terrorists invoked when they attacked the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. The National Islamic Front regime is part of Armed Islamic Movement and of the Al'Qaeda network, which was forged in Khartoum in an international conference of Islamic fundamentalist organisations held in the Sudanese capital in 1993.
The top leadership of the NIF government are associated with international terrorism and Islamists such as Hassan al Turabi, whom they released from gaol the day after sanctions were lifted. When an assassination attempt on the life of the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, was made in Addis Ababa in 1995, the government of Sudan and its senior ministers were implicated. These include the then Foreign Minister who is now the first vice-president, the then Chief of National Security and the then Minister of Information and official spokesman of the regime, now the regime's advisor on peace affairs. These three and President Beshir wanted an Islamic Government in Egypt similar to the one in Sudan. With the assistance of Osama bin Laden's Al'Qaeda, the NIF trained and financed members of Egypt's Gamaat E1 Islamia, who carried out the plot to kill President Mubarak …
The GOS also enabled bin Laden to establish extensive networks of businesses and investments for Al'Qaeda in Sudan to fund international terrorism, as well as training camps for terrorists. Sonic of these businesses are in the areas of agriculture, banking, tannery, heavy construction, trade in gum arable and the oil industry. These businesses and training camps are still in Sudan. Al'Qaeda is the brainchild of the NIF in association with bin Laden. II is a fact, most prominent NIF leaders are members of the board of directors of Al'Qaeda, including the first vice-president, Ali Osman Taha. Many cadres of the NIF regime are indeed members of Al'Qaeda …
Although Osama bin Laden left Sudan in 1996, he left behind a large number of his Al'Qaeda members to run the training camps and businesses that are fronts for terrorist activities. The NIF government provides safe havens and diplomatic passports to members of Egyptian Gamaat al Islamia, Algerian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The GOS also trains, arms and harbours terrorists operating in the East African region, particularly in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea. Some of these terrorists are involved in the Jihad in Sudan. Khartoum therefore is still heavily involved in terrorism … It has not abandoned terrorism and what the regime is now doing, in the form of co-operating with the US, is tactical and designed to hoodwink the international community … They remain terrorists to the core".
I hope that those harsh realities about the NIF's true nature will be taken into account in the Government's foreign policy and that neither the NIF's charm
778
offensive nor lucrative oil deals will entice the British Government into false complacency or the pursuit of short-term benefits at the cost of longer-term security risks. It seems a little bizarre that, in the interests of fighting international terrorism, sanctions have been lifted and closer links forged with one of the major terrorist sponsoring regimes in the world today.
If any redemptive good can be salvaged from the carnage of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington, it may be a realisation by the West of the nature of international Islamist extremist violence. That violence has inflicted a huge toll of death and suffering, not only in the United States but also in other countries such as Sudan and Indonesia.
It is to be hoped that that realisation will result in a sustained determination to contain and, ultimately, to eradicate this menace of terrorism. As a result, innocent people will no longer have to live in the fear, as the Psalmist put it so well, of the terror by night nor the arrow or pestilence which destroy at noon-day.
7.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I am sure that we need to look not only a broad, at the rest of the world, but at what is going on within our own country and among our own citizens. In order to prepare myself for this debate, I had quite a long conversation this morning with my adviser in Birmingham for relations with people of other faiths. He has close contacts with the various Muslim groups and organisations in Birmingham. This, more or less, is what he told me. I am sure that what he said about Birmingham will apply largely to other cities.
He said that five things are burdening the Muslim community so far as concerns the present conflict. First, the people of that community are worried by what they perceive as the uncertain ends and limits of the present campaign. They ask: what are the objectives of bombing and of any possible further military action? How is it that bin Laden is supposed to be brought out of the woodwork?
They also ask about the limits of the campaign. They have to be persuaded that it is limited only to Afghanistan. Things are said; they are not heard or believed. Again, what about the relationship—a question already asked this evening—between military action and humanitarian concern? If it is, indeed, the case that some 2 million people inside Afghanistan are in danger of starving to death this winter and that more are in serious danger, what are the real American and British priorities? And what, in particular, is the relationship between the humanitarian and military objectives? Islamic Relief, a Birmingham-based charity, has spoken to my adviser about the difficulty—we have heard about this already—of finding drivers who are willing to take lorries into the country in the present circumstances.
Secondly, he said that there is concern about Pakistan. The longer the conflict goes on, the greater the concern about the possible destabilisation of Pakistan. They note the demonstrations that occur every week, especially on Fridays, in Quetta and

779
Peshawar. Muslims in Britain are also concerned about the burden of refugees—some 3 million or 4 million—on Pakistan, a country of whose deep poverty we have already been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. When thinking about our cities, we must remember that there is, so to speak, a very short umbilical cord between Pakistan and the Muslim communities in Britain.
The third point is linked to the first. Some Muslims in this country are asking themselves: is the western action merely an attack on bin Laden, the Taliban or Afghanistan, or is it really an attack on Islam? Whatever we say, that question is asked. Our Government and the American Government have said that it is not an attack on Islam. Muslim leaders want to believe the Government, but the message is widely disbelieved. In that section of the community, I am afraid that this is a point on which the Government are not winning hearts and minds. Muslims point again and again to the West's perceived tolerance of what they see as the state terrorism of Israel.
Fourthly, the widespread Muslim demand for the production of evidence against bin Laden has not gone away. Assertion that, for security reasons, such evidence cannot be produced cuts no ice. Speaking personally, what strikes me in this connection is that the issue is not so much about evidence as about the lack of trust that many Muslims feel, especially towards America. Yet again, it is a case of hearts and minds.
There is also a demand for justice and for justice to be seen to be done. It is not only that justice should be done but that the processes employed should be manifestly just. A Muslim leader said to me quite forcefully: "One of the things that we value in Britain is its justice, and we do not wish to see Britain betraying itself in this respect". Therefore, I am afraid that, so far in that area, the noble Baroness's assertions in her opening speech about the justice of the Government's cause have failed to convince. And we are talking about our own citizens.
Fifthly, my adviser tells me that, since the beginning of the military action, there has been a slackening of support for the American-British line. When I heard him say that to me this morning, I recalled the Muslim leader, totally opposed to bin Laden and terrorism, who had pleaded with me a fortnight ago for more patience. I find myself asking whether the Government have lost support through impatience.
If it is true that the issues at stake are primarily political and not military and that the purpose of any military action must be to serve political ends, then I believe that we must ask ourselves a quite sobering question: has the use of military force, with consequent civilian casualties, however few they may be, served to divert attention from terrorism to the conduct of America and its allies as the focus of public concern? That is quite a serious question. I hope that we shall not see yet another demonstration of the impotence of power in the face of a weakness that has little or nothing to lose.
780
I conclude by returning to Birmingham and my conversation with my adviser this morning. He is quite clear that, the longer this conflict goes on in its present form, the greater the fear for the radicalisation of Muslim youth in our cities and the more difficult for the voice of moderate Muslim leaders to be heard. I have also heard reports from church-run play groups about the fears expressed by Muslim women—fears for their families and for themselves. One might say that, if the young men are carrying the anger, the women are carrying the fear.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, my intervention this evening is directed to the question asked both by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. What does the bombing of the World Trade Centre on 11th September tell us about the nature of contemporary terrorism? Is there anything new here beyond the new technique by which it was carried out?
It is widely believed—it is certainly widely said—that the bombing was not only a wicked but also an insane act: one with no tangible political object, or at least not one that could not be brought within the ambit of a political response. One popular line of argument sees the bombing as the expression of the generalised rage of Islam against the West. That is an echo of the famous clash of civilisations thesis of Samuel Huntington. On that thesis, the rage cannot in principle be appeased, short of the destruction of everything that we stand for. There is therefore no alternative but to extirpate bin Laden's organisation and ruthlessly cut down all of its successor shoots.
We are therefore apt to distinguish the newest type of terrorism from the familiar, "old" sort of terrorism, which does seem to have a tangible political object. Such terrorism is represented by the IRA in Northern Ireland or by ETA in Spain. We know—or we think that we know—what they want. In face of their stated aims, governments of our kind sensibly respond with a dual or a twin-track strategy that aims to catch and to punish the terrorists and to address or minimise the political grievances on which they feed.
It is a great mistake, I suggest, to believe that because the attack of 11th September was global and not national in its implications it was not rooted in a set of specific political grievances; in other words, it is a phenomenon with which we are familiar, despite the new technology, and a twin-track strategy is therefore equally appropriate in this case. If that is so, I suggest that our response should start from three propositions. First, peaceful coexistence between the West and Islam is necessary and attainable. Secondly, if the coalition against terrorism is to succeed, it has to be global; and to be global, it has to include the Muslim world. Thirdly, whatever bin Laden's motives—if, indeed, he was the mastermind—the Islamic world has one mighty grievance against the West, particularly against the United States; that is, the asymmetrical, virtually unconditional support that it gives Israel in its occupation of Palestinian territory, and its denial of

781
Palestinian status. That is not an assertion—it is what every Muslim leader says and has said repeatedly over the past month.
Unless that grievance is met, the global coalition will not hold for long. Even if it does hold together for long enough to sniff out bin Laden, his successors will find new bases of operation. Both President Bush and our Prime Minister have publicly accepted the principle of a Palestinian state, which I greatly welcome. In itself, that is not new. I hope that it will not turn out to be simply a verbal gesture that will be discarded as soon as the emergency is over. Within a few weeks we are promised a plan. We shall then have a better idea of how much pressure the West is willing to bring to bear jointly on Israel and the Palestinian Authority to make peace.
The kernel of the problem, as I see it, is the Israeli settlers—500,000 of them on the West Bank and in Gaza. To settle territories won in war and held in defiance of United Nations resolutions and most of world opinion never made any sense, unless Israel intended to hold those territories by force. Since 1967, no Israeli government has been prepared to accept any peace treaty that involves the removal of those settlers and no Palestinian leaders have been prepared to accept any peace treaty that does not involve their removal. That is the nut that has to be cracked. The geographical distribution of the settlements would make a Palestinian state in which they were embedded little more than a collection of Bantustans, which is not an encouraging precedent.
I have little doubt that an enduring peace requires the following four elements: first, the withdrawal of the Israeli settlers and their replacement by those whom they dispossessed; secondly, a generous international fund to finance the process; thirdly, an international status for Jerusalem; and, fourthly, an international guarantee of the Israeli-Palestinian frontiers.
That would be a very difficult solution for the West to propose and for Israel to accept, for historical reasons with which we are all too familiar. But what is the alternative? For Israel to go on fighting to hold on to what it has won, with the escalating bloodshed and brutality that that would undoubtedly bring? For the West to support it whatever the terrorist threat it thereby lays itself open to? If so, what is to become of our hope of creating a law-governed international society that is based on the United Nations charter?
It is vital that a Middle East peace process be promoted and started simultaneously with the war against terrorism. Indeed, it is part of the war against terrorism. I beg the Government to seize the opportunity created by the terrible events of 11th September to lead a crusade—I use that word advisedly—for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. If we succeed in that, some good may have come out of evil.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I begin by saying that it is a great pity that the noble Lord,
782
Lord Skidelsky, is not speaking from the Conservative Front Bench on foreign affairs, however excellent a job my noble friend—I use that word in both of its senses—Lord Howell of Guildford has done. The noble Lord gave one of the best analyses of the terrorist threat that I have heard.
I want to add a little to what was said by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I was in Oman a week ago in an Arab restaurant, where I talked to two European-educated Arabs. First, they established that I was English, not American, and they were pleased about that. They were enormous fans of their Sultan and of the work that he had done to drag Oman into the modern world. One of them asked me a question and the other was not surprised by it. He asked, "Are you sure it wasn't the Jews who bombed the World Trade Centre and pretended to be Arabs?" That shows the depth of suspicion in the Arab world towards the western world.
I want to discuss why terrorism in the Muslim world should have happened. I start with that enormously grand figure of the Enlightenment, Gibbon, and his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He wrote:
"The age of Arabian learning continued about five hundred years, till the great eruption of the Moguls, and was coeval with the darkest and most slothful period of European annals; but since the sun of science has arisen in the West, it would seem that Oriental studies have languished and declined".
They do not write like that any more.
The great period of Arab—Muslim—civilisation was from the time when Umar the Tolerant refused to enter the Church of the Nativity in case it was turned into a mosque, to the time when the Marmelukes were conquered by the Turks. It peaked probably during the reigns of Harun el Rashid and of the splendidly named Motassem the Octonary, who was the eighth caliph of the Abbassides. He reigned for eight years, eight months and eight days; he had eight wives, eight sons and eight daughters; he won eight victories; he had 8,000 slaves; and he left 8 million pieces of gold in his will. That is why, unsurprisingly, he was called the octonary. That period continued through the great civilisations of Baghdad, where there were libraries, national health services and great irrigation schemes on which they improved, which unfortunately were destroyed by Tamerlane and the Mongols. The period peaked and stayed constant.
The Turks appeared on the scene. There is an Arab saying which states that where a Turk has sat, no grass grows. From then on the Muslim civilisation regressed, became stultified and, I would suggest, contributed little to western learning or any learning. In 1800, 300 or 400 years later, Napoleon erupted into the Muslim world, dragging with him the great scholars. Suddenly, the Muslim world realised that the western Christian world, to which it fully believed it was superior, had overtaken it. From Napoleon's time until now it has had the great problem of how to catch up without divorcing itself from its Muslim inheritance.

783
The improvements have all been from the top down. It does not matter whether they were Muhammad Ali, or an Albanian sergeant hooked out of the disaster of the second battle of Abukir by the bosun of Sydney Smith's gig, who then became hereditary King Khedive of Egypt. It does not matter whether it was the young Turks, Kemal Atatürk or the Shah of Persia's forebears. They all tried to impose modernism from the top down.
Our civilisation has been one of growth from the bottom up. The terrible inferiority complex—I think that is almost the right word—which the Muslim society has had vis-à-vis the west, is shown by what Osama bin Laden did. He did not use Muslim inventions. Aeroplanes were invented in the West. The watch that we see him wear on television is a western invention. The coat he wears is an American-style camouflage jacket. They are using western world inventions to try to destroy the western world's values.
The contrast between the primitive reactionary Muslim world and the advanced western world gives us an opportunity, both in Baghdad and Damascus. Those are secular states. They may be horrid. One may be more horrid than the other and one, I suspect, is trying to get a little better, but if we can separate the secular nasties from the religious fanatical nasties, we might improve the secular nasties. It requires serious lateral thinking from the former Foreign Office colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
I turn to military matters. The Australians have announced that they are sending 1,500 troops. During the Gulf War we asked, "What troops are you sending?" It was a known fact that we had a division in the Gulf. The names of the regiments were known. The same was the case during the Falklands War. This time we have had no information.
Last Sunday I happened to be in King Offa of Mercia's summer capital—I shall give a fiver to any noble Lord who knows what that is—and met a former Foreign Legionnaire. He informed me that he had been to his old comrade association and that his Foreign Legion regiment had been sent to Uzbekistan. Whether or not that is true, I do not know, but the source seemed to be good.
I hope that our Government will tell us, without imploding security, what forces will be involved if and when a ground war starts. There are things happening in the Armed Forces which are extremely worrying. As I have said, I have just returned from Oman. Sixty-eight tanks were sent to Oman. Before the main exercise started, 17 were sent back because the tracks were not working, the filters were ruined and they had refused to decertify so, not surprisingly, the tanks did not work in the desert.
There is overstretch in the Armed Forces. At Brize Norton, they state, "Yes, we can just cope provided nobody is on leave or off sick". I sincerely hope that if soldiers are involved, they will have the modified SA80 rather than the one that does not work either in hot or
784
cold conditions. We know that the communications of the modern Armed Forces are wildly out of date. That problem has yet to be cured.
Her Majesty's present advisers may say, "This is the fault of the Tories", but they have had five years to put it right, which they could have done, or they have had five years not to notice that it was wrong. Either way, they cannot blame that on the Tories. If ground troops are to be involved, they must be properly equipped. In Oman, for instance, the tents were sent out in one container, the tent pegs in another and the tent poles in a third. Have we not learnt from the Crimea, when the left-footed boots went out in one ship and the right-footed boots in another? On this occasion, all the containers arrived. In the Crimea, one ship sank. Such things should not be allowed to happen. The soldiers must be properly equipped. If there is to be a ground war, the Treasury must be made to turn off the tap. It is unfair to allow our soldiers to have anything other than a completely proper, decent kit. We owe that to them.
Otherwise, the Government are to be congratulated on the attitude they have taken. I do not mind saying that. When people do well it is right for us to congratulate them as it is right for us to say they have done wrong if they have done wrong. With those few words I shall sit down and wait to hear from anybody who can say what was King Offa's summer capital. That does not include the Civil Service.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and erudite Earl, Lord Onslow. However, I must comment that I am rather surprised that his Arab friends had difficulty in deciding whether he was English or American.
I have not spoken hitherto in the debates in your Lordships' House following the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11th September. So many noble Lords wished to speak that I hoped someone would express some of the views which I would have put forward. However, no one seems to have done so. Therefore, perhaps I may take a few moments of your Lordships' time to suggest, with my customary diffidence, that we may be missing, or even consciously avoiding, the true significance of what is happening today.
Before I begin my main theme, perhaps I may ask the Minister to solve one problem for me. It concerns the use of the curious phrase "proportionate response", which the noble Baroness used in her opening remarks. What is a proportionate response to the murder of 7,000 men, women and children? No one has yet been able to tell me that. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could help me when he comes to reply.
The case I want to make begins towards the end of the last century. A study was carried out at Harvard University into the future pattern of world conflict and the changing security environment in the post Cold War climate. It resulted in a report, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, by a Harvard

785
professor, Samuel Huntingdon, entitled, The Clash of Civilisations. Its hypothesis was that future conflict would not be primarily ideological or political or economic; it would be between nations and groups belonging to different civilisations and different religious faiths.
At the time Professor Huntington's critics—I was one of them—tended to dismiss this thesis as the work of an unreconstructed hawk who was just looking for a new enemy to replace the vanished spectre of international communism. But after the events of 11th September in the United States it may be in order to engage in a reassessment of Samuel Huntington's thesis and ask ourselves what we believe the future pattern of conflict may be.
The first point may be to blow away some of the nonsense that always resurfaces at such times about the definition of a terrorist. At such times the cliché, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is always mentioned, as though there were any sense in that at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, hinted, I suggest that a reasonable working proposition is that one useful definition of a terrorist is a person who commits an act of terror. There should be no difficulty about recognising that after what happened on 11th September.
There is something strange in this talk about a war on terrorism. It is rather like talking about a war against tanks or ballistic missiles. Terrorism is a weapon; terrorism is an instrument of war and suicide bombers are the foot soldiers in that war and Osama bin Laden is one of the field commanders. I believe that we should ask ourselves who is using this instrument of war against us? Who is behind it all? If we are honest with ourselves I do not believe that question is too difficult to answer, especially if we can overcome our natural reluctance to believe that people who say that our western civilisation is evil and must be destroyed may actually mean what they say.
We talk rather earnestly of the need to understand other cultures and civilisations and to respond to their worries and concerns. There appears to be much less emphasis placed on their need to understand us. Many of them have a deep hatred and hostility towards our values and to all that we stand for. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about this: many of them are intent upon destroying our civilisation and terrorism is just one of the weapons that they will use. The use of civil aircraft as cruise missiles is only one threat. If our enemies can acquire weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical or biological—and the means to deliver them—by suitcase or any other means—they will not hesitate to use them.
In the aftermath of the events of 11th September there has been much talk of the war against terrorism together with loud protestations that that does not mean a war between civilisations. Our political leaders and media gurus have been very pontifical about that. We may not believe that this is a clash of civilisations, and we may not want it to be, but it is important to realise that not everyone sees the situation that way.
786
Perhaps I can quote a recent opinion from an Indian writer, Mr M J Akbar. He writes:
"The West's next confrontation is definitely going to come from the Muslim world. It is in the sweep of the Islamic nations from the Maghreb to Pakistan that the struggle for a new world order will begin".
That comes not from some wild, western, right-wing fanatic looking for a new enemy, but from a respected Indian observer.
As I said, we should be aware of a failing to which we were all too prone in the days of the Cold War. That is a reluctance to believe that people who say hostile things about us may actually mean what they say. In my view, we should be very foolish indeed if we believed that all we face is a network of terrorist cells controlled by a murderous fanatic.
Bernard Lewis, the distinguished Arab scholar, said:
"We are facing a mood and a movement for transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than"—
and he used this phrase—
"a clash of civilisations—the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judaeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the world-wide expansion of both".
Before we dismiss that proposition as apocalyptic and provocative, let us look at it coolly and seriously. There has been a simmering conflict between western and other civilisations for most of the past millennium. In recent years it has come to a head in Algeria, the Lebanon, Libya, Iran and of course it culminated in the Gulf War in 1990. It was possible to construct a political and ideological casus belli for each of those confrontations, but basically, if we are honest enough to face it, they were clashes of civilisations. Saddam Hussein, for example, immediately and openly played the Islamic card and during the Gulf War one of his supporters, the Dean of Islamic Studies at the Umm-Al-Qura University in Mecca, proclaimed that this,
"is not the world against Iraq, it is the West against Islam".
Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran called for a holy war against American aggression, greed, plans and policies.
My proposition is that the West must be prepared to face this developing clash of civilisations which we may not seek, but which we may not be able to avoid and which will threaten the very concept of freedom on which the whole of our civilisation is based. Of course, our immediate concern must be to respond to the murderous events of 11th September. I have no hesitation in saying that the United States is right to regard that as the first priority and we are right to support them in every way. But this will not be the end of the matter; it is only the beginning.
That is not to suggest that we are on the brink of anything like a third world war, but it is to suggest that we may have to contemplate a future in which the whole structure of world power is based on a calculation of interests in what has sometimes been called the "West and the Rest"; in other words, western civilisation and values against those who would like to destroy them. That may run counter to some utopian concepts of a universal civilisation of

787
brotherly love, which largely is a western pipedream, but the events in New York and Washington must surely cause even the most enthusiastic do-gooder in any society to modify his or her enthusiasm.
In my view, we are now threatened with a stark choice. Are we prepared to defend our values of democracy, tolerance, compassion and individual freedom, or are we prepared, in the long-term, to see them destroyed and replaced by something else. If, as I hope and believe, we are prepared to defend our civilisation, it will not be enough to issue ultimatums to the Taliban regime, or to neutralise murderous fanatics like Osama bin Laden. We shall have to have a long-term and sustainable strategy. It will depend upon a number of clear objectives and some practical strategies. I want to conclude with a few comments on what those practical strategies may be.
First, we shall have to reconsider our attitude to the organisation and use of armed forces. I would go further than the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, because I believe we need a radical assessment of the use of armed force and the organisation of armed forces. In my view it is axiomatic that there must be no further reduction in our military strength, but we also need to do some original thinking about how our Armed Forces are organised and equipped. To meet the new threat, do we still need armoured divisions and heavy artillery; and, if so, how much? What do we need in the way of rapid reaction forces, not to hand out food parcels in the Balkans, but to deal with terrorist attacks at home? Can we afford to cut the strength of our Territorial Army, given the real and potential threat to the security of our home base?
Finally, of course, there is the resource without which none of those measures can be effective—intelligence. We shall need to spend much more on an effective intelligence system in this country and in the West generally. That means more than electronic and satellite surveillance systems. As most of your Lordships will know, the two main elements of the intelligence assessment of an enemy are his capabilities and his intentions. Capabilities can often by judged from satellite photography; but the judging of intentions, that is, getting into the mind of the enemy, requires human intelligence—a very precious resource that deserves far more attention than it gets.
This will not be entirely or even principally a military conflict. We must politically nourish and strengthen the transatlantic axis and the Commonwealth framework on which the strength of our democratic civilisation rests. We must look with a cold and disillusioned eye at the balance between security and individual freedom and recognise that we may have to make some sacrifices in that context. We may even have to suppress some of our more liberal instincts and take stronger action against violent demonstrations in our own streets. With all that, we shall have to increase our efforts to understand the psychology of other religions and civilisations and the bitterness, hatred and hostility that they manifest towards us. But, if in the pursuit of some ideal of
788
tolerance and universal harmony we refuse to face the fact of that bitterness and hatred, we shall make a terrible mistake.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my contribution consists of a few questions for my noble friend regarding the humanitarian side of the operation and a few points about combating and confronting terrorism, in which I shall follow some of the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
I expect that my noble friend will say, as the Prime Minister did in Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, that it is not possible to suspend military action until the winter, as requested by Oxfam, Christian Aid and a number of other aid organisations. Since the forces of the coalition have not yet been involved in action on the ground, this surely would be a possible time for a cessation. However, I accept that the Taliban might not allow the free passage of large numbers of heavy lorries throughout the country, even if the bombing ceased.
Can my noble friend give us a convincing picture of how supplies are now being brought in, as the noble Baroness suggested, while hostilities are taking place, bearing in mind that in the present conditions drivers apparently are not very happy or refuse to take their lorries in? Would not an adequate humanitarian operation have to wait until a land war had cleared the roads sufficiently? It seems to me highly unlikely that that can be done, even if there is a collapse of the Taliban, until well after the winter sets in. If in two or three months' time we do succeed in making big inroads into Taliban-held territory, how can food be delivered to the remote villages in side valleys or on mountainsides, where the roads will be blocked by snow?
Does my noble friend have any knowledge of the contingency planning necessary to provide the large numbers of short take-off and landing aircraft and helicopters needed to deliver the food that may then save perhaps half a million or 1 million people from starvation? Does my noble friend have any figure for the additional number of civilians who have fled the large cities since hostilities began and reached the borders of Afghanistan, and are there sufficient tents, blankets, food and water sources available to them in the neighbouring countries?
I turn to the subject of the debate: international terrorism. A number of noble Lords have suggested means of tackling international terrorism, and some of my thinking has already been covered, perhaps rather more eloquently. However, I should like to consider the immediate conflict in a wider perspective. For this purpose I define terrorism as violence against persons or property in the name of a cause or ideology, rather than as action taken by groups with a purely destructive agenda. It is very tempting to counter acts of terrorism by reciprocal acts of violence. The enormous anger, as well as sadness and grief, felt by the American people towards the perpetrators of the 11th September outrage is almost palpable in the United States and is very understandable.

789
The drive to capture Osama bin Laden and destroy the Al'Qaeda organisation, as the most likely perpetrators, serve to channel much of that anger. However, as we bomb the Taliban in Afghanistan, we must not forget that ordinary Afghans did not invite Osama bin Laden to their country, nor do most of them like the Taliban. Bombing from a great height has given the Americans a very bad name since the days of the Vietnam war. However smart the bombs, there will always be civilian casualties. We need only look at Serbia and Iraq for examples of that. The number of dead in those countries was not, thank God, as high as in Vietnam and Cambodia, where tens of thousands were killed from the air, but was still sufficient to cause misery and destruction of people's lives. Humanitarian targets are also sometimes hit, as was the Red Cross food warehouse in Kabul and the four UN guards of a demining team, as well as the villagers of Khorum near Jalalabad and, we are led to believe, others.
Now that this war is in full swing, I hope that the military intelligence behind it will be adequate to cope with the very difficult task ahead. I also hope that the land war that is to come has been better planned than that of the Russians in 1979–89. We have a great advantage over the Russians; namely, that there is not an unlimited supply of arms coming from across the Pakistan border to the Taliban and bin Laden's Mujahadeen, as it did when he was on our side in those years. We should be well aware that the Mujahadeen who surround him now—one report suggests that there are 25,000—are more determined and better trained than the Taliban's own troops, many of whom were recruited under duress. As my noble friend knows, it is reported that some are already defecting.
However the war goes, whether or not bin Laden is captured dead or alive, as the President of the United States put it, and tried by a suitable court, that will not in itself end terrorism, as a number of other noble Lords have pointed out. A dialogue with terrorist organisations usually has to take place and the root causes faced before terrorism subsides. Our own problems in Northern Ireland, and problems involving terrorism in our other former colonies, have been approached and settled, or are at least on the way to being settled, in that way. At this stage there is no question of such a dialogue with bin Laden, but it is worth considering the three main problems that he mentioned in his rather cleverly timed videotape broadcast last week first, the presence of United States troops in Saudi Arabia "polluting" Islamic holy places; secondly, the bombing of Iraq and the continued sanctions against it; and thirdly, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.
I am greatly heartened that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken of the desirability of a viable Palestinian state. President Bush has done the same. Mention by the Prime Minister of Security Council Resolution 242 is also of great significance. In pursuing the peace process in Palestine and Israel and taking it much further, we will have the best possible chance of reducing the danger of terrorist attacks in
790
the future. As other noble Lords have said, a two-pronged approach is possible: to try to bring the main suspects to justice, hurting as few innocent people as possible in the process, and at the same time to put right the long-standing injustices suffered by the Palestinian people for more than half a century, as was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Skidelsky. A map of the West Bank on which the settlements have been marked in red looks very much like a child with a bad case of chickenpox. In-between the settlements, all roads are patrolled by the Israeli military and there are frequent checkpoints. It is therefore difficult for Palestinians to move from one Palestinian controlled area to another—that was the case even before the intifada and it is much worse now—without suffering the indignity of being stopped by many road blocks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made the point that the Prime Minister's visionary, perhaps Utopian, speech at the Labour Party conference also made: creating a better, fairer world might be the answer to terrorism. It would also be a proper memorial to those who died on 11th September.
8.32 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, having returned from the West Bank and Gaza only a few days ago, I, too, am bound to bring this prolonged series of debates on anti-terrorism back to what I believe is the fundamental dispute in that region of the Middle East. Before doing so, perhaps I may congratulate the Front Bench team on achieving a remarkable series of debates, which we all hope will be the last but may not be, and on their perseverance. I want to thank in his absence my newly arrived noble friend Lord Skidelsky for his remarks about Israel. My remarks coincide with many of his.
We must remember that terrorism on both sides has been an inherent feature of the struggle in the Middle East from the beginning. Every killing, such as those about which we have heard in the past day or two, deserves sympathy and grief. But let us not be deceived that yesterday's attack or today's response was worse than the last. And it is not always tit for tat.
The day I was in Gaza coincided with the funeral of one of the three Palestinian demonstrators shot dead by their own authority. That was a terrible reminder of the precarious position of Chairman Arafat today. He has to walk a tightrope between Israel and his own militants. He is routinely blamed for atrocities on either side, as he was again this morning by Mr Netanyahu on the "Today" programme when he tried to caricature him as a terrorist. I ask only: without Arafat, what then?
We are all getting a bit free with the word "terrorist" because of the events of 11th September. The use of terror is a tactic not confined to one side or another. Let us not forget, as we easily do in this propaganda war in Israel, which side is the occupying army and which side the resistance. If you travel in the West Bank around Jerusalem, as my wife and I did for

791
several days last week, you quickly appreciate the balance of power. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, it is not merely an illegal occupation but a creeping colonisation by waves of new settlers along the high ground surrounding Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
Those settlements and their ring roads are still expanding, usually at the expense of Palestinian farmers whose olive groves are bulldozed routinely and homes and livelihoods destroyed. Access roads to villages and farmlands have been sealed off and we, too, had to make long detours to visit the water conservation projects, clinics and women's groups on our itinerary.
Those settlements also disfigure the landscape. When the Christians finally return to the Holy Land as pilgrims—there are few of them to be seen now—they will be amazed at the transformation. It is a gradual but deliberate and cynical policy of the Israeli Government which they pretend or imagine will safeguard their security. It will not.
I am not sure that Israel's policy of intimidation, which is the cause of the present intifada, is fully understood in Europe even by our Jewish communities who travel to their families in Israel. It is an intolerable imposition on Palestinians who, because of checkpoints and road blocks, cannot even travel home by normal routes, if they are allowed to travel at all. Family life is everywhere under pressure. Children have to rise before dawn to pass through checkpoints on their way to school. The young Israeli soldiers, as we found, not trained, not in any formal educational sense, but to cause maximum harassment and delay to Palestinians. It is not unusual to see at a checkpoint ambulances, with sirens blaring, held up by soldiers with the inevitable tragic consequences before they can reach hospital.
In the Christian community near Beit Jala, near Bethlehem, we learnt again last week what the Israeli Government mean by "security". We saw houses which had been shelled from four different positions in one settlement on 27th August. We met families who had been displaced and saw the charred remains of their furniture and paintings. We visited the Lutheran church and the orphanage which had been occupied by Israeli troops during that attack. All that was the result of a so-called "defence of Jerusalem" against unidentified snipers, or perhaps no one at all. That is another example of the settler-driven sledgehammer in action. It was only an appeal by the Lutheran bishop which alerted the international community and called the army off.
I know that I am not the only one to feel frustrated not only at Israeli and Palestinian extremists, but at the failure of Europe over so many years to bring the parties to a satisfactory settlement. Whatever the true causes of the events of 11th September, which we may never learn, none of us can doubt that a lasting peace in the Middle East would be the touchstone for a new era of understanding throughout the Arab world.
792
Yet, reading through Tuesday's terrorism debate in another place, I did not detect any sense of urgency in Westminster. I am glad that this House has made up for that today. In fact, only a handful of speakers mentioned the Middle East, perhaps because the Foreign Secretary was able to report satisfactorily on progress during Chairman Arafat's visit. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his achievement but I do not believe that it is a separate issue. That is why I wanted to speak today. I believe that it is part of the wider problem of our relations with the Arab world and the urgent need to hold together the coalition.
I fully understand that the Government do not want to link the Middle East directly with the events in America and I recognise, as the noble Baroness said, that new proposals were being put forward before those events took place. Nevertheless, in the language of realpolitik, we must not relax in our commitment to a peaceful settlement. Nor must we allow any one event to delay our determination.
Regrettably, there have been many such delays in the past. While our diplomats in Tel Aviv and Brussels are anxious even now to move forward—and I met several of them—European governments keep postponing the day when they will give it adequate attention. In Europe, there is not nearly enough public interest, which is one of the main causes. People are weary of the Palestinian issue because of the attempts over so many years which have come to nothing. It is often hard to disentangle the rights and wrongs on either side, and people are afraid to antagonise one or other lobby. Yet, when one visits Israel and Palestine one is left in little doubt that the time has now come for a solution. Most of the Palestinians I met, who work in the non-government sector and see the problems at first hand, are certain that there is now a window of opportunity. We must climb through it before it is too late, because the injustices of the status quo are only too clear. They are also clear to a large number of Israelis who would like to move beyond the "ceasefire" mentality towards an enduring settlement. I have met Jewish human rights organisations which feel the same outrage about the system as their Palestinian counterparts. It is often forgotten how many people in Israel are behind the peace process.
In conclusion, I permit myself one question, albeit a difficult one, of which I have given the Minister notice. What is the precise nature of a "viable Palestinian state"? That phrase was used by the Prime Minister, repeated by the Home Secretary on Tuesday and used again today by the noble Baroness. That phrase was used in the declaration of the Berlin European Council on 26th March 1999:
"The European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian state on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel's security and Israel's acceptance as an equal partner in the region".
Therefore, that phrase, which is a good one, has been around for a couple of years, but what does it mean?
I suggest that it means something more fundamental than the Madrid and Oslo agreements which are often quoted. I hope that it will mean a return to first

793
principles—United Nations Resolutions 242, 338, 425 and 194—and an end not only to the illegal occupation but to colonisation through illegal settlements. As has been said, that is the nub of it. If so, we may also need a new definition of the necessary guarantee of Israel's security.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been another sober debate on a very sobering subject. The Government have reminded us again that the current conflict is being conducted with restraint both in the use of force and the geographical spread of the conflict. We welcome the success of that policy so far. It is very important that we maintain both strategic patience and tactical caution in a situation where our public and press would like to see some spectacular action—captures and the kinds of things that would satisfy the sense that something must be done to avenge the crimes of 11th September.
We all welcome the calm restraint with which the Bush Administration has so far reacted and also the British and other allied influence we have seen in Washington. We should, however, like an assurance that that will be maintained. As one or two noble Lords have suggested, we are conscious of the dynamics of conflict. Once force is used it carries its own logic. In particular, when one has a huge number of forces in the region one feels that one must do something with them. I very much hope that British influence will be used to ensure that where there are no targets bombs are not dropped and where there is nothing to be destroyed force is not used just because it is there.
I commend the restraint that we have seen in official Washington. We continue to see the damage that results from careless talk in the hotbed of Washington think tanks inside the Beltway. The other day one heard some very silly remarks about spreading the war against terrorism to east Asia, which caused alarm in the governments of the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere. That is not authoritative Washington policymaking but think-tankers who look round for other things to do without appreciating that the roots of terrorism within the Philippines and Indonesia are in no sense part of the Al'Qaeda network, although no doubt some loose links have been maintained.
The dominant discourse of Washington in the past 10 years is part of the reason why we are in this mess. I refer to the use of such loose terms as "rogue states" and the taboo about referring to the underlying roots of the Middle East conflict. The first matter that one should aim to get out of this conflict is a stronger European voice on a number of issues. I suggest that a stronger European voice in Washington, and in the unofficial debate, is an important part of it. As an academic who goes to Washington quite often professionally, I am struck that over the past 10 years the German Government have put a good deal of money into promoting studies of Europe in Washington and around the United States and sending unofficial German thinkers and intellectuals to Washington. The British Government have not
794
thought that necessary so far. I suggest that what in Asia is called second-track diplomacy—getting journalists and other experts to talk together to influence the broader public debate—is something to which we need to pay much more attention and in which it is worth investing public funds.
The second matter that I hope we get out of the conflict is a stronger European voice in the United Nations and its reform. We heard powerful speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Judd, about this very important question. I very much agree with everything that they said about neglecting the UN until a crisis comes along and then expecting it to do far too much. There are underlying weaknesses in the UN structure. Every time I hear the name of Mr Brahimi I think of the weighty report that he produced last year on the immense weaknesses in the UN's department of peacekeeping operations. It referred to lack of staff and authority and all the things that needed to be done to make the UN more able to deal with major long-term peacekeeping operations.
The 15 member governments of the European Union contribute nearly 39 per cent of the UN's budget. They have 15 votes—following enlargement, they will have 25—out of 190. There is a great deal more that could be done. I ask the Government to accept that, if promoting a stronger common foreign and security policy is now very much part of their agenda, more effective common European action to strengthen the UN is one of the matters that is clearly needed.
Thirdly, we need a stronger European voice in the Middle East, as a number of noble Lords have said. We have heard some very powerful speeches on the Arab-Israeli conflict by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and, in the previous debate, on very similar lines from my own Benches, including my noble friend Lord Carlile. We should not have started from here in the Middle East as a whole, either in the Gulf or the Arab-Israeli conflict. We have lost 10 years since the Gulf War, and longer in the Arab-Israeli conflict, with an overdependence on military force, massive and unwise arms sales to various states in the region and the labelling of too many states as rogue states—Iran as well as Iraq. Unwisely, there have also been troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia, as a number of us have said in Washington for several years and have not been heard.
Now is the time when we need to encourage the Israelis and Americans to stand up to their own fundamentalists, Jewish and Christian, who believe that the Bible says that the Jews should inherit the whole of the land of Israel, as a Republican adviser to the previous Bush Administration once told an astonished audience all the London School of Economics two or three years ago. We also need a broader reflection on European civilisation and Islam. I become extremely nervous when I hear people talk about western civilisation as being qualitatively superior to any other. I recall some years ago reading Martin White's wonderful chapter on the Second World War in one of the volumes produced by the

795
Royal Institute of International Affairs in which he talks about the clash of views between the western liberal approach to foreign policy and the Nazi fascist and Soviet approaches to it. That was as good a clash of world views as one could expect among European countries. European history over the past 100 years is not without the odd blemish. If one goes back a little further, there is the mixed record of Catholic and Protestant fundamentalism. They enjoyed killing each other. We need therefore to understand our own history.
I agree very strongly with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we need to remind ourselves that over the past 500 years Muslim history has not entirely been a blank page. There have been periods of Muslim civilisation which have made a major contribution to our civilisation.
Some years ago when the Moroccan Government submitted its almost unnoticed application to join the European Community, the letter began by reminding the European Commission of what it described as "the Moroccan contribution to European civilisation". That is a fairly large jump from the medieval kingdoms of Spain. Nevertheless, it reminds us that western and eastern civilisations are not entirely in counterpoint unmixed from each other.
If we are going to deal with that, we must also deal, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said, with the relationship between those of Muslim origin and those of Christian and secular origins within our own country. Perhaps I may disagree a little with the right reverend Prelate. I think that it differs quite a bit from one city to another. I spend some of my time in Bradford. I have done politics in Manchester. My children went to school in south west London. I must say that the Muslim communities in all those places are as different in some ways as I imagine a couple of hundred years ago the Plymouth Brethren were from the Congregationalists and from the Methodists, let alone the broad church Anglicans. That is part of the way in which we have to deal with these different affairs.
Perhaps I may say to the Government that, if we are dealing with relations with our Muslim neighbours and partners, relations with Turkey—a modernising Muslim secular state—are extremely important. I am extremely glad that the Foreign Secretary is there now. I hope that we shall see other British Ministers pursuing that relationship in the months ahead.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to make it clear that I did not wish to suggest in any way that the Muslim communities in this country are homogeneous; they are various. But the fact is that the Pakistani community, particularly of Miripuri origin, is probably the largest and the one with which at the moment we are most concerned.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, of course I accept that. Several noble Lords mentioned the question of how we now review our Armed Forces.
796
I welcome the expert contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. We need to consider carefully what sort of resources we need and how flexible those Armed Forces need to be. I also strongly agree with him that we need a great deal more reflection on the question of what sort of reserves we need and how in many instances, including the current one, there is the need to call up different expert reserves from the usual ones.
Then we must talk about Afghanistan itself and the immediate humanitarian needs on which my noble friend Lady Williams spoke very powerfully. I hope that the Minister in replying will talk about the possibility of opening up corridors through which humanitarian aid may go before the winter closes in. I hope that it will be possible for the noble Lord to say a little about how the British Government are contributing to thoughts on longer-term development. I hope that Robert Cooper, who many of us know and have a great deal of respect for, is thinking about how Britain and others may contribute towards training the next generation in Afghanistan in a different kind of state, as well as the position of women.
A number of noble Lords have talked about the region around Afghanistan and how difficult it will be to make sure that both Iran and Pakistan are on board. In some ways in the last 10 years the British Government have neglected relations with India and Pakistan. We are also now very conscious—I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham also knows—that British relations with South Asia reverberate within British cities. Therefore, our relationship with both India and Pakistan, particularly where we have Kashmiri populations, is something about which there is a great deal of sensitivity.
Lastly, I want to talk about the problem of the level of rhetoric and promise in this crisis. I was one of those who was nervous about the tenor of the Prime Minister's conference speech because we do not have to pitch our expectations too high, we have to respect the limits of the possible. I well remember President Bush and his promises of a new world order. That ran rapidly into the sand. It would be unwise to promise another new world order unless we are sure that we can deliver it. We must be extremely careful not to suggest that there is another sense in the West that we are taking up the white man's burden and that we will resolve the problems of the world. It is therefore extremely important that we get the Asian countries as actively engaged as we possibly can in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and its neighbours, including China.
We should recognise the mistakes made in the past 10 years and more and make a sustained effort to overcome them. We should not have abandoned Afghanistan after 1989. We must make absolutely sure that we keep a long-term effort there after this conflict is over. We allowed western policy in the Middle East to drift. We now must take a very firm grasp on the inter-connected problems of that region as a whole. We have failed to reform the United Nations. We now must take on board much more actively what we do about strengthening global institutions. We gave a low

797
priority for economic development and for broader assistance in nation-building throughout the rest of the world. I welcome the extent to which within the Government Clare Short, Secretary of State for International Development, has done a great deal to raise its profile. That is what we need to sustain for the long run.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not being able to be present for the previous three emergency debates, but I can assure the House that I have read very carefully the three Hansard reports of those debates.
At this late hour I shall be brief and confine my remarks to the situation in Afghanistan. We have had a high quality debate with interesting and constructive contributions from all sides of the House. It is now my duty to wind up for these Benches. The Minister has brought us up to date with the current situation in her usual clear and concise manner. For that we are all most grateful. My noble friend Lord Howell made excellent and relevant points and asked questions which require answering; and there have been other contributions on which I shall touch later.
Perhaps I may say from the outset that it is essential that we do everything to minimise civilian casualties, but in time of war there will always be some risks to civilians even though the utmost care is taken over targeting. Regrettably, on occasions the precision systems in bombs and missiles may not function correctly causing them to go off target.
Counter-terrorism is a very complex subject. During this wind up speech I thought it might be useful to the House to repeat once again to your Lordships the stated aims of the coalition forces and to cover the military objectives and what has been achieved so far. I shall also include a brief comment on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow about Exercise Sail Sareea in Oman.
However, may I say that this is not a time for the faint-hearted nor for any wavering of support for the United States of America. As already agreed, it is essential that the United Kingdom stands shoulder to shoulder with our American allies. I am sure that your Lordships need no reminding that we are only in the second week of air strikes and missile attacks, which have been very successful and which have been essential for gaining air supremacy at medium and high levels over Afghanistan. President Bush and the Prime Minister have both warned that this is likely to be a long, drawn-out affair lasting for many months. In my opinion, the defeat of terrorism will take many decades.
Some of the aspects that involve counter-terrorism are denial and deterrence. These cannot be successfully implemented without accurate and timely intelligence. Therefore there is an imperative need to increase our flow of intelligence as quickly as possible. Without that intelligence, casualties will be far more likely and the wrong objectives might be targeted. I read with some care the comments made by the noble and
798
learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and I support strongly what he said in the terrorism debate held on 4th October:
"We need more intelligence, better intelligence and intelligence on an entirely different level".—[official Report, 4/10/01; col. 152.]
We need more human intelligence sources, people who can infiltrate the terrorist organisations and find out who they are, what are their plans, and then to be able to pass information back in time for the correct action to be taken to prevent the terrorists from implementing their mission. Clearly we need to inject massive funds into our intelligence organisations in order to recruit more people to become effective, not simply an increase in funding, which has been mentioned by the Government.
My noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, mentioned the political and military objectives which bear repeating, even briefly, in this wind-up speech. First, we want to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks on 11th September. 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 wish to prevent Afghanistan from harbouring and sustaining international terrorism and terrorists.
To achieve the political ends, it is necessary to have clear military objectives, which I understand to be: to destroy the enemy training camps and the equipment within them; to destroy the Taliban and its military forces, which force it into capitulation, ending its support for Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda; and to create the right conditions for sustained pressure to be applied for as long as it is necessary.
So, what has been achieved so far? The coalition has attacked more than 60 military targets, which have included terrorist training camps, the Taliban's military infrastructure, including their early warning and air defence capabilities, their military command and control sites, airfields, surface-to-air missile sites, military aircraft, garrisons and military maintenance bases. Nine airfields have been attacked and the vast majority of those have had their operational capability destroyed or degraded. The majority of the Taliban fighter planes, helicopters and transport aircraft have been destroyed and no longer does the Taliban airforce pose a threat. All our military objectives have not yet been achieved, but Al'Qaeda will now find it very difficult to train its terrorists, as nine of its camps have been attacked. Many of them are not useable and others have been badly damaged.
The future is not at all clear and it would be very wrong of me to gaze into a crystal ball and predict what may happen. If we are to have security of information we should not be told about future plans. The press and television should stop speculating on the future and confine themselves to reporting facts and what has actually happened. However, I think it is reasonable to say, first, that the severe 'winter conditions which are only a few weeks away will have a hearing on the timing of future operations; and, secondly, that in counter-terrorist operations, small search and destroy

799
groups from units based inside secure locations and combined with the latest intelligence are used to destroy an enemy of this kind.
I have noted and agree with the interesting points and comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I was also grateful to hear the interesting views of my noble friend Lord Moynihan on the causes of terrorism. Likewise, I agree fully with the points made by my noble friend Lady Cox.
I shall now turn briefly to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Onslow on the current exercise in Oman Saif Sareea. In the main, I agree with the points that he has made. After all, as he has told us, he was on that exercise recently. I believe he said that he went last week. But I would not like your Lordships to go away with the impression that the Challenger 2 tank is useless. That is not the case at all. The fact of the matter is that the version of Challenger 2 possessed by the Army is the one that was designed automotively for European climates and terrain. There is a different version, known as Al, which operates in temperatures above 49 degrees. The gun control equipment has worked perfectly.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend very briefly. The tank itself is absolutely smashing. Everyone says that, but advice was given before the exercise that the tank was not equipped for desert warfare. It would not work in the desert. The RDGs were sent out on one night exercise. Some 51 tanks went out and only three came back.
There is nothing wrong with the tank which cannot be put right, and it is no good the noble Lord, Lord Bach, saying anything else. The colonel told me so on the morning of that exercise. Everyone was advised and told about this. If 68 tanks are sent to the other side of the world to take part in an exercise, it is fatuous not to make them work, despite having been warned.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. I was going to develop a little of what he has said. Severe problems have been encountered with the air filters, the tracks with their rubber pads were torn to shreds and the road wheels were stripped of their rubber coating. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the request for money to make the tanks fit for warfare in the desert was rejected by the Treasury. However, it should not be forgotten that the current exercise in Oman is designed to test the equipment and vehicles that we have at the moment. It is clear, as my noble friend Lord Onslow pointed out, that without converting the vehicles for desert conditions, they will not function. It is worthy of note that the Omanis have Challenger 2 tanks and that they work perfectly well in the desert.
In conclusion, I again pay tribute to our superb Armed Forces and their families. Our servicemen and women face danger frequently and have executed their missions meticulously in the Falklands, in the Gulf War, in Bosnia and Kosovo, in Macedonia, in Sierra Leone and in Northern Ireland. We have a great
800
number of troops in Northern Ireland dealing with the Sinn Fein/IRA terrorists—and terrorists they are—and this is a very dangerous area for all of them. The fight against Al'Qaeda and Osama bin Laden must not allow us to forget our brave and courageous troops there.
We owe a great debt to our servicemen and women, who are prepared to make the final sacrifice of laying down their lives for us and their country. It is our duty to support them and to look after them.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, of all the debates on this issue in which I have taken part—that is, in three of the four which have now nearly been completed—this has been the best. There have been some extremely powerful speeches from all sides of the House which have reflected the depth of experience and expertise that this House offers in subjects such as this. I am not one of those who believe that the House offers expertise and experience in all the subjects that it debates—there are some noble Lords who believe that it does—but on these issues it can do so, as it has shown very clearly today.
The Government will consider very carefully the points raised by noble Lords on a variety of subjects, most of them concerned with the subject of the debate—that is, international terrorism. I do not think that the issue of Challenger tanks and Exercise Saif Sareea have much to do with what we are supposed to be discussing; I am a little surprised that it has been raised. However, putting that on one side, most of the contributions today have been to the point, even if that was not.
My duty in standing at the Dispatch Box as a defence Minister is to tell the House what has been done so far and to state, as far as I can, the Government's intentions in the near and far future. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go down some of the important avenues that they have pursued, but deal, in the limited time I have available, with what has happened and what may happen in the future.
The Government are extremely grateful for the widespread support that they have received in the House—from the Official Opposition, from the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, from all parts of the House. That support makes our standing that much stronger in these difficult times. We are extremely grateful for that support, which has been so strongly expressed, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, in the past few minutes.
The whole world, effectively, has come together in a campaign to defeat international terrorism. The United States leads that campaign and it is appropriate that it should do so. It has many unique military capabilities, just as it has a unique role in the world's diplomatic and economic affairs. But let us not forget that it was that country which suffered far and away the greatest losses on 11th September—more than 5,000 people killed, most of them Americans, and two great cities of the world, both in the United States,

801
subjected to acts of terror and a complete disregard for human decency. In the past few days there have been reports that it has perhaps been exposed to a new horror—biological warfare.
It was not only the United States that was stung by these events; we were stung and the world was too. Citizens of some 80 countries died and people from right across the world were murdered without thought to their nationality, their colour or their faith. In the case of our country, we lost at least 100 of our citizens—the greatest ever loss of British lives to terrorism.
In another place, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave his conclusions—conclusions which have, frankly, convinced nearly every government in the world about who was responsible. Within the constraints imposed by security considerations, he offered a cogent and compelling case for calling Osama bin Laden and his Al'Qaeda network to account for these crimes. The video footage released by Al'Qaeda last Sunday containing threats to attack more aircraft and more skyscrapers has strengthened the force of my right honourable friend's case, as well as providing a terrible warning that future atrocities cannot be ruled out. Is there really any serious opinion left that does not believe that the main perpetrator of the activities of 11th September was the person named and the organisation that he runs?
It is equally clear now that that organisation shelters behind the Taliban in Afghanistan. Without the Taliban, Al'Qaeda could not train or plan and prepare its barbarities. In return—because there is a deal—Al'Qaeda fights for the Taliban in Afghanistan's seemingly endless civil war. Both organisations cooperate and profit from trafficking in heroin—in other words, their activities lead to deaths on the streets of Britain.
The United Kingdom, like the United States and so many other countries, has been attacked. Now we are taking measured, proportionate action in self-defence, in full accordance with international law. It is important to remember that.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in a powerful speech, almost quizzed me about the use of the word "proportionate". I do not want to go too far down that avenue. The best definition I can give is that in this context it means "reasonable"—in the sense that self-defence in English law must be "reasonable". The noble Lord's point is that when such horrific things are done, in one obvious sense it is difficult to think of any "unreasonable" response. Perhaps I may put it in these teens: it is not to kill for the sake of killing, and it is not to act in pure revenge. Those would not be reasonable or proportionate responses. I do not want to say more on the matter this evening.
My noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean spoke about the wider strategic objectives in the campaign against international terrorism. I shall reiterate them briefly, because they are a major factor in shaping our military aims. The strategy is broad and covers many aspects, embracing action in the diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, legal and
802
military spheres. We have made it clear that we seek: first, to bring those guilty of the attacks on 11th September to account; secondly, to ensure that Osama bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda network are never able to pose a terrorist threat again; and thirdly, to ensure that Afghanistan no longer harbours and sustains international terrorism. Fourthly, if Mullah Omar does not comply with our legitimate demands, we shall also seek sufficient change in the leadership in Afghanistan to ensure that the country's links with international terrorism are broken. These objectives are set out clearly and expertly in the paper that has been placed in the Library. I hope that noble Lords have had an opportunity to read it.
As I have said, military action is only part of our approach, but it is an important one in the achievement of these objectives. But as noble and gallant Lords among us would be quick to confirm, military action is not, and should not be, an end in itself. It must be undertaken with a clear set of goals from the outset. These we have. They are: first, to destroy the terrorist camps; secondly, to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden; and thirdly, to create the right conditions for future operations in Afghanistan.
The coalition has now attacked over 70 separate targets. All have a clear terrorist or military significance. They range from terrorist training camps to early warning and air defence capabilities, such as airfields and missile batteries. They cover military command and control sites, garrisons and, increasingly, Taliban and Al'Qaeda units in the front line.
We are making good progress towards achieving our military objectives, although we are not there yet. The terrorist camps received a good deal of attention from the coalition. The damage is extensive. Many of the camps have been placed beyond use. In addition, the Taliban's command and control facilities have been hit hard. Their early warning and air defence systems, their radar systems and surface-to-air missile sites lie devastated so do the nine airfields struck by the coalition, as has already been said. The vast majority have had their operational capability degraded or destroyed, and with that most of the Taliban's air force. We have achieved air supremacy at medium and high levels over Afghanistan.
An essential task now is to ensure that we build on these gains. The terrorists must not be allowed to recover if the coalition is to operate as freely and safely as possible. The coalition is prepared to repeat such strikes to make sure of that in a very obvious demonstration of our resolution. I do not suppose that anyone is in any doubt about what we mean when we say that our commitment is long term. We shall be there until the Taliban regime surrenders Al'Qaeda's leaders and renounces its support for terrorism.
The United Kingdom has played a full role in all of this. The Royal Navy has twice launched—most recently last Saturday—salvoes of Tomahawk Cruise missiles against terrorist training camps. We have authorised the United States to operate out of the base

803
at Diego Garcia. Since 9th October, the Royal Air Force has flown about 70 reconnaissances and air to air refuelling sorties in support of American strike aircraft, including nine sorties last night. These are vital missions and ones in which the RAF excels, as the United States knows because they asked us to deploy them. Some 150 reservists, all with very specialised skills, have been called out initially, at least, on a voluntary basis. They demonstrate the great reservoir of commitment and ability that the reserves represent.
We are not limited to only military functions. We shall also use our Canberra PR9S, which are remarkable and sophisticated aircraft, to find the thousands of refugees who are stranded inside Afghanistan as they try to flee the 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 suffering.
The scale of the humanitarian crisis is huge and we certainly do not underestimate that fact. However, it is appropriate to stress that this terrible crisis predates the events of 11th September and is a result in large part of the actions of the Taliban regime. The United Kingdom is responding with large aid programmes, for which my noble friend gave the figures earlier. We are working closely with the United Nations to see what further steps we can take.
I am aware that some aid agencies have called for the air operations to be suspended to ease the flow of aid into Afghanistan. I understand that view and no one doubts the absolute sincerity of such views. We have no alternative to taking the most rigorous action against those who carried out the attacks of 11th September. To suspend such action regardless of the reason given would be interpreted by those whom we seek to bring to justice as a contemptible sign of weakness.
The Taliban have been given ample opportunity to accept the demands of the international community for justice. They have not done so and there is no sign that they intend to do so. Our only option is to act decisively to achieve our aims as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made the point that speed was of the essence.
Lord Judd: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving way. His response to the debate has been very helpful. Will he enlighten us as to whether it is a matter of either/or? If we say that the humanitarian operation is as important as the military operation, are there effective co-ordination arrangements in place to ensure that there is full consultation between the humanitarian agencies and the military on how both objectives can best be achieved?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I believe that we have; but, if we have not, we are working towards that aim. However, in such a situation it takes time and sometimes such mechanisms are not available at the very start of the process.
804
I was asked specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the Government's attitude in this respect. The humanitarian part of the project is every bit as important as any other part. Indeed, in answer to other questions raised, especially by my noble friend Lord Rea, as to how the supplies were actually getting into the country, I can tell the House that there are already stocks within the country; namely, 9,300 tonnes. Food convoys are still getting through, although they are being hindered by the Taliban, and by other problems. They average about 1,500 to 2,000 tonnes a day. They cross at various points. I am sure that the names of the towns and cities will be well known to noble Lords. The World Food Programme is planning to transport 12,000 metric tonnes into Afghanistan next week.
There is a growing problem with disruption, which lies at the door of the Taliban. There are also air-drops by C17 planes. I do not want to make more of those than I have. They exist and they are part of the food programme. However, it needs to be said that the air strikes enable the coalition to drop these supplies to refugees trapped inside Afghanistan. We hope that our actions will lead to a country that is stable, prosperous and at peace.
Let us compare that prospect to the behaviour of the Taliban. Before 11th September the Taliban interfered with the work of aid agencies. Now—scandalously—it diverts humanitarian aid supplies to its own troops—"theft" is the word for that—imposes absolutely arbitrary tariffs upon them, or loots them. That, again, is theft. As has been said, the Taliban is the biggest obstacle to the distribution of humanitarian aid. Indeed, it is worth noting that it would be impossible for the C17s to drop aid if the air defences of the Taliban were still working. It just would not be possible to do so.
We have said before that this is a new kind of conflict. We are not fighting a formidable, conventional standing army, such as we faced in Yugoslavia. Al'Qaeda and the Taliban are relatively ill equipped. Their military infrastructure is limited. They are not military powers in the traditional sense, but respectively terrorists and their protectors. We need to operate in different ways to defeat them. The scale of our operations is markedly smaller than that we would use against a conventional opponent.
I urge noble Lords not to assume that because the campaign began with air strikes it is the same in some way as our operations over Kosovo. It is not. That was then, and now is now. We are not limited to one way of thinking or to one way of operating that, put at its most plain, might be described as, "bomb until we can enter on the ground by consent". This will be different. It will be longer, more arduous, more varied, stranger, and may perhaps involve more military casualties. We have committed ourselves to this long haul, but that does not mean that operations need necessarily continue at the current level. The tempo will change; it will fluctuate. It may slow or intensify, perhaps seem to halt on occasions. Everything will depend on these

805
two questions. How can we best meet the military objectives that I set out? How do they join with the other pressures applied on the Taliban regime?
It follows that air strikes need not be the only option. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 11th October that we have always been aware that we have to back up air strikes with other forms of proportionate and targeted action. That could include the use of ground forces. But I should stress that the options are many. We have made no final decisions. I shall, of course, keep noble Lords informed.
I realise that there are worries in some quarters about the targets of the air strikes. Our targets are terrorist and military installations. The targeting processes are rigorous. We must comply with international law, and we do. We have no quarrel with the people of Afghanistan, nor with Islam. Enormous effort is made to minimise civilian casualties and to avoid exposing them to unnecessary risk. But accidents and errors can never be eliminated altogether, although we try very hard to do that.
When the coalition knows it has erred in terms of targeting, we admit it. We do not bomb indiscriminately. Aircraft will return to base with their bombs if they cannot strike their targets. I hope that is of some reassurance to the House in a sombre and serious situation. We do not seek to destroy the country or her people, quite the reverse. We want the country to be free from occupation by a foreign terrorist group that shelters cuckoo-like among them. We, and their friends around the world, want to help the Afghans rebuild their shattered country to create the conditions where the refugees feel safe to return home and to help that country prosper.
I should like to finish by referring to the strength of the international community's adherence to the coalition and support for military action. Before I do that, bearing in mind there has been much talk about Pakistan, I tell the House that the Secretary of State for International Development, who is, as I understand it, in Pakistan today, has announced an increase in aid pledged to that country of £15 million to the government in Islamabad, an increased bilateral aid programme to Pakistan up to £45 million per year for the next two years and discussions about other outstanding moneys and debts. I tell the House that as it is current news.
It is not just the United Kingdom and the United States who are involved in this matter, but many, many countries. Action has been taken: terrorists have been arrested around the world; intelligence is shared; terrorists' assets are being frozen; basing and overflight rights are being granted and, crucially, armed forces are offered and deployed. NATO has invoked Article 5; namely, that an attack on one is an attack on all. It has sent the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean—a multinational force now under British command—to the eastern Mediterranean, where it stands ready to engage in force protection of high value assets. Five NATO AWACs aircraft have deployed to the eastern United States so that America can send its own AWACs aircraft to operate over
806
Afghanistan. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have all made generous offers of military forces. This is not a bad coalition, with many other countries also involved. The coalition fully demonstrates the type and range of commitment we have made, and must make, to ending, if we can, this threat of international terrorism and everything that supports it.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I believe that he is on the last page of his brief—it would be a pity if he did riot say anything at all about the future political prospect and how the role of the Northern Alliance is seen as these are current issues of which the newspapers are full. We ought to hear a little about them.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I believe that in opening the debate my noble friend made reference to the political matters that the noble Lord raises. There is no doubt that we want to see a future government in Afghanistan made up of multi-ethnic groups. That will, of course, include groups such as the Northern Alliance and others. But it is important that these are multi-ethnic groups and that no one body is predominant. That is our aim. It is not just the aim of the United Kingdom but of the coalition.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I remind him that half the population of Afghanistan is female. It would be a great shame to leave them out altogether.
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course that is right. Involving women in government there—or even in ordinary life, which has not been allowed under the Taliban—is a big problem. The United Nations is looking into ways of bringing that issue forward. We want not just multi-ethnic, but multi-gender government.
Lord Carter: There are only two genders.
Lord Bach: Well, my Lords, two is more than one. That is as far as I am prepared to go this evening. I do not know whether that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We are not looking to impose one group on Afghanistan instead of another; we are looking for a multi-ethnic solution to the problem, with a broad-based government who can act and govern in the interests of all Afghans.
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate. If I have not covered specific questions, I shall be happy to do so in writing. The price of riot continuing with the action is too great to contemplate. It is vital that not just the House, but the country stays together in support of a very worthy cause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before ten o'clock.

  Public Appointments: Members of the House of Lords
  Public Appointments: Members of the House of Lords
  Organisations Required to Report to Parliament
  Organisations Required to Report to Parliament
  UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
  UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
  Committee of Experts for the Council of Europe European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: Appointment of UK Member
  Committee of Experts for the Council of Europe European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: Appointment of UK Member
  European Commission's White Paper on European Governance
  European Commission's White Paper on European Governance
  Nuclear Processing
  Nuclear Processing
  NHS: Personal Care
  NHS: Personal Care
  Diabetes National Service Framework
  Diabetes National Service Framework
  Generic Medicines: Statutory Maximum Price Scheme
  Generic Medicines: Statutory Maximum Price Scheme
  Service Families Task Force
  Service Families Task Force
  Small Diameter Bombs
  Small Diameter Bombs
  Rural Task Force: Publication of Report
  Rural Task Force: Publication of Report