Sitting of 24 October 2001

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Ethical Trading Initiative
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: If she will make a statement on her Department's support for the ethical trading initiative. [6111]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): My Department has supported the ethical trading initiative since its establishment in 1998. It is an alliance of major British retailers, development nongovernmental organisations and trade unions dedicated to the improvement of labour standards throughout the supply chain of the retailers concerned. The ETI brings together £60 billion in annual turnover, and therefore has a considerable worldwide reach. The retailers subject themselves to independent monitoring, and work
    264
    to bring their supply chains into compliance with International Labour Organisation standards in a way that brings benefits to workers in developing countries.
    Mr. Mahmood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving the observance of core labour standards in supply chains can help developing country workers to get a better deal out of trade? What further steps can her Department take through the ETI and other initiatives to ensure that labour standards are better observed worldwide?
    Clare Short: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. As the House knows, core labour standards include having no child or bonded labour. Some children are still working when they should be at school because their parents are so poor, and some people have to bond their future and their children into labour. That shows what desperate levels of poverty we have in the world.
    The ETI is a very important initiative: a £60 billion turnover has a wide international influence. We want to build on it and spread it across the world. It is being watched, and may be imitated, in other countries worldwide.

    Medicines (Patents and Pricing)
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What discussions she has had with the pharmaceutical industry about patents and pricing of medicines. [6112]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): On 8 October, I chaired the first meeting of the working group on access to medicines, which brings together United Kingdom Ministers, the pharmaceutical industry, the World Health Organisation and the World Trade Organisation, among others. Our aim is to encourage research and development for new drugs, and access to existing drugs, to treat the diseases of poverty across the developing world. The group has made good progress in identifying ways in which to encourage more research and development. The second and third meetings will discuss donations, pricing and affordability.
    Dr. Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree, on the basis of her experience, that the pharmaceutical industry is much more interested in patents than in patients? How does she interpret the current bout of philanthropy among the big pharma-companies, which, after all, measure their annual profits in millions of pounds and trillions of dollars?
    Clare Short: Pharmaceutical companies are, of course, run for profit. That includes Indian pharmaceutical companies. In consequence, only 10 per cent. of worldwide research is conducted to obtain better drugs for the diseases of poverty: malaria, HIV-AIDS—for which a vaccine is needed—and tuberculosis, including new strains. The poor of the world cannot generate a market.
    We are trying to spread basic health care systems across the world. At present, even if the drugs were free, most poor people would not get them, because they have no access to health care. We are trying to establish worldwide alliances aimed at conveying cheaper drugs to poor countries, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge higher prices

    265
    in other countries so that they achieve a rate of return, and bringing about a global partnership that will produce better treatment for the diseases of poverty. The pharmaceutical companies are co-operating, but this is a new dance for them.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Will the Secretary of State include in her discussions a specific look at the impact of the patenting of human genetic material? It is feared that, as patents are taken out on the human genetic sequence, researchers in both the public sector and developing countries—even when doing their own research—may have to pay prohibitive charges to those who hold the licences on the material that they need.
    Clare Short: I have not looked into that in any detail, but we have set up a Commission on Intellectual Property. We have experts from across the world trying to ensure that the law on intellectual property—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is strongly linked to patenting—serves the interests of poor countries, and does not marginalise them. I will ask my Department to look into whether we need to consider human genetic material, and I will write to him.
    Hugh Bayley: More people in Africa die of malaria than of AIDS. It is estimated that if malaria could be abolished in Africa, the continent's gross domestic product would be increased by some 15 or 20 per cent.—four times as much as the continent receives in aid. Does not the situation cry out for a project by Governments in the rich world, Governments in the poor world and the pharmaceutical industry to work together to eradicate malaria?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that 1 million children in Africa die of malaria every year. Obviously we want action on both malaria and HIV-AIDS; we do not want to switch between the two.
    There is a World Health Organisation initiative, "Roll Back Malaria", which we are supporting strongly. Even by applying consistency to the drugs that we have, and ensuring that all children sleep under insecticide-dipped bed nets, we could massively reduce the toll on both life and health.
    Ill health is linked to poverty. When people are ill they cannot work, and when their children are ill they beg, borrow and steal to obtain drugs for them. As my hon. Friend says, there is masses more that we can do, but we are also supporting international efforts to develop new drugs for malaria. When the drugs are not available, resistance develops. If the drugs could be used more consistently, they would be more effective.
    Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady will be aware of the argument presented by the pharmaceutical companies that if they cannot hold on to patents, they will have insufficient funding to develop new drugs. What is her answer to them?
    Clare Short: My answer to that is that the hon. Gentleman was not listening earlier. It is a complex area. I do understand. It is the Government's strong view that we need a framework of intellectual property law across the world to achieve collaboration whereby cheaper drugs are available at lower prices in poor countries,
    266
    pharmaceutical companies enjoy higher returns in other countries and there are international agreements on differential pricing. We need flexibility in the agreements that takes account of the needs of poor countries, but we need patents and intellectual property protection to get the research and the drugs that the poor in the world need.

    Africa
    Margaret Moran: What action her Department is taking to support poverty reduction and development in Africa. [6113]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since 1997, we have doubled our spending in Africa and focused our efforts on poverty reduction. On present rates of progress, none of the international development targets will be met in Africa, but significant progress is being made in some countries, which shows that we could do better. To speed up economic growth and poverty reduction across the continent requires a much bigger effort in resolving conflict, dealing with HIV-AIDS and improving the effectiveness of economic management and public: services. There needs to be a crackdown on corruption and more investment. That is what the new Africa initiative and the partnership around that is meant to drive.
    Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As she will be aware, Malawi is one of the poorest nations in Africa. Is she aware that on a visit some years ago, parliamentarians were advised that the lack of education among women, and the lack of sex education in particular, were among the causes of poverty there? Fifty-four per cent. of its population live below the poverty line and 48 per cent. of its children are malnourished. What assistance is this country giving to Malawi to deal with those causes of poverty?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Malawi is desperately poor. Something approaching 64 per cent. of the population are chronically malnourished. It has few natural resources and is densely populated.
    We have a growing programme in Malawi. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is to visit Malawi in the next month or so to take our programme forward. We have focused on primary education. All the evidence is clear: if a generation of girls get through school, they bring about profound development effects in their country as they grow up. They have fewer children and those children are more likely to survive, household income rises, the children go to school and receive better health care. We are working on that and on reproductive health care and reducing maternal mortality. I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend makes.
    Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that we do not need new pledges and agreements? We just need the international community to deliver on existing commitments. The international community promised at Copenhagen in 1995 that there would be universal primary education and a substantial reduction in

    267
    child mortality by 2015. At present, it is not going to meet any of those targets. What can be done to galvanise it into meeting them?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not need more and more conferences and meetings across the world. We need to implement what we have already agreed. I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that we are not on course to meet any of the targets: we are on course to meet the target of halving the proportion of people living in poverty by 2015, which means 1 billion people making the journey out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015. However, there will be more to do because the world population will grow.
    Some of the other targets have been met in Asia but will not be met in Africa on present trends. We need to up our ambition. We have more focus and agreement on the targets. However, we need to co-ordinate our efforts so that we do not have piecemeal projects but improve governance, the effectiveness of economic management and the provision of health care and education. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and hope to work more with him on those issues. We are making more progress, but we will have to do an awful lot more if we are to have a just world and we will not have a safe world unless it is more just.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the UNICEF report entitled, "The State of the World's Children 2002", which shows that malnourishment among children in sub-Saharan Africa has increased in the past decade; that only 47 per cent. of children are immunised against diphtheria; and that one in 13 women are likely to die during childbirth? Is not her focus on poverty in that region absolutely right, if only because it offers the opportunity for others in the international community to follow her lead?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. Most people find it unbearable to think of large numbers of children dying before the age of one or five—before they have had the chance to develop their lives. However, in a world that has more than enough food for everyone, it is somehow even more unbearable to think of vast numbers of children being so chronically malnourished that their bodies and brains do not develop properly and their whole lives are blighted by hunger.
    We have made progress in African countries such as Rwanda, Uganda and Mozambique, and in post-conflict countries such as Tanzania and Ghana, but we have got to do better. Africa will not meet any of the international development targets without a bigger effort. Immunisation rates are improving, but we can do more if the world has the will to co-operate.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the answers that she has given so far. Can she assure the House that in targeting aid and encouraging investment, she will focus on countries such as Tanzania, which is already making progress in terms of good governance, democracy and the rule of law, rather than albeit understandably focusing only on countries with critical problems? To do so will encourage other countries to follow that lead.
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point. Governments who are determined to drive reform by building up systems of government can prove much more effective. All the research suggests that aid proves more effective in countries where there are reformers, but also in countries where there are large numbers of poor people. We are increasingly backing reformers, and rightly so because that produces results, and we need models of success. However, some of the poorest and most oppressed people in the world live under bad Governments, and we must look for more subtle ways to intervene, bring immediate help and drive demand for better governance. That is the more difficult task, but we must not neglect it.

    Sudan
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What action her Department is taking in co-operation with other Government Departments to promote an end to war in Sudan. [6114]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Excluding a gap of perhaps 10 years, the war in Sudan has been fought almost continuously since its independence in 1956. It has caused the loss of 2 million to 3 million lives, the displacement of millions of people and deepening suffering and poverty across Sudan, particularly in the south. The people of Sudan desperately need a peace agreement that brings justice and development to all parts of Sudan. The recent lifting of UN sanctions provides an opportunity for progress. The Government are working to energise a greater international effort to achieve that peace agreement.
    Mr. Savidge: I agree with the Secretary of State that the lifting of UN sanctions offers a real window of opportunity. Does she agree that both sides must show a real readiness for compromise if we are to achieve a settlement, which is essential if we are to offer the genuine hope of poverty reduction and development for all the people of Sudan?
    Clare Short: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In certain countries such as Sudan, some of those who lead the fighting live comfortably while the people rot and suffer. There have been calls for Sharia law across the territory, which is unacceptable given that half the people are not Muslims. It must be possible to respect each other's religion—to respect an Islamic north and a Christian and animist south. There must be progress, and it is in the interests of everyone, in both parts of Sudan, that we achieve peace. Now is the time for increased international effort, and I have some hope that we can make progress. Sudan is a heavily indebted poor country. If it could achieve peace, it could get debt relief, and we could get the development programme going and ensure that the oil revenues are used for the benefit of the people.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What representations have the Government made to the Government of Sudan on the recent increase in the bombing

    269
    of Bahr el Ghazal, which was the famine area in 1997? What effect does she think the bombing will have on the delivery of aid to that region?
    Clare Short: We make constant representations to the Government of Sudan and there has been some progress. Obviously, we want the bombing to be reduced and, indeed, ended in Sudan, as in many other parts of the world, especially Afghanistan. The Government of Sudan have co-operated in the current response to the worldwide terrorist attacks. The US Government recently appointed a special representative to try to drive forward progress. There is a real chance of progress in Sudan, and we must all work hard to ensure that that takes place.

    Maternal Deaths
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps are being taken to reduce maternal deaths in less developed countries. [6115]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): More than 500,000 women die each year during childbirth in developing countries, where maternal mortality rates are up to 100 times higher than in western Europe.
    We have invested more than £1 billion since 1997 in helping to provide better health care overall, including for pregnant women. That makes a real difference in reducing deaths. We have significant maternal health programmes in Malawi, Nepal, Kenya, Pakistan and Bolivia. We also support the World Health Organisation's "Make Pregnancy Safer" initiative.
    Ms Drown: Is my hon Friend aware that 30,000 of those maternal deaths, and the deaths of 200,000 babies every year, occur because of tetanus acquired at birth? Often it is the infected blade that cuts through the umbilical cord that condemns the mother or baby to death, even though an inexpensive vaccine is available that would prevent that. Will my hon. Friend work with the United Nations Children's Fund—UNICEF—to explore ways of ending these wholly unnecessary deaths?
    Hilary Benn: I know that my hon. Friend takes a particular interest in this subject, and we welcome the work that UNICEF is doing on immunisation in general and neo-natal tetanus in particular. One contribution is improving the overall level of health care so that knowledge is spread, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently approved a £35 million contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation initiative, which is working closely with UNICEF to immunise more people against tetanus and other diseases.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: High levels of maternal death account for lowered life expectancy among women, which in Afghanistan is as low as 38.7 years. That is due in no small part to the lack of medical care, but also to the repression of women under the Taliban.
    270
    What work has the Department done to help women in Afghanistan, and what steps is it taking to press for their better treatment?
    Hilary Benn: I welcome the hon. Lady to her first International Development questions and wish her every success in the post.
    In recent years, the United Kingdom has contributed some £32 million in support to the people of Afghanistan to address the problem that she raised and others. As she will be only too well aware, the situation in Afghanistan is extremely difficult. The Secretary of State will make a statement shortly. We must make progress so that we can restore good governance to Afghanistan, because only when we reach that point will we be in a position to try to deal with the issues that the hon. Lady raised.
    Mrs. Spelman: The Minister mentioned good governance. The vision of the new Government of Afghanistan that the Foreign Secretary presented yesterday made no mention of women. What representations have the Department made to ensure that the new Government of Afghanistan better represents women?
    Hilary Benn: The representation of women in the new Afghanistan will be crucial. One of the biggest problems that that country faces in its future development is the fact that half the next generation have not been educated for the past five or six years. The single most useful intervention that could be made in the future of Afghanistan is to ensure that the next generation of girls gets into school, because, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that can lead to all sorts of benefits in respect of development and, ultimately, the participation of women in society more broadly.

    Nigeria
    Linda Gilroy: If she will make a statement on her Department's work in Nigeria. [6116]
    Hilary Benn: Nigeria has suffered a long period of economic, social and political disruption under a series of military Governments, and poverty is widespread. So far, reform has been disappointing, but we are committed to long-term support so that the country can fulfil its considerable potential. DFID is working at federal level to support economic reform, the reduction of poverty and strengthening of the justice system, and at local level, with four states, to show how reform can deliver practical benefits to the poor. We also continue to support the fight against HIV-AIDS.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that I and a number of members of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visited Nigeria this summer. We came away with a strong and clear understanding of Nigeria's pivotal importance to Africa's future welfare. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that he will keep a close eye on the Department's programme in Nigeria, especially in light of the regrettable incidents of recent days and weeks?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Nigeria has one fifth of the continent's population. About 70 per cent. of the country's population live on less than a

    271
    dollar a day, so progress in Nigeria will be crucial to Africa's chances of meeting the millennium development goals.
    My hon. Friend will know from her recent visit that Nigeria has great natural resources. It has enormous potential if it can put the past behind it and seize the opportunity that now presents itself. The House will also be aware that a dozen leaders of African states met in Abuja formally to launch the new African initiative, which we greatly welcome
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I read in a newspaper this morning that there is talk of a Marshall aid plan for Africa. Is that a possibility, or is it just pie in the sky?
    Hilary Benn: The initiative that the leaders of Africa have taken in establishing the new African initiative is a very welcome development. It is a recognition, from within the continent, that Africa needs to take control of the process involved in dealing with the issues of good governance and the other matters that hon. Members raised in earlier questions. The international community's responsibility is to make sure that, by helping to improve health care and education, we play our part in supporting those Governments as they reform and tackle the questions of governance. That will lead to the sort of regeneration in Africa that I think the whole House wants.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What actions she proposes to promote good governance in Zimbabwe. [6117]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have worked hard but completely without success to try to prevent the continuing deterioration in economic and political governance in Zimbabwe. The economic situation is very grim, with a 5 per cent. fall in gross domestic product last year and growing poverty and hunger across that agriculturally rich country.
    At a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers convened by Nigeria in Abuja on 6 September, the Zimbabwean Government undertook to restore the rule of law and to act against violence and intimidation. Unfortunately, there has been no progress since 8 September. Commonwealth Ministers are due to visit Harare this week to discuss that lack of progress.
    Mr. Winterton: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for the honesty of that response. As she said, the Commonwealth Ministers action group is visiting Harare this week. Those of us who have taken a great interest in the wonderful country of Zimbabwe over a number of decades recognise the role that it has played historically as the larder of central southern Africa. Will she say what message the Government are sending through that action group to bring pressure to get the people of Zimbabwe to reject President Mugabe and elect a Government who can give them democracy and progress, and enable Zimbabwe to play a major role in Africa?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The situation in Zimbabwe is a complete tragedy. Zimbabwe
    272
    is a naturally wealthy country with a highly educated population. It should be an engine of economic growth and progress for Africa, but instead it is deteriorating and damaging the economic development of all neighbouring countries. There are other tragedies: we are preparing for food aid—imagine that, in a country so agriculturally rich—and one in three adults are infected with HIV, the worst rate in the world.
    Presidential elections are due. It is very important that everyone in the world mobilises to try to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe are given a chance to have a free and fair election, and to change their Government if that, is their wish.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the right hon. Lady not recognise that one of the problems with President Mugabe's regime is that he presents to the media the removal of white farmers from land that they own legitimately as a campaign to help the landless, when in fact the victims of his policies are the farm workers, while the so-called war veterans have been generously provided for by him and his associates ever since he came to power? What will the Government do to redress the misrepresentation of what is happening in agricultural areas such as Nyama and Mutare in the eyes of the world's media?
    Clare Short: There is no doubt that there is a strong case for land redistribution in Zimbabwe. That was the view of the previous Government, and it is the view of this Government. It needs to be done in a transparent, law-abiding way that focuses on the needs of poor people rather than political cronyism and the destruction of Zimbabwe's agricultural productive capacity. The current push for forcible land seizures looks to be more political; it followed on from Zimbabwe's Government losing a referendum and fearing that they were losing political support.
    The hon. Gentleman is right that in the early stages, other African Governments had some sympathy with regard to land redistribution and were not as critical as they might have been. That is not the situation any longer. Neighbouring countries are seeing the economic effects on themselves and on large numbers of black farm workers who are losing their jobs and living in poverty. The whole world understands how bad things are, and we are all working together to ensure that things are put right as soon as possible.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Missile Defence
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If it is his policy to support ballistic missile defence in principle.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): The position is unchanged. We believe that it is important to tackle the potential threat from ballistic missiles with a comprehensive strategy that includes arms control and counter-proliferation, diplomacy, deterrence and defensive measures. We will continue to work closely with the United

    273
    States in all these areas. We understand the role that missile defence can play as one element of that comprehensive strategy, but as yet we have had no specific proposal from the United States.
    Dr. Lewis: The Prime Minister will appreciate that that question was tabled long before the events of 11 September. In the light of his admirable decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies over those terrible events, will he now, once and for all, state whether he is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with them over ballistic missile defence, particularly in view of the fact that more than 200 of his parliamentary colleagues are clearly massively opposed to ballistic missile defence?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with those who are opposed to it. During the summit with President Bush in February, we made it clear that we were prepared to look at defensive as well as offensive systems. We have not as yet, however, had a specific proposal from the United States. I think that it is better to declare our position finally when we do have such a proposal. I take this opportunity of welcoming greatly the dialogue between Russia and the United States, which I think offers a way forward for the future.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: There is no foundation, is there, to press reports that the Prime Minister has already given undertakings of support to President Bush and that that will be made public once certain difficulties with the Labour party are overcome?
    The Prime Minister: We might have to wait quite a long time in that case. The private position is exactly the same as the public position.

    Engagements
    Michael Fabricant: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 October.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Michael Fabricant: The whole House will be aware of the crippling effects of rheumatoid arthritis. Some three quarters of a million people suffer from the disease. May I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the plight of my constituent, Councillor Tony Lanchester, who happens to be the former Labour leader of Lichfield district council, and who suffers from the disease? He goes to Cannock hospital but cannot be prescribed drugs for the disease because the health authority will not pay for it. In the next bed, patients from Sutton Coldfield have their drugs paid for by their health authority. That state of affairs is repeated in every constituency in the country. What steps can the Prime Minister take to stop this postcode prescribing?
    The Prime Minister: I greatly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Rheumatoid arthritis is a very debilitating condition. Under the present system, there is postcode prescribing and health authorities may
    274
    make different decisions for patients in different parts of the country. That is precisely why we want to change that system, which we inherited. We have introduced a new system in which there is independent assessment of drugs and their effect on people. Then, because of the increased funding, we are able to ensure that those drugs are available. I hope, therefore, that the problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others will be dealt with in time.
    Ms Oona King: Will the Prime Minister consider an area where the level of infant mortality is as high as that in Afghanistan—the Great Lakes region and, specifically, the Congo? In the past three years, 2.5 million people have died from conflict-related deaths there. Will my right hon. Friend consider the recommendations of the all-party group and look into brokering a package to help people in the Great Lakes region?
    The Prime Minister: The all-party group has done us a service in providing that report. As my hon. Friend says, literally millions of people have died in the past decade as a result of conflict and famine in the Great Lakes region. For that reason, we strongly support the Lusaka accord and hope that it can be implemented. We are working with others in the region to try to ensure that the people there have some chance of stability for the future. As we deal with the appalling situation that we are having to deal with in Afghanistan, it is right that we remember that other parts of the world have also been scarred by conflict. If we put the international focus on them, I am sure that we can do some good there too.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: As someone who found himself on patrol in Northern Ireland 25 years ago, I welcome any moves toward peace, particularly ones as significant as those made by the IRA yesterday. They were part of a peace process that was begun by John Major and taken forward by the Prime Minister. It is vital, however, that that event is not a one-off gesture, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand, but a process that leads to all IRA weapons being put beyond use, as specified by the Belfast agreement. Will the Prime Minister tell us when he expects decommissioning to be completed? Will that he before the de Chastelain commission remit runs out this February?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the move that was made yesterday. It is a big step forward and it deserves a generous response. In effect, the position in Northern Ireland is that every political party of any substance or with any support in any part of the community recognises that the only way to resolve differences in future is by peaceful and democratic means. Yesterday was a day when people finally understood that the gun and the bomb have no place whatever in the future of Northern Ireland. I certainly pay tribute to the efforts of my predecessor in the peace process and to those of successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, not least my right hon. Friend the present incumbent, who has done an immense amount in the past few months to move the process

    275
    forward. On decommissioning, as the de Chastelain commission said yesterday, that is in its hands as part of its mandate and that is the right way to resolve it.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Taking note of what the Prime Minister says about all the parties, does he agree that it is now the responsibility of the so-called loyalist groups to come forward and ante up to this action too? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has had any indications that so-called loyalist paramilitaries are willing to make any reciprocal response and does he agree that loyalist political leaders, who have done a lot of talking recently, now have a major responsibility for ensuring that their arms are also put beyond use?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly, that is right. The loyalist leaders and paramilitaries have an obligation to do everything they can to put weapons beyond use too, and to bring under control situations such as the one that exists in north Belfast, which rightly shocked people throughout the United Kingdom. I very much hope that loyalists will respond properly to this move. Most of us believe that some of those who engage in paramilitary action who call themselves loyalists actually have no loyalty to the proper principles of the United Kingdom at all.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke today and yesterday about security normalisation, but he also said that the process of demilitarisation should begin. Obviously, where there is a clear reduction in the level of terrorist, threat changes to security can of course be made, but the threat from dissident groups such as the Real IRA remains high. As one of them chillingly said on the radio this morning:
    "The Real IRA will take up the mantle of being the IRA now, and continue the challenge to Britain's occupation."
    Given that even after the complete decommissioning process there will still be a large number of illegal arms in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister assure the House that changes to security will be made only on the basis of a clear assessment of the terrorist threat, and that nothing will be done that weakens our continuing ability to deal with terrorism both in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will and should act on advice. We have an absolute duty to make sure that we protect the people in Northern Ireland. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do what is necessary for that. As a result of yesterday's move—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will disclose the details later—there are changes that we can make, but they are fully consistent with the advice that we have. Of course we all want to see a situation in Northern Ireland as soon as possible where policing and security are carried out on a normal basis. That is what the people of Northern Ireland wish to have.
    Of course there is a risk from splinter republican groups—the so-called Real IRA—and loyalist groups. It is obviously important that we take account of that, but it is also important that we do not let any of those groups have any form of veto over the process of moving forward to a more peaceful era for Northern Ireland. So, yes,
    276
    we will act on advice—we have to protect our people properly—but we believe that yesterday's announcement changes the situation significantly.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: As we struggle to define global politics after the events of 11 September, does my right hon. Friend think that, as part of that discussion, we need to consider relocating those world organisations—largely born in the 1940s—such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, from America to places in the rest of the world?
    The Prime Minister: World-based organisations are indeed located in different parts of the world—some in Geneva, some in London, some in the United States of America and some in other parts of the world. Decisions as to the location of future organisations will be made at a future date.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: That sounds like a pretty wise answer.
    Given that because of the sheer pressure of numbers of refugees amassing at present on the borders of Pakistan, Pakistan has felt obliged to close its borders to Afghanistan, what steps are the Government taking to reopen the issue of debt relief to Pakistan for the financial, physical and internal political pressures on that country? Indeed, that applies not only to Pakistan itself but to the wider Asian sub-continent. Does the Prime Minister agree that tackling debt relief now could be of real practical benefit?
    The Prime Minister: We are doing what we can on that front. We recognise the importance of debt reduction for Pakistan. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have both worked hard to do that. We are taking a series of measures in terms of the aid we are giving Pakistan—indeed we have increased that recently. Of course much of the debt is not actually ours, so there is a limit to what we can do, but we are working with the international community to do it. The fact that Pakistan passed the first phase of its IMF programme and did so in a way that should commend itself to the IMF is a big step forward in itself and will of course lead to significant measures from the international community to help Pakistan.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister concur that the allied coalition members who are not expected or required to make a military contribution should, none the less be strongly encouraged to make a financial contribution? Will he take every possible opportunity to stress that course of action to them?
    The Prime Minister: We are doing that. Indeed, to be fair, many countries are now helping Pakistan substantially. Pakistan is also dealing with the problem of about 2 million refugees from Afghanistan. One of the reasons why we have asked for additional sums of aid to be made available is precisely to deal with the refugee problem. Some $700 million has been agreed for the humanitarian effort as a whole and, if more is necessary,

    277
    I am sure it will be agreed. The finance is there, but we need to make sure that the refugees are being properly looked after and that the organisation is in place to do that.
    Mr. Patrick Hall: During the Gulf war, there was much talk about building a new world order and, after the Gulf war, we heard very little more about it. Will the Prime Minister therefore take it from me how deeply and widely welcomed is his personal commitment to the need for social and economic justice across the world? Will he tell me what actions he intends to pursue internationally to achieve that new dispensation after the present necessary military actions are over?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that we have learned from the mistakes that were made by the west in Afghanistan some 10 or 12 years ago. The truth is that we left the country with very little hope of reconstruction. As a result of that, the Taliban regime eventually came to power, and the consequences of that we now know. That is why it is important that we work with the United Nations to make sure that there is a broad-based successor regime to the Taliban and then commit ourselves to the reconstruction of the country, the elimination of its drugs trade and the production of stability in the political process. As I think we now recognise, that would not merely be right for the people of Afghanistan but would be in our self-interest.
    Annabelle Ewing: The Prime Minister told his party conference earlier this month that the humanitarian campaign would be pursued with every bit as much thought and planning as the military campaign. Although I appreciate that there will be a statement later this afternoon on the international humanitarian crisis, will he give the House his personal assurance that the military campaign being pursued is compatible with the humanitarian campaign? Will he spell out in detail how it is working in practice?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw the comments from the World Food Programme, saying, indeed, that it was not the bombing that was stopping food getting through into Afghanistan. Food is getting in, and I think that, in the past week or so, something like 5,000 tonnes of food have gone in. That is not sufficient—I think the requirement is 1,700 tonnes a day. We are doing everything we can, but the principal problem that is faced as convoys go into Afghanistan is the activities of the Taliban regime.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my commitment to do all that we can to make sure that the humanitarian process is taken forward and will join me in calling on the Taliban regime to facilitate aid going into Afghanistan and not to engage in the harrying tactics, the theft of aid, the theft of vehicles and the refusal to co-operate with UN aid workers that are, at present, the hallmark of that regime.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the continued bombing campaign, including the use of cluster bombs, in Afghanistan is forcing large numbers of people to seek refuge in Pakistan; is bringing devastation and poverty to the people of Afghanistan; and seems to be directed, in part, against conscripted soldiers and against civilian targets? Does he accept last week's call by the aid
    278
    agencies for a halt in the bombing to allow the humanitarian aid to get in? That would prevent more death and destruction.
    The Prime Minister: I just answered a question about the humanitarian programme and I drew attention to comments of spokespersons for the World Food Programme who said that it is not the bombing that is preventing the food getting through.
    In respect of the campaign itself, there are no civilian targets at all. Unlike bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network who set out to kill as many civilians as they possibly could, we do everything we can to minimise civilian casualties. As I said earlier today, there is a simple choice. After an atrocity such as that of 11 September, we decide either that we are going to act against those responsible and against those sheltering those who are responsible or that we do not. In the light of that atrocity and the fact that we know that that network of terror intends to commit further such atrocities, I cannot see how we could possibly stand back and do nothing.
    I respect entirely my hon. Friend's right to disagree with the course that we are taking, but I believe that course to be right.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the European convention on human rights as incorporated into United Kingdom law is proving an obstacle to protecting the lives of British citizens?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. However, we have made it clear that our plans include a derogation from article 5 if that is necessary.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Apart from that slight contradiction, is not the problem more fundamental than the Prime Minister implies in his solution? The Home Secretary said yesterday that he shares the instincts of the British people, who cannot understand why terrorists are able to hide in this country when they would not be able to do so in, for example, France. Sadly, the Home Secretary's proposals so far will not allow those who threaten our national security to be deported any quicker. Is it not true that simply locking such people up indefinitely cannot be a substitute for deporting them from our country? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: The answer to hon. Members who shout out is that the Home Secretary mentioned the derogation from article 5 in his statement a week ago. Obviously, they did not pay much attention to it.
    I find the right hon. Gentleman's points curious. In response to the Home Secretary's statement, the shadow Home Secretary asked for detailed scrutiny of legislation, but basically supported the proposals. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have offered him an opportunity to consult us and to produce different proposals. However, it would be a mistake to scrap the European convention on human rights as incorporated into British law. I do not know whether that is his position. If it is, we are willing to listen to him. I believe that it is possible to make the necessary changes and protect our citizens without getting

    279
    rid of the European convention on human rights, which gives our citizens a legitimate course of action in certain circumstances against the Government.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is not going from one extreme to the other. The Prime Minister has taken a valuable lead, for which I applaud him, in building the coalition with, for example, the Arab states. Is he aware, as I am, of their dismay as they see convicted terrorists using our legal system to avoid their natural judicial process? When we are asking our allies to make huge efforts as part of the war against terrorism, is it not time to ensure that terrorists cannot shelter behind our laws? In that same spirit, we stand ready to work with the Prime Minister to tackle the problems that are being caused by the European convention on human rights. Surely—this is the point—when the law is wrong the law must be changed.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's general point. It is important that our laws do not give succour or help to people who engage in terrorist activities. That is why the Home Secretary made his statement and why we want to change the law on, for example, extradition, because that process takes far too long. All that is agreed. Indeed, last year we tightened the law in the Terrorism Act 2000 to allow us for the first time to take certain actions against groups that operate out of this country. I also entirely agree—I have made this point often—that we cannot ask for the support of other international leaders in the fight against terrorism if we allow groups who harbour terrorists to operate out of Britain. All that is agreed. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we get rid of the incorporation into British law of the European convention on human rights, then I disagree, because that would be a mistake.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are engaged in the coalition because of the principles contained in the European convention on human rights? We are defending human dignity and people's freedom under the law, including their right to a fair trial and to be protected from arbitrary justice. The moment we start derogating from or denying those principles, we give the victory to the terrorist.
    The Prime Minister: It is also worth pointing out that the European convention on human rights—which is not a product of the European Union, incidentally—is something on the basis of which people are able to litigate, whereas previously they were only able to do so by going to the European Court of Human Rights. What we have done allows people to litigate here in this country, and I regard that as a sensible thing to have done.
    There is specific provision in certain circumstances for a derogation from some of the articles of the convention, and I think that that is a right step to take, but to get rid of the convention altogether is wrong. Across the range of government, there are circumstances in which it is right that the citizen should have a general ability to take Government to court and claim that certain actions of Government transgress basic civil liberties. That is a step forward for our constitution, not a step backward.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Prime Minister remember saying on 30 April 1997, in the days when he used to be the master of spin, that the nation had 24 hours in which to save the national health service? Why, 39,255 hours later, is he saying that he needs more time in which to save the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is simple. The policies of the previous Conservative Government had resulted in underfunding of the NHS, a cut in the number of training places for nurses, a cut in hospital beds and an end to the hospital building programme. All those things have now been changed, with the result, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, that we are now putting more money than ever before into the health service and the education service. The difference between my political party and his is that whereas mine believes that that money should go into the health service, his believes in taking it back out again.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: In the longer term battle against terrorism, peace in the middle east must move rapidly up the agenda. A peace that offers justice and security to both Palestinians and Israelis must be restored to the world's agenda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only outside intervention can break the current deadlock in the middle east? Will he give a commitment to lead, with the same energy as he has rightly led in Afghanistan, the charge for a diplomatic solution to bring pressure to bear on Israel and the Palestine Authority to return to the negotiating table and secure the peace that will help the people of the middle east?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that some outside help might be needed to get the peace process in the middle east restarted, but nothing can happen unless the key parties themselves want to take that process forward. I urge them strongly to do so. For all the difficulties, all the bloodshed, the daily funerals, the reprisals and the retaliation, people know that at some point Israelis and Palestinians will have to come back to the negotiating table and work out how to live side by side in peace. Whatever difficulties we have met during the peace process in Northern Ireland, at least it offers some sign that if people persevere, whatever the problems they face, it is better than leaving a vacuum into which extremism inevitably moves.
    Mr. David Trimble: Recognising that an important step was taken yesterday in Northern Ireland—although it is not the end of the road by any means—I should like to tell the Prime Minister that in response to that and in the interests of good government, and entirely without prejudice to the decision to be taken by my party on Saturday, earlier this afternoon I again nominated the Ulster Unionist Ministers in the Executive.
    However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect again on the important point that was put to him by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of decommissioning and the fact that the remit of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning expires in February 2002. Although we would love to leave matters to the commission, primary responsibility rests with the Government. If when we reach February 2002 some, any or all paramilitary organisations

    281
    have not achieved complete disarmament, what sanctions will the Government apply to them, so as to avoid others having to apply sanctions?
    The Prime Minister: The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is legitimate. It is important that we make sure that the members international commission can carry out their mandate in full. What I was saying earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, is that it is important that they are the ones now seized of that issue and that they carry it out in accordance with that mandate. I am sure that if any difficulties arise in relation to that, they can be sorted out.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Given that international unity is crucial to our present campaign, will my right hon. Friend encourage our American allies to show caution and flexibility over divisive policies, particularly in assessing the priority that they still seem to be giving to breaching the international treaty obligation which the United States, the United Kingdom and nearly all nations entered into last year to maintain and strengthen the anti-ballistic missile treaty?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, it is important that we strengthen measures against nuclear proliferation. All that I would say to my hon. Friend is that President Bush is right to say that weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation bring about a change in the context in which we discuss these issues. As I said when I was with President Bush in Camp David in February, it is important that we look at defensive and offensive systems to try and take the issue forward. I think that my hon. Friend will find in the discussions, most recently with President Putin following the summit in China, that the United States and Russia are reaching towards a new and better understanding of how they progress on those issues.
    I have always taken the view that it is best to make progress through dialogue and consultation. However, it is true that we have a new situation today in international relations and the international threat that we face. I believe that President Bush is right, to raise the issue of what are the best offensive and defensive systems for countering that threat. I believe that with good will we shall reach agreement.

Afghanistan (Humanitarian Situation)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I should like to keep the House informed about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and my recent visit to Pakistan. As the House knows, the humanitarian situation remains fragile. Humanitarian agencies, particularly the World Food Programme, are performing impressively under very difficult circumstances. Deliveries of food and other essential relief supplies, which were halted after 11 September, have resumed, and the quantities crossing into Afghanistan are increasing. Deliveries inside Afghanistan are continuing but are very difficult. So far the refugee outflow has been smaller than expected; contingency plans are in place in case the exodus increases.
The situation is very worrying, but the House will be aware that a severe crisis existed long before the events of 11 September and is the result of 20 years of conflict, the policies of the Taliban, and the drought of the last three years. All those events have devastated the livelihoods of millions of people. Emergency humanitarian supplies have been provided inside Afghanistan and to refugees in Pakistan and Iran for many years. Immediately after 11 September all international staff were withdrawn from Afghanistan because of fears for their safety, which led to a cessation of all supplies into Afghanistan. I and others have been working since then to get supplies moving again.
Because of the harassment of humanitarian workers and Taliban restrictions on the use of telephones, it is difficult for aid agencies to communicate with colleagues inside Afghanistan. Precise information on deliveries is therefore sparse. The Taliban have looted the offices and stocks of some aid agencies. Afghan hauliers are also fearful of harassment and attack, but despite those difficulties programmes inside Afghanistan continue, thanks to the brave efforts of local staff of the United Nations, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations who have continued to work in the face of extreme hardship and serious personal danger.
Our capacity to influence the humanitarian situation is limited. Access to many areas of the country is not possible, but the international community remains determined to do all in its power to continue to provide desperately needed assistance. We are looking at all options; for example, the World Food Programme is looking at air drops and the possibility of opening new land routes from neighbouring countries, such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Since deliveries recommenced on 11 October, the World Food Programme has continued to make progress; regional stockpiles are adequate and deliveries are entering the country in increasing amounts. The World Food Programme is moving towards achieving its target of delivering 1,700 tonnes of food a day. Over 5,000 tonnes were delivered in the past week, and when I was in Peshawar a few days ago rates had reached 1,300 tonnes a day. We need to do better, but we are making progress. We are also doing all that we can to maintain the onward distribution of those supplies from the major warehouses inside Afghanistan. Given the difficulties, the World Food Programme is now looking at delivering food direct to more destinations in the country.
We are also working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify and prepare sites for refugee camps in Pakistan. We continue to urge all
284
neighbouring countries to adopt an open border policy and to allow those seeking refuge safe passage. Agencies are also attempting to provide assistance to those who remain on the Afghan side of the border.
As the House is aware, our aims are to bring to justice those responsible for the events of 11 September, to dismantle the al-Qaeda network and to maintain humanitarian supplies to the people of Afghanistan. It is essential that we pursue all three aims at the same time. The humanitarian effort remains difficult for all the reasons that I have outlined. It is not the case that a pause in the bombing would solve these problems. Indeed, a pause would simply encourage the Taliban to harass humanitarian supplies more than at present to prevent further military action. We all understand why that call is being made, but it would be a grave error and we must not do that.
All our objectives could be achieved much more rapidly if a new Government could be put in place in Afghanistan. Key to this process will be the central role of Ambassador Brahimi, Kofi Annan's newly appointed special representative for Afghanistan. We warmly welcome his appointment. Ambassador Brahimi is well respected and has considerable experience of the region. His is a difficult task and we stand ready to support him and his office in any way that we can and which he requests.
There is also a need for the current coalition military campaign to be fully informed about the humanitarian effort and situation. Co-ordination mechanisms have been put in place, although closer co-ordination is still required. My Department continues to liaise closely with the United Nations and our United States and United Kingdom military colleagues at both headquarters and field level to ensure that there is a shared understanding of each others' objectives and to create safe areas as rapidly as possible.
We also continue to urge other donors to turn pledges to the UN appeal quickly into actual payments. As against $600 million requested, more than $700 million has been pledged, but only $70 million has so far been received. Although immediate needs are covered, unless pledges are released soon, on-going operations will be hampered. We are working on that.
We cannot resolve the humanitarian and political crisis in Afghanistan without attention to the regional context. Afghanistan's neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Iran, have generously provided for millions of Afghan refugees for many years. Pakistan's role is of central importance. President Musharraf's Government have given strong support to the international effort in Afghanistan. We should not underestimate the burden that that places on a country that is already playing host to 2 million refugees while undergoing painful economic reform to overcome the legacy of previous misgovernment.
Last week, I had fruitful discussions with President Musharraf, Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz and other Ministers in Islamabad. The Government there remain strongly committed to the efforts of the coalition, and to economic reform and poverty reduction in Pakistan. They are also firmly committed to parliamentary elections by October 2002. There is a real prospect that that Government can achieve a much better future for Pakistan than it has experienced in recent years, but the country's economy has taken a knock as a consequence of the

285
events of 11 September. Pakistan needs short-term help, debt relief and continuing support to maintain the long-term reform effort.
I reaffirmed to the Government our commitment to a new International Monetary Fund/World Bank programme of budgetary support and to writing off remaining Government debt. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking urgently with his ministerial colleagues at how we might best collectively agree a debt alleviation package for Pakistan that underpins its reform programme.
Afghanistan is a country that has suffered terribly for many years and faces a very severe humanitarian crises. The reason why bin Laden has his headquarters in Afghanistan is linked to the cause of the crises. Afghanistan is a failed state because of 20 years of warfare and the excesses of the Taliban regime. We must retain our resolve to bring those responsible for the events of 11 September to justice, to dismantle the al-Qaeda network and to maintain our humanitarian assistance.
Through the efforts of Ambassador Brahimi, we must also support the establishment of a representative Government in Afghanistan who will work with the international community to resolve the immediate crisis and start the long haul of reconstructing Afghanistan and offering its people a better future. Our Government remain determined to do all that we can towards that end.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I thank the right hon. Lady for coming to the House and addressing us on this very important issue. I received a copy of her statement while the House has been sitting. As we have just had International Development questions, I shall study it in more detail later.
We were surprised to learn that the Secretary of State withdrew from an audience with the Select Committee on International Development yesterday. I understand that the date had been in her diary for a long time. Although it was originally suggested that there would be a general discussion of DFID's programme, it seemed reasonable for the Committee to request that the discussion focus on Afghanistan, especially as it decided on 16 October to conduct an inquiry into the crisis. The right hon. Lady was informed of the proposal well in advance of the final decision on 16 October. To respond by trying to limit questions on Afghanistan and ultimately to withdraw from the audience sets an unacceptable precedent for a Minister unilaterally to state the terms of such an interview. The whole House is worse off for the missed opportunity.
A Select Committee can pursue a line of questioning on its specialist subject, whereas when a statement is made, hon. Members do not get the chance to ask supplementary questions. I understand that the Secretary of State returned on Friday from Pakistan, whence we have had a number of statements in the media during the week. Again, statements were made through the media at the weekend. Is there any good reason why the right hon. Lady's statement could not have been made at the first opportunity, on Monday? If it had been followed by a Select Committee appearance, Parliament would have been given a far better basis for informed debate.
The fact that today's Order Paper contained no questions on Afghanistan for International Development questions—today's were tabled in July—made the need
286
for the statement all the more urgent. We have had four debates on the crisis, but only one has been responded to in terms of international development. That has limited our opportunity to question the Government's policy on the humanitarian aspects of the crisis. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the hon. Lady put her case, and the Secretary of State will then answer. That is the best way.
Mrs. Spelman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the last occasion we debated the crisis, a number of questions were asked about its humanitarian aspects to which the Minister who was present could not reply. I set out those questions in a letter to the right hon. Lady on 17 October. I hope that she will now answer some of them.
The right hon. Lady will know that I have called for an appeal launched by President Bush asking every American child to donate a dollar to an Afghan child to he matched in this country. The appeal is to be administered by the American Red Cross. The British Red Cross is willing to administer such an appeal and has visited officials in the right hon. Lady's Department. I hope that she will use this opportunity to support that valuable initiative.
There has been little unanimity about how much aid is required for the region. The key question is the amount of aid that is required and whether it can be delivered to where it is absolutely needed. The World Food Programme says that we need to get 50,000 tonnes of food into Afghanistan every month. However, a month from now, two regions of Afghanistan will be cut off by snow. Those two areas need 70,000 tonnes of food to be stockpiled within the next month. The right hon. Lady said that the regional stockpiles were adequate. I have quickly done my sums, however, and I find that those levels cannot be achieved at the rate of 1,300 tonnes a day. Christian Aid, which delivers the programme to some of the worst affected regions in central and north-eastern Afghanistan, estimates that 120,000 tonnes of food must get into those regions within the next four weeks. The sums simply do not add up. Even at the target rate of 1,700 tonnes, the amounts cannot be achieved. Does the right hon. Lady's acknowledge that that is not enough for the worst affected areas? Unless the World Food Programme and Christian Aid have got their figures wrong, the basic fact is that we are not getting sufficient food into those parts of the country.
It is also necessary to question whether the food is reaching the people of Afghanistan. Despite claims from the World Food Programme that food is getting in, Oxfam and Christian Aid, which deliver the food and administer the process, have repeatedly said that they are running out of food. Who is right?
A Christian Aid worker who has recently returned from Afghanistan has told me that a convoy left Quetta in Pakistan with 600 metric tonnes of food on board, but that by the time it reached Kabul there were only 200 metric tonnes left. In other words, two thirds of the entire convoy had been removed en route. It is no wonder that the aid agencies claim that not enough aid is getting through. Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that a significant proportion of food aid—the statistical amount given—never reaches its destination?
We heard reports that 7,000 tonnes of food had been seized from a UN warehouse last week, and that Médecins sans Frontières had reported that the Taliban had seized

287
medical supplies from its compound. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State informed the House, on the basis of her recently refreshed knowledge of the situation on the ground, of just how obstructive the Taliban are being towards the delivery of aid. What does the right hon. Lady mean by "harassment"?
Another question relating to delivery is whether the food is getting to the more remote regions of Afghanistan. A colossal number of people are on the move within the country. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a real need to get food to people in their villages, so that they can remain where they have shelter and be in place to plant next year's crop?
What is the Secretary of State's latest assessment of the number of people on the move? Does she accept the assessment of many aid agencies that many people are likely to die a lonely death in the mountains, not necessarily from starvation, but from illnesses generated by malnutrition? The chief problem facing the refugees is the collapse of the food distribution network. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of what progress has been made in restoring aid networks right into the interior of Afghanistan? I would like to say at this point that we share her view that a pause in the bombing would not help in that respect.
Yesterday, the Select Committee interviewed representatives of the aid agencies, and concern was expressed about the lack of co-ordination on the ground. The Secretary of State has said that closer co-ordination is still required. Can Mr. Brahimi be urged to make that happen? Relations with the local Afghan NGOs have been vital to the aid distribution network—indeed, Christian Aid's programme has been successful because of its local partnerships. The right hon. Lady was right to describe those local NGOs as brave. They are brave indeed: they put their lives at risk to deliver food where it is really needed.
I should like to raise the question of refugee camps, particularly as the Secretary of State has just returned from Pakistan. Is she satisfied that standards in the refugee camps are adequate? We have urged that the camps should meet the Sphere project's minimum standards for refugees. Was it her experience, when visiting the camps, that those standards were being met; and if not, what steps has she asked to be taken to ensure that they will be?
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports great difficulties in the refugee camps. Many are not sited in ideal locations. In some, boreholes have had to be drilled through 400 m of granite to obtain water. What pressure can the Secretary of State bring to bear to ensure that refugee camps are better sited, so that practical targets such as the provision of water can be more easily achieved?
A particular problem is that the border with Pakistan is intermittently open. Obviously the Secretary of State's visit to Pakistan failed to persuade the Government there to keep the border open, to put an end to the mixed signals being sent to people living in Afghanistan. Aid workers in yesterday's Select Committee meeting said that a potential disaster was looming on the border. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State commented on that.
Given that the right hon. Lady has just returned from Pakistan, where a generous aid package was agreed, will she give an undertaking that the Chancellor will come to
288
the House to give details of that debt alleviation package, and that such an announcement will be made here in Parliament?
It was reported in yesterday's newspapers that the Taliban are going to run one of the refugee camps in Afghanistan. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is true? She referred to agencies running the camps in Afghanistan, and I would like to know whether the Taliban are, in fact, running them.
Will the Secretary of State also give an assurance that women and children will be treated fairly in the refugee camps? The present policy of allowing village elders to make decisions does not give them adequate protection. War always takes its toll on women and children, but they represent the future of a war-torn country.
The Government share an enormous responsibility to get right the humanitarian aspect of the crisis; otherwise ordinary Afghan people will never believe us when we say that our war is not a war with them.
Clare Short: I regret that the hon. Lady has misled herself about the Select Committee. What happened is that it changed what it wanted to discuss at the meeting at short notice. It has been trying to visit Pakistan to go to the camps. The security advice is that its members could not be protected—we had a lot of trouble and during my visit I had endless phone calls about that. The Select Committee should do its job, but our first accountability is to Parliament, then the Select Committee probes. To try to get there instantly in a way that strains all our systems is not helpful or wise.
We had a meeting with the new Select Committee fixed, including a memorandum on all the Department's future commitments, but there was a last-minute switch. It was impossible for me to get a memorandum prepared for the Select Committee without taking my staff off the work of improving the humanitarian performance in Afghanistan, and I decided that to do that would be wrong. The Select Committee should review the way in which it is demanding the attention of my Department in a way that would deflect us from the objective, which is to get better provision on the ground.
I have seen the hon. Lady's letter. I do not know whether the House remembers, but in Kosovo I had difficulties, because the staff who do the work also have to serve the House of Commons. I have asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to try to ensure that this time we do better. Obviously the public want replies, but it is difficult to manage the Department's resources. The staff are the best in the world, but they are enormously overworked.
The hon. Lady has a number of misunderstandings. She does not seem to understand the nature of the crisis, the lack of information, how dangerous it all is, how nobody knows in detail what is going on inside Afghanistan or the nature of the Taliban regime. The regional stockpiles are outside Afghanistan. We also need stockpiles inside. If the hon. Lady reads the statement, she might understand that a little better.
The hon. Lady quotes frequently some of what the NGOs here have said, but she should remember that they are using that material partially to call for a pause in the bombing. She might like to prevent the misuse of details

289
of what is going on for that cause, which she says she does not support. How destructive are the Taliban? Enormously, in every single conceivable way. I thought everybody knew that.
On the danger of a collapse of the network inside Afghanistan, the nightmare would be the same situation as existed after the Russians withdrew, when all the factions fought each other and there was chaos across the country. Should such a situation come about, we would have great difficulty bringing in humanitarian support, so everything needs to be done to avoid that. No one can absolutely guarantee success, but we can all unite in being determined to try to prevent such a situation from arising. That is our determination.
I do not agree that there is a lack of co-ordination on the ground. The UN agencies are co-ordinating well, but the situation is enormously difficult. The camps have been there for 20 years, including the time when the hon. Lady's party was in power. On what happened in Pakistan with the refugees, after the campaign against the Russian presence in Afghanistan ended, the international community turned its back. Since our Government took power, we have provided support for the camps in Iran and Pakistan, but one reason why their Governments will not open the borders is that they took millions and millions last time, and then the international community abandoned them. I am trying to establish a guarantee to them that they will have support this time in order to get the borders open. We all need to work together on that.
It would not be right to ask the Chancellor to come to Parliament to announce a package on debt, as Britain is one of Pakistan's smallest creditors. The largest are Japan, the United States of America, France, Germany and South Korea. The Government of Pakistan are making proposals for a highly concessionary debt rescheduling over perhaps 40 years, which would get their debt down. The United States is trying to be responsive. Of course, full details will be provided to the House. The United Kingdom will try to help, but it is not a leading creditor.
I am not aware of the Taliban running camps, but we do not have information about everything that is going on inside Afghanistan. There is no doubt that women and children are suffering desperately. There is no doubt that the best way in which to deal with backwardness and extremism is to respect and empower women and educate girls. That is what we are trying to do in Pakistan and we will try to do it in Afghanistan as soon as we can.
Tony Worthington: There has been a great deal of talk about getting food into the areas that need it, but I am puzzled by the lack of any reference to water. One of Afghanistan's problems is that there has been a drought in the area for three years. I am told that in the border areas in Pakistan, particularly around the camp of Chaman where there has been trouble, it is necessary to drill 400 m through granite to obtain water, and that only the Pakistan agriculture service has strong enough drilling equipment. Given that in many places there could suddenly be thousands upon thousands of people, will the Secretary of State assure me that she is confident that services are in the area to ensure that water is available?
Clare Short: As my hon. Friend says, the drought that has affected Afghanistan has also affected neighbouring
290
areas of Pakistan. Its worst effect has been on agricultural production—hence the lack of food—rather than directly on drinking water, but when we speak of food, that includes emergency supplies such as medicines and, often, water. In the strained communities in Pakistan and Iran that are hosting refugees, water is under strain, health care is under strain and education is under strain. We need to help the hosting communities as well as the refugees, so that they are willing to give more help themselves.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do all in our power to improve conditions in the camps, and to secure a better welcome for refugees as they come out. Up to now, the refugee movement has been much less than the United Nations expected: it predicted another 1.5 million. Our information is that people are moving within Afghanistan back to their villages, rather than out to the borders. Perhaps those with more transport have already gone. We must take the help to where the people are, and we must do it as well as we can. We cannot control everything, but the international community and the Government are determined to do all in their power to ensure that humanitarian relief continues to get through to the people of Afghanistan.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I welcome the statement, and thank the Secretary of State for releasing it a bit early so that I could see it. It helped to alleviate the boredom of Prime Minister's Question Time, I must say.
Does the Secretary of State agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of my party, that it is essential to open up the borders of Pakistan and Iran? Does she further agree that not only must the multilateral debt of those countries be addressed—they must be helped with that debt—but they must be guaranteed the costs of looking after the refugees? I understand that the numbers are mounting, and that there are now some 3.5 million in Pakistan alone. Does the Secretary of State also agree that the stability of Pakistan will be crucial during the next few months?
The right hon. Lady highlighted the difficulties of food distribution, which I have to accept, but I was delighted when she said that the World Food Programme was considering air drops of food into Afghanistan. Can we expect the World Food Programme to start—I quote myself here—bombing Afghanistan with food and aid in the very near future?
The right hon. Lady mentioned the warnings that we have been receiving from aid agencies of impending famine in Afghanistan during the last six months—a long period—and we now know that there is a 50 per cent. shortfall. If we are to get enough food in before the winter snows, we must double our efforts, whatever the difficulties. Will the right hon. Lady reflect on the fact that aid agencies were criticised for not giving warning in time before the famine in southern Sudan in 1997? The Select Committee of which I was then a member conducted an investigation of the problem. Does the right hon. Lady think that her recent comments about the aid agencies went beyond the plain-speaking decency for which she is renowned?
Clare Short: I agree that it is highly desirable to open the borders. I have already explained how scarred Iran and Pakistan are by the lack of help from the international

291
community for the millions of refugees whom they are already hosting. We are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has stockpiles in the region and emergency camps to deal with a big exodus of people. It is difficult because both Iran and Pakistan are saying, "Put the camps the other side of the border." We cannot do that safely. We have to keep working at it.
As the hon. Lady says, we must undertake to Iran, Pakistan and other countries that we will provide for the refugees and that we will be there for the duration. The trouble is that the international community let them down badly before. Debt relief for Pakistan is crucial, as I have already said. The stability of Pakistan is also crucial. If that were to become a problem, we would be in great difficulties, but the Musharraf Government are not worried. Some of the pictures that we see on television exaggerate the extent of demonstrations, as television tends to do.
Air drops are an expensive and difficult way of delivering food, as the hon. Lady knows from the experience of Sudan, so we must get as much in as we can. Not all the country is inaccessible when the snow comes; only some of it is. For the remote areas or the areas that become inaccessible, the World Food Programme is thinking about the possibility of air drops.
When people talk about the aid agencies, there is a muddle. The monitoring of the risk of famine and the distribution of massive quantities of food are all done on our behalf by dedicated United Nations agencies, with people from all over the world devoting their lives to serving their fellow human beings. Our NGOs and other international NGOs often help with distribution on the ground and do an honourable job.
I pick no fight with the aid agencies. The problem was that they issued their statement when I was in Pakistan, so wherever I went I was asked whether the humanitarian situation meant that we needed a pause in the bombing. It is not true that the bombing is the cause of our problem It is not true that, if we paused, we would help the people of Afghanistan. Indeed, I think that all humanitarian relief would then be harassed even more than it is now. It is a mistaken call. We all know why in their hearts good people hate bombing, but they are wrong to have made that call. I think that it is my duty to try to explain that as clearly as I can.
Ms Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State just said that the media are exaggerating the extent of internal unrest in Pakistan in relation to the bombing, but just today we read in the newspapers of some firing from within Pakistan on US helicopters attempting to use a base in Pakistan. Recent polls have shown that 70 per cent. of Pakistani people are opposed to the bombing. Are we not taking a gamble that the military stage of the advance will be over sooner rather than later? If that gamble proves to be mistaken, not only will we see the instability in Pakistan across the region, but thousands of people will starve to death in the snows of Afghanistan.
Clare Short: All good people should regret war and bombing—I think that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made that point in our debate on 8 October—but we must use force where it is necessary to destroy a greater evil. What happened in the United States of
292
America could be repeated in all countries across the world, and the forces that are destroying the lives of the people of Afghanistan are harbouring that evil. Therefore, we have to keep our nerve and pursue all our objectives.
Of course, we should minimise the bombing and move from the military phase to a political phase as soon as we can. We should all unite on that and not wobble. If we paused, there would be more mayhem and division in the world and more trouble for the people of Afghanistan. We must be clear-minded and carry through what we have to do.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I have seen for myself, in a private visit, the absolute nightmare that has been caused by the Administration of Afghanistan, the horrendous numbers of refugees and the apparent disunity among the refugees. Is the Government's long-term intention to encourage the refugees to return to Afghanistan when things have improved? If it is not possible for them to return, will the Government and all the western powers agree to give continuing aid to Pakistan to cope with a genuine nightmare situation?
Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. A serious reform effort is under way in Pakistan. It has not only had local elections throughout the country but even elected some women, which is unprecedented in the country's history. It has also just completed its first IMF programme; it has had plenty of IMF programmes, but never before has it completed one. We have to help Pakistan with debt relief so that it can put more money into improving the lives of its people and growing its economy. On top of all that, it has more than 2 million refugees straining all its systems.
The international community has not sufficiently supported Pakistan. I therefore agree with all the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Part of the purpose of my visit to Pakistan was to pledge the United Kingdom's continuing support. We are providing more support to Pakistan during the emergency, but our support will continue for its reform effort. This is a fantastically important opportunity for the people of Pakistan to have a better future and we must not allow the crisis to divert them.
We must guarantee support for the refugees. Educated Afghans have left their country and can be found everywhere in the world, even in Ladywood. We are also working on a rehabilitation programme that is sharing ideas throughout the international community, so that we can begin the process of rehabilitation in Afghanistan as soon as possible. We want to enable all Afghans to go home, but we want particularly to encourage educated Afghans to go home, to help to reconstruct their country.
Glenda Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for demonstrating yet again to the House and the country her quite remarkable grasp of the detail of an immensely complex situation, in marked contrast to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). Should ground forces be in Afghanistan when the proposed air drops of food are made, will those forces participate in that project? Delivery of the supplies will have to be accurately targeted, and it will be necessary to have friendly forces on the ground so that pilots know when they have reached

293
the right areas. Additionally, as Afghan smugglers seem to have had inordinate success in getting people across borders, could they not be used to get food into Afghanistan?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is not being suggested that ground forces be used in the provision of humanitarian aid. One important international principle is that the UN and humanitarians should not become mixed up with the military, although the two groups should co-operate, share information and not get in one another's way. We hope that the military will be able increasingly to provide safe areas, so that humanitarian workers are able to return and the humanitarian effort can be expanded. Those are our goals.
The US air drops have been more a matter of winning hearts and minds than of the provision of the massive amounts of food that are necessary. My hon. Friend asks whether Afghans themselves can take food into Afghanistan. The World Food Programme has started using Afghan truckers to take food into Afghanistan because they not only have their own trucks but know their country the best.
New contracts are being signed with more Afghan truckers so that they can cover more parts of Afghanistan. When one group of truckers returns from Afghanistan, another group goes there after receiving news on events in the country, such as whether they are being harassed and whether the warehouses are holding up. That is our best source of information on whether the distribution system is working. Afghans are keeping the system going, very bravely and in the face of terrible harassment.
Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State understand that the Select Committee is unanimous in wanting to have a positive working relationship with her Department? After all, it is difficult enough to get international development on the political agenda at all without those of us who are concerned about the issue having a spat.
I think that if the Secretary of State goes back to her private office she will find that she has been inadvertently misled. I wrote to her on behalf of the Select Committee saying that we did not expect a further memorandum, as we fully understood that her officials would be busy working. All we wanted was the Secretary of State, having returned from Pakistan, to come before the Select Committee to tell us what she had seen first-hand. I made that clear. I think that the whole House will have been disappointed and think it a pity that, although we heard the Secretary of State on the "Today" programme talking to the country as a whole, she did not feel able to explain all those matters directly to the Select Committee.
Yesterday, the Select Committee took evidence from some of the non-governmental organisations, and it was quite clear that, for understandable policy reasons, they do not want humanitarian agencies to be caught up in the coalition military effort. Therefore, it seems that the concept of humanitarian corridors will not work. What is clearly needed is someone to help broker the humanitarian issue.
Does the Secretary of State think that there is a role for Mr. Brahimi in that respect—not only in pursuing
294
diplomatic issues but in helping the humanitarian effort by helping broker relations with the Taliban to allow food aid into Afghanistan? Unless there is work on the other side of the border, food aid, as well as refugees, will accumulate at the borders and little will get distributed.
Clare Short: I very much hope that I will have the same quality of relationship with the hon. Gentleman that I had with his predecessor as Chairman of the Select Committee. I enormously admire the contribution that his predecessor made to advancing thinking and agreement across the House on the significance of international development.
I have not been misled. It took me four or five minutes from my bedroom in the British residence in Islamabad to get to the "Today" programme. I do not agree that it is good practice to appear before a Select Committee without a memorandum, because all the figures—on supplies and so on—are crucial. My immediate accountability is to the House, and while I was in Pakistan I tried to get the House authorities to agree to a statement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I tried to have an informal meeting with the Select Committee. I am going to Africa tonight. We cannot ignore Africa, because that would make it feel neglected. My Department, which is fairly small, is working flat out. We will account to the Select Committee in every way that we can. This is an enormously serious emergency, and we must use our resources as best we can.
I welcome the meeting with the Select Committee, but the last-minute switch to the suggestion that we should meet without a memorandum was wrong. My immediate accountability is to the House, and that can be probed by the Select Committee. I promise full co-operation. I made the decision because I thought that it was the right way to deploy the resources of my Department, and I still think so.
Mr. Tom Clarke: As most people would agree, my right hon. Friend has been proactive in handling her portfolio. Does she agree that the Prime Minister was positive and far-sighted this afternoon, when he criticised the past failures of the west to take opportunities to address the reconstruction of Afghanistan? Would she take as a model northern Iraq, where many hon. Members have witnessed the complete transformation, in a matter of years, of the absolute despair of the Kurds?
Does she agree that the United Nations agencies, NGOs and others made their contribution to that dream being realised, and that it is not impossible to repeat that in Afghanistan? Will she work with them and with the new ambassador, whom she welcomed this afternoon, to ensure that we play our part in seeking to repeat in Afghanistan what has been achieved in northern Iraq?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the neglect of Afghanistan has allowed it to become a failed state with the problem of housing al-Qaeda. The whole world should learn from the lessons of Afghanistan and other countries.
The model should be smaller countries such as East Timor and Kosovo, which, before their reconstruction, had had no state institutions. That reconstruction was led by the UN. The job in Afghanistan will be much bigger, because it is a poorer and bigger country, but I am sure that it can be done. As I said earlier, plans are in place.

295
Great things have been achieved in northern Iraq, but that is part of a country under a no-fly zone, so it is a complex example on which to build. We must commit, in detail and in the long term, to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and that is the commitment that the international community has made. Ambassador Brahimi will lead; we and others are determined to follow. The World Bank is preparing to do so. We must get the whole international system ready to move, and we will.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that there is widespread support for her view that military action is compatible with the delivery of humanitarian supplies? Does she further recognise that there is considerable support for the view that a temporary cessation of military action—bombing or otherwise—would be a grave error?
Clare Short: I do agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I have said, a pause would lead only to more harassment of humanitarian staff. It would be a disaster, and an invitation to those who wanted to resist the coalition to resist the humanitarian supplies. However, many of our fellow citizens and people across the world are upset at the thought of hungry people being in a country where bombing is taking place, and I respect their compassion and concern. It is our duty to bring the conflict to an end as well as possible, to secure our objectives and to minimise civilian casualties. We must also get the political track moving as rapidly as possible and establish zones of peace in which the humanitarian effort can be improved. I agree that it is an en-or to call for a pause, but I respect the reasons that prompt people to make that call. We must respond as best we can.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend will be aware that The Times carried a report this morning stating that land mines were being dropped in Afghanistan. I also understand that it is accepted now that delayed-action cluster bombs have already been dropped there. Given that such ordnance now kills more than 300 children a year in Kosovo, will my right hon. Friend say what effect these armaments will have on the way in which a humanitarian programme can be carried out?
Clare Short: I am not aware of the report to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. I have not read a newspaper for a considerable period of time, as that is not a priority in situations such as this. I am certain that land mines are not being dropped, but Afghanistan is littered with land mines—because there have been 20 years of war, and because land mines are such cheap weapons. On top of all the other suffering of the people of Afghanistan, there is therefore massive disability in that poor benighted country resulting from wounds and injuries caused by land mines.
As I said to my hon. and learned Friend at another meeting earlier, I think that I have read reports—non-newspaper reports, if I can put it like that—of some use of cluster bombs. I do not think that they have been used much, and I promise to look into the matter and get back to my hon. and learned Friend. I shall report that
296
response to the House. There is a land mine problem in Afghanistan, but they are not being dropped. They are there already, I regret to say.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how dropping cluster bombs and Gator land mines will assist humanitarian efforts in any way? That can never be right.
I have a high regard for the right hon. Lady, but will she tell the House whether it will be possible at some time to publish a report about what is happening with the humanitarian effort, and what is being undertaken? Many hon. Members would like to know the direction of the effort. That is not intended as a critical question, as I know that the Secretary of State is working hard on the matter. However, it is awful that humanitarian aid is being provided at the same time as there is indiscriminate use of land mines.
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. Land mines are not being used, but the country of Afghanistan is littered with land mines because of 20 years of civil war. In a civil war, land mines are cheap weapons and people use them endlessly. Afghanistan has an enormous land-mine problem from the past. No one is using land mines now—unless the Taliban are, which is possible. What I mean is that no one that belongs to the coalition is using land mines.
I cannot speak with authority about cluster bombs. I think that I read a report that stated that some use had been made of them, but I think that that use has been limited. I promise to find out and report properly. I do absolutely undertake to begin publishing regular reports on the humanitarian situation as soon as possible. We need that information in the House, and across the world. People want to know that we really mean it when it comes to aid, and that help is being got to people.
I was talking to Mark Malloch-Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Programme, who has co-ordinating responsibility in the UN in this matter. We get different figures from different parts of the system, because supply stops and starts or goes up or down. Averages based on figures for a month, a week or a day result in different figures, with the result that people start not to believe what we say. We need to tidy up the process and make it honest and clear. We need regular reports, and I promise to do my best to bring that about.
Mr. John Battle: I assure my right hon. Friend that there is a tremendous fund of good will, nationally and internationally, behind her efforts to tackle the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. She should not be expected to tackle single-handed a crisis that has been in the making for months and years, and ignored by the international community and the media.
I have a specific question for my right hon. Friend. May I urge her, quietly and gently, to get away from the language and strategy of random air drops, from a great height, of inappropriate aid? Even in these tremendously difficult circumstances, would not it be better to adopt a clearer strategy of targeted air lifts that are received on the ground and distributed according to need? Air lifts are what are needed, not air drops.
Clare Short: There is no doubt that this crisis was there already. I have said before that professionals in my

297
Department who have worked in crises like these across the world thought before 11 September that Afghanistan might be heading towards a famine. It has received very little international attention and there has been very little willingness to pledge resources. We have been increasing our pledges, but United Kingdom citizens have been unable to work safely in Afghanistan for a long time, so it has also been difficult us to make efforts beyond the refugees. Not many people seem to appreciate that there was a crisis in the region before, and that shows how fickle attention is to such matters.
Air drops are always the least best option because they are so expensive. Some 90 per cent. of the costs of emergency relief to Sudan go on air drop costs rather than on what is provided for the people, so trucking is extremely important for laying down stocks, filling up warehouses and building more of them. Even if some food is diverted, we have to keep pumping it into the country because then at least the price will come down and there will not be a famine. We cannot afford to be fussy and not get the food into the country. The United States stuff is about hearts and minds—they are sending meals, with peanut butter, crackers and jam. That is fair enough, but it is not humanitarian relief.
The welfare programme is looking at very remote and difficult areas. If we can get some areas of the country in peaceful enclaves under a new Afghan Government, we can really start to supply humanitarian relief. We hope that we will be able to do that as soon as possible.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State has played a commendable part in the international aid effort in getting in aid from Pakistan, whose border is particularly difficult. She mentioned Uzbekistan; we know that the Americans have established a forward base in the north-west of the country, where presumably they have secure corridors into that base. Would it be possible to co-ordinate with the military authorities, using those secure corridors, and consider using the front-line states on the north-east and north-west to get aid to the dreadful situation in Afghanistan, as well as concentrating on Pakistan?
Clare Short: As I have said before, the military and humanitarian sides need to know what the other is doing and not get in each other's way. Indeed, the military can assist by creating safe areas, but it must not muddle the situation. Humanitarian aid must go to anyone, whatever the side, wherever they are; it must never be used as a weapon in military action.
As I said in my statement, the welfare programme is looking at Tajikistan and Uzbekistan with regard to trucking. It is not as simple as using the corridor. We have to get supplies into the country; UN staff have to go in to the country, and they have to be housed and organised. However, we are looking at the possibility. There should be co-operation with the military side, but it should not control humanitarian supplies. If the military can create safe zones, that is the beginning of the end of the problem. That is the job for the military.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I should like to return to the central issue of the closed border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In my right hon. Friend's discussions with General Musharraf, did he give her any
298
indication that he would be prepared to open the border if the coalition or the wider international community were prepared to underwrite the costs?
Clare Short: That is a very important question, and my hon. Friend is right to come back to it. The formal position of the Government of Pakistan and, I understand, of Iran, is that the border is closed and there are millions of refugees. Our country complains, yet we are much better off and we have nothing like the same numbers of refugees. People are saying, "Why don't you provide camps just on the other side of the border?", but that offends humanitarian principles. In practice, 100 camps are being prepared in Pakistan in case of an exodus because of great hunger or the consequence of fighting. So although they are saying no, they are preparing camps, and that is a hopeful sign.
Quite large numbers of people are going across the mountains to Pakistan. While I was there, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees negotiated with Pakistan's Government that people going to live in families and in communities can be provided with food aid so that they can cope. However, there is a hold-up on the border going into Baluchistan. People are coming from the Kandahar area, which is the Taliban stronghold. There has been a lot of fighting so, unsurprisingly, there are large movements of people. We must get them over and settled. We must do more. I am trying my best and I will try harder.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State is right to say that we should not be mixing military and humanitarian activities. Does she agree, however, that British and American forces have traditionally been first to help those suffering from starvation? May I press her on the open frontier? Surely it is not simply a question of Pakistan being frightened of a large influx of people from Afghanistan with which it cannot cope. As we have experienced with our open frontiers, is there not also the possibility that they could allow undesirables to flock in and add to the upheaval in Pakistan rather than helping to solve the Afghanistan situation?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. Pakistan is worried about numbers. It has had 2 million refugees for the best part of 20 years, which is putting a strain on communities, but it is worried about armed groups causing destabilisation. We all know the example of Rwanda, where those responsible for the genocide led the exodus and controlled the camps. They were provided with humanitarian relief by the international system, so the leaders of the genocide were strengthened by the humanitarian effort. Such examples do not help us and that is a part of the concern in Pakistan. None the less, we cannot have people backing up at the border. We have to guarantee to help provide all the resources and then ask for the opening of the borders, as hon. Members have said, but we also have to check that there are not military incursions and attempts to destabilise Pakistan.
Mike Gapes: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that Ramadan begins in three weeks and that the winter will come around the same time in Afghanistan and will be very harsh, calls for us to stop the air action are misguided and could play into the hands of the Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden and his

299
network, who would use the three weeks available to regroup, reorganise and hide, making it impossible for us to liberate Afghanistan from the misogynist terrorists of the Taliban and allow the United Front, the Northern Alliance to make gains and a new government to be established in large parts of the country?
Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend but, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), many of our fellow citizens are calling for a pause in the bombing not for those reasons but because they want relief to be brought in. We do not have clear reports of what is going on in Afghanistan. Many people imagine far more bombing than is taking place in that vast country. I agree, but we have to get more information to people We have to get our citizens to think about my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that we can win the argument. It is important that everyone in the House takes a part in reassuring our population that we are doing what we can and that we are bringing in the humanitarian relief so that we keep our people united behind the action and well informed.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: While I too was sorry not to see the Secretary of State in the Select Committee on International Development yesterday, I welcome her obvious determination to help the humanitarian situation in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the surrounding region. The right hon. Lady mentioned the refugee camps in the Congo outside Rwanda, in particular those around Goma. The Select Committee visited a camp outside Islamabad in 1999, which was run essentially as a part of Afghanistan. The women were segregated, there was no education for them and it was difficult to get health care to women or children. Indeed, we hear that extremist madrasas are run in some of the camps and that they may prove to be a breeding ground for extremist terrorists. Will the Secretary of State speak with UNHCR, or whoever is running the camps, to ensure that they are open, that there is no possibility of breeding further terrorism and that all people there—be they male or female—get a decent opportunity to live?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. I met the UNHCR when I was in Islamabad. It is trying to upgrade the camps. There has been a period of neglect and decline. In the North-West Frontier province, where there has been much movement in both directions, fundamentalism and extremism have spread because of the situation in Afghanistan, the drought and the poverty. I met with Ministers there who were engaging in a programme of development. As the Education Minister of that province said, the way to combat extremism and backwardness is by educating girls. We are going to partner that province, which is right on the border and has a tribal area, to progress that sort of development. That is what we need in the new Afghanistan—real education. Again, as one of the Ministers in the new Pakistan Government said, we have lost 20 years. There should have been 20 years of education in Afghanistan, but instead there has been a move backwards. We must never let that happen again.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend convey to her officials our thanks for the hard work that they are putting in to ensure that food
300
aid gets through to the refugees? Does she agree that a bombing pause—however desirable some people think it would be—would not only allow the Taliban to regroup, perhaps prolonging the war and creating more refugees, as she has pointed out; it would also, by prolonging the war, create a situation in which it would be more difficult for the aid agencies to get into Afghanistan and tackle the long-term problems that so desperately need to be resolved there?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks to my officials. My Department has superb officials. The relevant unit goes to world crisis after world crisis, dropping everything when something happens and working all the hours that God sends. They are great people and I am sure that the whole House will congratulate them on their work. They are admired throughout the world as they are some of the best at this work. Britain is one of the fastest countries to move resources around the world. I am very proud of my officials and we should all be grateful to them.
I agree with my hon. Friend's point about the likely effect of a pause and the likely prolongation of the war. We must try to achieve our objectives so that military action is as short as possible. We must keep the humanitarian action going and get the political track moving. Highly informed people hold the view that many of the armed factions in Afghanistan would switch sides if there was the prospect of a better Government, then we could start bringing the thing to a rapid end. That is the most desirable thing for the people of Afghanistan and the world. That is what we must work at.
Dr. Vincent Cable: What is the moral authority for the coalition members' demand that Pakistan and Iran should open their frontiers when they themselves maintain draconian controls on those fleeing conflict, including that in Afghanistan? In particular, will the Secretary of State condemn the hypocrisy of the Australian authorities, and will she ensure that any Afghan refugees reaching this country are welcomed and helped?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We lecture Pakistan which, as I said earlier, is massively poorer than our country and has many, many more refugees in proportion to its population, but is being asked to host perhaps a further 1.5 million. The communities—in the North-West Frontier province and so on—who are being asked to host those refugees are extremely poor and are affected by the drought.
There are Afghan refugees in the UK and, obviously, their case for being genuine refugees is overwhelmingly strong. The tragedy is that so many of them—like some in Ladywood—are educated Afghans. In situations such as this, when education in a country is limited, it is difficult for educated people to remain there; they tend to flee and are scattered throughout the world. We must welcome and care for them, but we have to help them to go back and rebuild their country because Afghanistan will need them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Following the questions about land mines and cluster bombs put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the hon. Member for

301
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), did we not hear the Secretary of State herself say that every ordnance and target had to be run before the Law Officers? Given the circumstances of her answer, which I quite understand, would it not be right that the House—perhaps tomorrow—should be given a statement from the Solicitor-General, representing the Law Officers, clearing up exactly what is happening in relation to land mines and their generic relation, cluster bombs? Should there not be a statement from the Solicitor-General to the House tomorrow morning?
Clare Short: I think I should share my problem with the House. In response to a question from my hon. Friend, the Prime Minister said that all the targets were looked at by our Law Officers. I repeated that on the famous "Today" programme interview that was referred to earlier and received a letter saying that I was not supposed to say that the Law Officers scrutinise the targets. I do not know why.
Statements are a matter for the Speaker. Of course, the House must remember that the UK is only a small part of the military operation. Because of the coverage in our media, people imagine that we are a massive part of that operation. Obviously, our Government and Law Officers are responsible for what our Government do but not for the actions of the US Government and others who will join the coalition. I leave the House with my dilemma—perhaps I shall get another letter.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I commend the Secretary of State for her visit to a zone of extreme instability and real crisis and for the realism of her report to the House? However, may I press her even more strongly on the need to ensure the stability of Pakistan, which she herself has emphasised? If there were a further wholesale migration of people into Pakistan, Pakistan's provincial, racial and ideological stability could be called into question. As the Musharraf Government have done well in exceptionally difficult circumstances, is it not time that Pakistan was readmitted to full membership of the Commonwealth and all its councils?
Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's point. As yet, Pakistan is in good shape but it needs continuing support as it has taken an enormous economic hit on its exports. The cost of shipping, air freight and insurance have all gone up, so it needs short-term help to keep its reform effort going, as well as help with any refugees.
The Musharraf Government provided a route map to the last meeting of the Commonwealth committee that monitors progress and they firmly promised parliamentary elections by, I think, October next year as their own court required. They are absolutely committed to that.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Pakistan needs to be protected and helped with the refugees that it is hosting, and a short, rather than a long, military campaign would help it too. We must do our best so that we obtain an outcome that is best for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Northern Ireland
4.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about developments in Northern Ireland. It is the statement I have often been told I would never be able to make to the House.
Yesterday, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it had witnessed an event—which it regarded as significant—in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms beyond use. The materiel in question had included arms, ammunitions and explosives. The commission was satisfied that the arms in question had been dealt with in accordance with the scheme and regulations. In other words, the IRA's act constituted an act of decommissioning under the commission's statutory remit.
The word "historic" tends to be over-used about the Northern Ireland political process. There have been so many twists and turns, so many moments of optimism and so many setbacks along the way. But yesterday's move by the IRA is, in my view, unprecedented and genuinely historic. I believe that it takes the peace process on to a new political level.
That has been recognised in Northern Ireland itself. Rarely has the whole community been so united. As the Belfast Newsletter said this morning,
"for most people. Ulster this morning seems a more hopeful place in which space created by the IRA's unprecedented move will be seized by those with political vision and courage".
From another perspective, the Irish Times said that
"a rubicon has been crossed … a historic milestone has been passed. It is an affirmation by the republican movement—in tangible terms—that it cannot operate in both the paramilitary and political worlds".
Let us recall why we got here. We got here through a widespread recognition—after 30 years of death and pain and misery—of the futility of violence. That was the spur and its memory should remain the spur to all of us.
Let us remember also just how far we have come in the past four years. There have been major constitutional changes, including the establishment of the principle of consent and the ending of Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The new institutional architecture, which has been shown to work, can and must be revived by yesterday's historic move. The Human Rights and Equality Commissions have been set up and are already hard at work. After much debate, an unprecedented new beginning to policing, with cross-community support, has been made. None of those has reached full fruition, but we were told that all of them were impossible to accomplish. Yesterday, another seemingly impossible vision became a reality.
This is the culmination of efforts by many people over many years, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach in the Irish Government, John Major, successive United States Administrations, the republican leadership, which has shown itself to have the vision and confidence to bring an armed movement to the point of ceasefire, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the party that he leads, and the smaller pro-agreement parties.
I also pay tribute—I hope it is not embarrassing—to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his colleagues. Were it not for his persistence, willingness

303
to take risks and sheer courage under attack, it is no exaggeration to say that yesterday's events are unlikely to have happened. It is a vivid illustration of the power of engagement and the powerlessness of detachment. It is those who have taken risks for peace who have achieved this progress, not those who have doubted from the sidelines. Of course, the whole House will want to join me in thanking General John de Chastelain and his colleagues. They have shown endless patience and dignity. The best thanks that we can give them is to let them get on with the task that they have been asked to discharge.
Yesterday's events opened up opportunities, which we need to seize, and also challenges, which we need to face in three areas. First, the political institutions that are the democratic core of the Belfast agreement—the Assembly, the Executive, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council—should now be restored to full operation as quickly as possible, and should operate in a stable and uninterrupted way. The decision of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party earlier today to put Ministers back into government is a helpful step in creating a new dynamic.
Secondly, we need to press on with the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. I have placed in the Library of the House the Government's fuller response to the Decommissioning Commission's report. I should mention in particular that we will complete the implementation of the Patten report, including the review of the new arrangements to which we are already committed and the introduction of legislation to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to reflect more fully the Patten recommendations.
We intend shortly to publish an implementation plan for the criminal justice review and to draft legislation to be introduced during the current Session. We will undertake a progressive rolling programme of security normalisation, reducing levels of troops and installations in Northern Ireland as the security situation improves. Our aim is to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements. That is the task that now confronts us in the period ahead.
I can today announce a step in that direction. The IRA's action in putting weapons beyond use has wide political significance. It also, in itself, makes a contribution to the improvement that we all want to see in the security situation.
In the immediate aftermath of yesterday's event, I have discussed the situation with my security advisers, including the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. There is, of course, a significant continuing threat from republican and loyalist dissidents. Notwithstanding that, the Chief Constable confirms that yesterday's developments represent a real improvement.
We therefore intend, as an immediate response to yesterday's development, to demolish the observation tower on Sturgan mountain in South Armagh; work on this has already started today. We will demolish one of the observation towers on Camlough mountain in South Armagh; work on this is starting today. In addition, we will demolish the supersangar at Newtownhamilton police station adjacent to the helicopter landing site; work on that will begin tomorrow. We will also demolish the Magherafelt army base; work on that will begin
304
tomorrow. All of this done on the advice of a Chief Constable whose integrity and knowledge of these matters is unsurpassed in the House.
There is a third priority: all paramilitary groups should now play their part in building on yesterday's progress. That is not just about decommissioning. When small children cannot go to school without being terrorised, or innocent civilians cannot sleep in their bed without fear of being bombed, the scale of the challenge still confronting us is evident. Some of the loyalist organisations have played a crucial part in the peace process. I ask them to ask themselves what they can do now to move the process forward. Whatever else happens, there must be an end to the mindless sectarian violence of recent weeks.
There are other difficult legacies of the past. The early release scheme was, I know, one of the most painful and contentious aspects of the agreement. All qualifying prisoners have now been released. We and the Irish Government have now accepted that it would be a natural development of that scheme for outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings for offences committed before 10 April 1998 not to be pursued against supporters of organisations now on ceasefire and contributing to the peace process. Both Governments have agreed to take such steps as are necessary to resolve the issue as soon as possible, and in any event by March 2002.
Piece by piece the Belfast agreement is taking shape. As the Prime Minister said last night, we are a long way from completing our journey. There will, no doubt, be obstacles ahead, but at a time when the world is grappling with the effects of the most evil terrorism and we see in the middle east the awful consequences when political dialogue breaks down and opportunities are missed, I can tell the House that the political process in Northern Ireland is alive and moving forward. To sustain that, we will require hard work, steady nerves and the continued ability on all sides to reach out and make difficult compromises. The Government are ready and eager to play their part in doing that.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement, which I much appreciate.
This is unambiguously good news for the people of Northern Ireland. I endorse utterly the right hon. Gentleman's tributes to all those whose efforts have brought about today's result. However, I should like to give nuance to some of his remarks. It is a fact that many people in Northern Ireland in both communities have, reasonably and rightly, immediately welcomed the excellent news. But it is not entirely surprising, given the suffering and horrors of the last 30 years, that a significant number have reacted to the news with cynicism and scepticism. I think that they are wrong to take that view, and hope and pray that they will come to change their mind. However, we in the House must all make an effort to consider the concerns and feelings of all the people of Northern Ireland in both communities.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what has happened is the first vital step in a process that must be completed and must continue until all the arms in the hands of former terrorists have been decommissioned? Does he agree that the next move must come from the so-called loyalist paramilitaries? Does he agree that in the

305
vital continuing process of decommissioning no one will want to make unilateral or unreciprocated concessions? I hope that he himself will not make any such concessions. On the other hand, we do not want a crisis in the institutions—another stand-off—every time a new act of decommissioning needs to be made.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree therefore that it would be highly desirable to negotiate some kind of co-ordinated and programmed process leading to full decommissioning? Does he consider that General de Chastelain's remit is sufficient to allow him to negotiate such a package? If not, will he consider other ways of achieving the same objective? Will he now give the House a clear answer to the question to which the Prime Minister did not give a clear answer when he was asked it earlier today, both by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? What happens—we hope that this is not the case—if decommissioning is not completed by February next year when General de Chastelain's remit runs out? It is only common sense to make contingency plans for that eventuality. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that that has been done, even if he does not want to tell us what those plans are?
Turning to a matter that will be of considerable concern to many in the House and outside, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his reference to abandoning
"outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings"
amounts to the promise of an amnesty for people who are now on the run? Does he accept that there was no mention of an amnesty in the Belfast agreement and no such proceeding was envisaged at that time? Does he accept that the House has never had an opportunity to consider such an eventuality? Is he convinced that such an amnesty is consistent with United Nations conventions?
I now come to another vital point that was touched on, but no more than that, earlier this afternoon. Can we have an explicit and unqualified assurance from the right hon. Gentleman—the Prime Minister was neither explicit nor unqualified on this subject this afternoon—that there will be no question of any reduction in police numbers, troop numbers and their equipment and support below the levels that the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding believe necessary to fulfil adequately the tasks that they have been given? I would very much appreciate a clear and explicit assurance on that vital matter.
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a splendid opportunity for all those involved in lesser degrees of confrontation in Northern Ireland, including aggressive demonstrations such as stone throwing, to make a contribution to de-escalating tensions and begin to heal the hatred that exists? In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in appealing to all community leaders in north Belfast to take advantage of the present conjuncture to begin to negotiate an end to the harassment of parents and children at the Holy Cross school, and to the difficulties that Protestants have recently encountered in neighbouring Catholic streets?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for yesterday's news. Any hon. Member, however healthily sceptical, who did not welcome yesterday's
306
move forward would be regarded by the entire House as rather churlish. The hon. Gentleman's fulsome welcome did not detract from the legitimate questions that he asked.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I understood the scepticism and the cynicism that will exist in certain quarters. There is indeed a degree of scepticism, which is not unuseful. After so many decades of pain on all sides, it is healthy for people to be sceptical. Cynicism is somewhat different. It is our job to illustrate to those who are dominated by cynicism that politics can work. Recognition of the futility of many long years of trying to solve problems by violent means is increasingly reinforced by making political progress and thereby defeating cynicism. Nevertheless, I understand how painful and how difficult many of the decisions are to people in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the move is the first step in a process that must extend wider and longer. It is part of a process that will take many years to bear fruit. For example, in the general political process, we have embarked on policing, but it is just a beginning. No one thinks that we will have attained the object of that exercise within a short period. When we form the new democratic institutions, they will take a considerable time to become stabilised. New powers—criminal justice and so on—should perhaps be passed down in due course to the new institutions. That will take time, and the same applies to all other aspects of the agreement.
It is understandable that such things, including the resolution of the arms issue, take time. I wish that it had come about earlier; that would have been more helpful, but now we can truthfully say that we have begun the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement.
I agree that we must ask the loyalists to ask themselves what they can do. There are those who wear the banner of loyalism and demean the idea of allegiance to any country, riot just to the United Kingdom. Gangsterism, racketeering and thuggery do not always appear on the stage carrying a banner with the words, "Gangsterism, racketeering and thuggery." However, there are other loyalists who have played an extremely constructive part in the process.
I would want not to damn everyone because of some of the people who have been engaged in what we have seen. I hear from them the response, "We may not be prepared to do what the IRA has done." I encourage them to tell us not what they cannot do at this stage, but what they think they can do. Any movement, particularly a movement away from the murderous bomb campaign that has been taking place, would be another part of the dynamic of changing the recent vicious circle.
The hon. Gentleman asked about unreciprocated concessions. There are two parts to that. Many of the things that we are doing are not concessions. Human rights protection and equality legislation are not concessions but the building blocks of a civilised society. However, if the hon. Gentleman is asking whether everyone who is part of the process expects that we should be able to move all the elements and that everyone should gain from that, I agree.
That is sensible. It does not mean that we should allow timidity to become the byword. As we build trust, which has been sadly lacking, perhaps we should all contemplate

307
whether we could move just a little further politically than we might have done hitherto. Yes, to moving forward together.
I applaud General de Chastelain and his commission. More than any, they have suffered the brunt of cynicism and sneering over the years. I thank them on behalf of the whole House and everyone in Northern Ireland—I am sure that I speak also on behalf of the two Governments and Ireland as a whole—for their endurance in staying there. They have obtained a discretion, an integrity and an independence that are vital to the process.
The hon. Gentleman repeated a question that is perhaps based on a misunderstanding and which he said my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not answer to his satisfaction. The remit of the de Chastelain commission does not finish in February. Its remit stems from the two Governments themselves. What finishes in February is the legislative framework that enables decommissioning to take place. That is an important distinction. General de Chastelain will therefore remain for as long as the two Governments wish him to do so.
It is important for paramilitary groups to build on what happened yesterday and for that to happen across the board, laterally and as part of a forward-moving process. There are many tricky problems, but it is my firm belief that the trickiest of all—moving from conflict to peace and from people who were previously engaged in terrorism to people who say that they now want to adopt exclusively peaceful means—is immensely helped by the independence of John de Chastelain and the integrity that he holds. I think, therefore, that it is wise for us to say that we will take his advice on these matters as the process continues and see what he would prefer to have happened.
The hon. Gentleman then turned to the resolution of issues that arise from the early release of prisoners and those who are on the run. He referred to an amnesty. It is important to recognise that the people to whom he referred do not fall into a single category. For instance, there are people on the run of whom the security forces have never heard, those about whom they have no evidence or suspicion and people who have served longer in prison than they would have done if they had stayed there and obtained early release. There are others against whom there may be evidence for long-outstanding charges. It is precisely because of that difficulty that we have expressed the intent to resolve the issue, but have not yet decided on the method that will be deployed. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that when we make that decision, the House will be the first to know and we will bring our proposals before it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would allow us to do otherwise.
The hon. Gentleman's other question—I am sorry for answering his questions with such fulness, but he asked them with sincerity and integrity and it is worth answering them all—was whether we take and heed advice on security matters. Of course, that goes without saying. There is still a threat out there. There are people who, unlike the IRA, which is moving in a direction that we all applaud, have stayed entrenched. Some of them are republicans and some are loyalists. We will combat them in the illegality and malice of what they are doing as resolutely as we will pursue peace with those who wish to work in partnership with us towards it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must not allow them to act as a veto on the rest of the process because of their commitment to using violence.
308
I hope that I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's questions. On north Belfast, despite all the difficulties, efforts are being made behind the scenes and many community leaders are trying to resolve a very difficult situation. I merely say this to the people who are protesting there: first, whatever they may think their grievances are, we are willing to address them. They do not have to take the action that they are taking. Secondly, and perhaps more important, to hold young children to ransom as they put forward their demands is not only wrong and should be stopped, but does nothing to advance their case anywhere in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or internationally.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I would like to say that the House obviously knows that this is a very important statement, and I want to call as many hon. Members as possible. Short questions and, of course, short answers, will be of great assistance.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: On behalf of the people whom I represent, I would like to thank the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Northern Ireland Office Ministers, their predecessors and their counterparts in the Government of the Republic of Ireland for being part of the process that has brought us to this point today.
This is an historic event. It is the first time in a century that Irish republicanism has yielded one single weapon or bullet, and that is significant. Let us not question the motivation behind the event, but rather accept the event as the gateway to the future that has been created. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that this gateway will, perhaps, produce a gun-free society in Northern Ireland, and a society free of political violence.
Does the Secretary of State agree that all of us in the House and in Northern Ireland need to encourage the loyalist paramilitaries to see that they have no cause to retain their weapons, and that they can now confidently disarm and leave the protection of any community to the proper security forces in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that it is important that the dissident republican movements adopt and subscribe to the will of the people of Ireland that this should happen? The intractable problem of the Good Friday agreement and decommissioning is the keystone to our new future.
The other matters to which the Secretary of State has referred—policing, demilitarisation—are moving along, and we hope to hear of the reinstitution on a permanent basis of the institutions. I am sure that the Secretary of State will welcome the statement made in the House today by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that his Ministers have been reinstated in their positions of ministerial responsibility today. I would like to hear the leader of the Democratic Unionist party say that his Ministers will also be restored, and that all four of the coalition parties will at long last work together as an Executive in this Administration of Northern Ireland and in the north-south bodies.
Does the Secretary of State also agree that the real victors, the real benefactors, of this process—which I hope will now move rapidly to its culmination—are the ordinary men and women and their leaders who have

309
personally endured violence and the threat of violence over the years, and who have at all times stood by their abhorrence of violence and their determination to see the democratic process victorious in the end?
Mr. Speaker: When I asked for short questions, I was expecting them to be shorter than that.
Dr. Reid: That was short by Northern Ireland standards. I will attempt to be even more brief.
I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute, his thanks and his accolade to me. I can assure him that the people whom I mentioned earlier are much more important; I just happened to be around when this happened. That is also a good caveat for distancing myself from any consequences if it all goes wrong. One of the first phone calls I received about the news was from Mo Mowlam, who was delighted. I pay tribute to her and to her predecessor.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the stability of the institutions and about the need for those decent, good loyalists to consider how they can contribute to the process. He is also right about the marginalisation of the dissident republicans. I do not believe that they represent any people, any strategy or any modern reality at all. That is why I think they will eventually be completely marginalised.
My hon. Friend is also right about the people of Northern Ireland. They have a character that has been forged in a crucible over decades. They never cease to amaze me, and I am privileged to have been asked to work alongside them.
Lembit Öpik: Despite my evident seniority in the gang of three here, I shall keep my comments proportionately brief. First, I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. Secondly, does he agree that its real historic significance is to show that, through dialogue and acting in good faith, the pathway to peace has genuinely been cleared? Many people did not believe that to be possible.
On loyalist weapons, is the Secretary of State aware that the Ulster Defence Association said last night:
"Decommissioning is not on the cards"?
The Progressive Unionist party has said that the IRA statement is seriously significant. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any recent meetings between the Decommissioning Commission and those paramilitary groups, in particular the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters? Is there any indication that they will follow the IRA's example and live up to their responsibilities in terms of the Good Friday agreement? If not, what practical measures does he foresee the House employing to put pressure on them to do so?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will take a strategic approach to demilitarisation, which his statement so rightly laid out, to ensure that those, especially in nationalist communities, who have been cynical about the Government's commitment to it realise that there is a long-term and well thought out plan to maintain the impetus towards normalisation? Will he also give his view of the time scale for moving forward to implement Patten to a fuller extent than has been achieved so far?
310
I, too, pay tribute to the many individuals in Northern Irish politics and in the House who have shown courage and great stature in getting us this far. Does the Secretary of State agree that many of us consistently supported the Good Friday agreement from the start and that that consistency has been vindicated? Perhaps most important of all, there is now a compelling argument for those who have not seen fit to regard the Good Friday agreement as the way forward to peace to change their view.
Dr. Reid: Yes, I entirely agree that we have come a long way, despite predictions that we would not be able to achieve any of these things. When I say "we", I mean all of us who are committed to making the agreement work. When we are overawed by the challenges of what remains to be done, we can do no better than look back to see how many times it was predicted that we could not do something, and how many times we have. Eventually, managed to do it.
I have no evidence that the UVF has been in contact. More important I suppose, one of its spokesmen, David Ervine, said that he has no evidence that it intends to decommission. However, I have said today that I wish people would reflect on what they could do, even if they feel at this stage that they cannot make such an historic move, and that circumstances are different. They should come in and contribute to the process, because there are many good loyalists who want that. They may have a degree of scepticism, a degree of worry or a degree of trepidation, but they are better contributing to the process than sitting outside it.
On the impetus towards a normal society, yes, I hope that we can keep up that dynamic, but it is not entirely in our hands. Of course we have the major responsibility, but we all have to work together to create the circumstances where that becomes possible. Yesterday's step was a major move in that direction. I hope that the immediate measures that we have announced today show that we are willing to respond and willing to think creatively, and politically to work with others to ensure that we return to what we would call a more normal society there.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Patten. The implementation plan has been published. The first meeting of the new board, which is cross-party, is next week. We shall proceed from there.
Mr. Harry Barnes: This is a fine statement on a fine development. Despite the Secretary of State being modest, we should congratulate him on the role that he has played in connection with it. He knows that the art of the impossible is hard work, and that goes for his predecessors, back to Peter Brooke who found a form of words that set the whole process going.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to do something else that is impossible—that is, get the IRA to operate its own amnesty for people who have been placed in internal or external exile. Nothing would be better in order to bring in the support of doubters on some Opposition Benches. There is an exceptionally good report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the matter.
Dr. Reid: I hear what my hon. Friend says, certainly on the last point. We must all make an effort to resolve

311
past conflicts and painful memories of the past. What my hon. Friend says has a degree of resonance—and, as tributes have been flying round, I think he should be thanked for the consistent contribution that he has made over the years, despite the ebbs and flows of the process. It has been tremendously valuable.
David Burnside: It appears that some Englishmen ask quite long questions as well.
There appeared to be two serious and important omissions from the statement. One related to the proposed amnesty that the Secretary of State announced at Weston Park. If we are looking ahead with some hope, surely the Secretary of State should have made a statement to the House saying that no legal proceedings would be brought against those who have served in the security forces and the Regular Army, including the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Reserve, relating to any incident over the past 30 years.
I entirely agree that we need loyalist decommissioning—the Unionist parties are at one on that—but has not the unfair treatment of loyalists over the parades issue helped, to an extent, to alienate the loyalist community in many parts of the Province? The Secretary of State omitted any reference to what he said at Weston Park about a review of the remit of the Parades Commission, which we consider very necessary.
Dr. Reid: I hope I have helped to correct the idea that we are talking about a single category of people on the run for whom there will be an amnesty. I have explained the complications, and I will not stretch your indulgence by doing so again, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on his second point. I know that it was sincere and that he thought he was making it on behalf of those who have been involved in the Army, but I am not sure that the leadership and rank and file of the armed forces want to be thought of as the equivalent of terrorists.
As it happens, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's view of the Parades Commission, although I know that there have been many contentious decisions. Indeed, every decision is contentious, since whether the commission decides that a parade should go ahead, or should be stopped or should be rerouted, one side or the other will claim that it is biased. I am eternally grateful that it has shown the endurance to continue to do that, but we are prepared to review its workings. That was encompassed in the statement at Weston Park, and I am pleased to confirm that it is still the case.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most prominent name on the list that he gave was the last, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)? Over the years, he showed that the democratic way was the correct way, and also showed tremendous courage, for which he was bitterly criticised in the House, in entering into talks with Gerry Adams. The Hume-Adams talks led to a great furore, and to the work done by the former Taoiseach Mr. Reynolds and the former Prime Minister Mr. Major.
Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we can expect to see the legislation that is likely to be forthcoming on the police and other matters? Will he also include in his accolade members of the Republican movement who,
312
by means of tremendous courage, persuaded the movement to accept the necessity of the democratic process? They had to face up to people with desperate memories of pogroms against them in west Belfast and other areas when they had no arms to protect themselves from an unreformed RUC and militant mobs.
Dr. Reid: As I think my hon. Friend will have heard, among those whom I thanked were the leadership of the republican movement. He will forgive me, however, if—although I have the utmost admiration for my friend and colleague of many years the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—I do not produce a hierarchy of tributes. In that spirit, we should remember that while the optimism derived from yesterday's events can be a great driving force for the future, euphoria is often the mother and father of disillusionment later. We should keep our feet on the ground.
It is true that the hon. Member for Foyle made an outstanding contribution, as did many others. It takes two to tango; with a complicated dance such as Northern Ireland, it takes a lot more than two to get through it. While we have had the satisfaction of saying that what happened yesterday was historic, we should have not a sense of euphoria but as a sense of dynamism and optimism to tackle what are realistically some very hard challenges ahead.
Mr. Michael Mates: Does the Secretary of State recall the promise that the Prime Minister made to the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum campaign that he would personally ensure that there was parallel movement on all aspects of the Good Friday agreement? While in no way wanting to belittle what happened yesterday, is it not a fact that this is the first move that the IRA has made, and that it has taken nearly two and a half years to make it? Has the right hon. Gentleman had any assurances either from General de Chastelain or from any of the people to whom he has been talking who represent the republican movement that this is not a one-off gesture, but part of a continuing process of decommissioning? If he has not had that assurance and he has given the quid pro quo today in his various announcements, we will shortly be back in exactly the muddle that has held us up for so many months.
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman, or the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Not yet? That is one of the many aspects of the process that are long overdue. The hon. Gentleman, who has tremendous expertise in these matters, will know that all of us would have wanted such a step to be taken earlier. I do not think that that should allow us to diminish it. All aspects of the Belfast agreement have now been started. Very few of them have been completed; all of them are in the process of organic development. We should allow ourselves a degree of satisfaction that we can now genuinely say that the insurmountable hurdle that was envisaged has begun to be overcome.
It is fair to say that, although to the House it may not have been a huge deal, to the republican movement it was a huge deal to go on a prolonged ceasefire. We should recognise that. We each carry our own history. The opening of the dumps was a hugely significant move in the republican movement's terms, too. Now that the actual decommissioning has begun, it has added a new dynamic.

313
On the specific question, the first part of General de Chastelain's report states:
"On 6th August 2001 the Commission reported that agreement had been reached with the IRA on a method to put … arms completely and verifiably beyond use."
It takes that as its starting point. If the hon. Gentleman checks the statement of 6 August, he will see that it referred to that as an act that would initiate a process.
Mr. George Howarth: I, too, urge my right hon. Friend not to be too modest. The House will know that the painstaking work that he, his ministerial colleagues and officials have put in over the past few months in bringing about the developments of the past few days have been highly significant and are much appreciated in the House and elsewhere.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider supporting the call of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and of Sir Reg Empey this morning in an interview that I saw him giving, for the Democratic Unionist party—I hope that it takes this in the friendly spirit in which it is intended—to review its one-foot-in, one-foot-out approach to the institutions? Not only would it bring considerable political weight to the process, but, as its Ministers have already demonstrated, it would bring to the Executive particular talents which are widely admired and would be much appreciated.
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend's contribution carries particular credibility as he was involved in many of the prolonged discussions and made a valuable contribution as a Minister. He is right to mention the officials at the Northern Ireland Office. They are not everyone's cup of tea; indeed, in Northern Ireland they are not anyone's cup of tea because everyone is suspicious that they are on the other side. However, I can truly say—even with the fierce competition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who was proudly acclaiming her officials earlier—that I would put mine up against anyone. They are second to none. They are deeply committed to the people of Northern Ireland in trying to ensure that they have a decent, civilised, modern democratic society there.
I wish that the DUP were fully in the process. I think that it represents a very important electorate in Northern Ireland and very important strands of thinking. I think that Democratic Unionist Members make a contribution, certainly when they meet me. Although it is not always a contribution that entirely accords with my own view, it is one that I think we cannot forget. I wish that, like everyone else, they were part of this agreement. I believe that the more pillars of Northern Ireland we build this on, the better it will be. I have no hesitation in saying that, in terms of the individual contributions they can make, they are every bit as able as every other party. There are also some outstanding characters among them, one of whom I believe may be trying to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The statement refers to what happened yesterday, but what did happen yesterday? Something happened in secret. The Secretary
314
of State does not know what happened yesterday. He cannot tell the House the number of guns that were dealt with, the pounds of explosive that were dealt with, if they were, or the number of other weapons that were dealt with. The last time we met him, the general told us that the Prime Minister would not know that information and that no inventory of destroyed arms would be given to the Government.
Today, however, the Secretary of State has produced a paper that is absolutely transparent—there are no hidey-holes in this statement. We are told that there will be new legislation, even before the new Police Board has even had the decency of being allowed to have a meeting. The right hon. Gentleman has announced that there will be new legislation in the House, although a former Secretary of State told us that the legislation would not be changed because it reflected Patten, and that that was the way that it was going to remain.
The statement also referred to outstanding prosecutions. I do not believe that any Unionist wants any member of the Army to be dealt with as a terrorist but I believe that they deserve to be taken into full consideration when those matters are under consideration. I stand up for the rights of the RUC men and those who are concerned in that matter.
There is another matter: all this dismantling of security. Work is starting today on Sturgan mountain and Camlough mountain, in South Armagh. Work will start tomorrow in Newtownhamilton. Work will be starting to demolish the Magherafelt Army base. All that is transparent; we can see everything that is being done. We cannot, however, see anything that has been done by the IRA, and we are not going to see it. We therefore have a right to be sceptical about it.
On what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, there is no coalition between the DUP and IRA-Sinn Fein. There never will be such a coalition, and he very well knows that. For him to come to the House and try to tell people that the DUP is in coalition with IRA-Sinn Fein is utter, absolute rubbish.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some elbow room, but he must put questions to the Secretary of State.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall put one very important question. Will the Secretary of State explain to me and my European constituents why they have been visited by the security forces in the areas where all that dismantling will take place, when they have been warned that there is a threat from the Real IRA? What assurance can he give them, as he pulls down their security, on how they will be protected? They did not say that that threat exists; the security forces told them that it does.
Will the Secretary of State please list the other events that have occurred in north Belfast, such as that involving the man who was shot by the IRA on Sunday afternoon? Why is that not mentioned? Why is the young person who was driven over and killed not mentioned? Is it because they were Protestants that they were not mentioned in the Minister's statement?
Dr. Reid: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman's last comment, other than to say that any death in Northern Ireland—whether of a Catholic,

315
Protestant, Jew or Muslim—is taken with equal seriousness because all those lives have equal worth. That is the view of the whole House.
As regards the commission, it is not entirely true that there is no information about the decommissioning. In fact, the report, although brief, tells us a good deal. Members of the commission witnessed the event; they are relying not on others' words but on their own eyes. They regard it as a significant event, and these are people who have served in the military. They are not armchair generals, but people who have had an active role in the military. They confirmed that the materiel in question included arms, ammunition and explosives; in other words, not one or two rusty rifles.
The commission said that the arms were put completely beyond use and dealt with in accordance with the decommissioning scheme under the legislation approved by Parliament. That means that, under paragraph 11 of the decommissioning scheme of August 2001, the commission has taken a record of the arms decommissioned and has verified the information in that record. In other words, although it is the commission's judgment that such information should remain confidential, the commission has been able to record the details of the arms decommissioned.
Finally, the commission says
"We will continue our contact with the IRA … in the pursuit of our mandate".
That means, as the participants in the Good Friday agreement agreed, the total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. It would be better for the whole House to pay tribute to John de Chastelain for the work that he has done, rather than to cast aspersions on the manner in which he has conducted it.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a perfectly legitimate question, which he put with passion. Of course advisers advise and politicians and Ministers decide, but, as I have said, before I take any decision regarding matters of normalisation, I consult with and take advice from the GOC Northern Ireland—a man with a not undistinguished military record of fighting for his country and no known proclivities towards appeasement or republicanism—and the Chief Constable of the RUC. Both of those individuals were consulted on the announcements that I made today. If it is good enough for them, it should probably be good enough for most Members of this House
David Winnick: I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and the progress made in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that we must not forget the victims of terrorist violence, be they victims of the IRA or of the loyalist murder gangs? Does he further agree that, speaking bluntly, one of the greatest blessings that Northern Ireland could now have would be if the leader of the Democratic Unionist party spent the rest of his political life trying to make the Good Friday agreement work, and thus help to undermine and destroy the forces of violence in which he has never been involved? It would undermine those forces if he took a positive and useful role in making the Good Friday agreement work and in making sure that politics instead of the gun dominates that part of the United Kingdom.
Dr. Reid: Yes of course we remember the victims, on all sides and from all backgrounds, of this terrible period
316
in Northern Ireland's history. It is precisely to try to avoid another generation of victims that we are engaged in this project, which involves so many challenges and difficult decisions. This process is about trying to avoid another 3,500 people dying, as has happened during the troubles.
Sometimes we in this House underestimate what that number of deaths means to Northern Ireland. To reveal the extent of the suffering caused, if the equivalent number of deaths had occurred in the rest of the United Kingdom, the total recorded number of deaths in Northern Ireland has to be multiplied by 40. That gives a total of between 120,000 and 140,000 people. If the same number of deaths had occurred in the US, it would be equivalent to 480,000 people.
We should not forget. As I said at the start of the statement, that should be the spark that causes us to make sure that a conflict that has lasted between 30 and 800 years should not continue to affect the next generation of people in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. I agree that I wish that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party would throw his considerable political weight behind the process.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Although I welcome what is clearly good news, will the Secretary of State accept that some of us will be very cautiously optimistic? We have been let down before, and promises have been broken before. To take the process a little further forward and encourage the Provisional IRA to decommission more weapons, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he needs to take an even tougher stance against those who have failed to decommission? They include the dissident republican groups and the so-called loyalists, both of which should be taken on once and for all.
Dr. Reid: I think that I agree on both points. Being cautious does not stop us being radical: it means merely that we have to have a degree of surety about the risk involved in being radical. There is a sense in which being cautious should not require political timidity.
One old philosopher said that the best way to approach such historically important occasions was with pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will. That would be a good platform for most of us. I see that Tory Front-Bench Members are nodding in agreement: I shall not tell them who the author of that remark was, lest I embarrass them.
We must be prepared to pursue robustly those who remain on the other side of the democratic line, who will not cross that bridge in pursuit of the peace process. Many of them masquerade under the guise of a glorified cause, but are in fact up to their eyes in racketeering, drugs, murder and mafia activities. We should not give them the salutation that they are involved in some great political cause.
Mrs. Betty Williams: May I offer my personal congratulations to my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and his predecessors? I hope and pray that matters will progress satisfactorily and smoothly, and with a higher degree of tolerance on all sides. Does my right hon. Friebd believe that the wider world can draw lessons from events in Northern Ireland?
Dr. Reid: The message is simple. It is that jaw-jaw is almost always better than war-war. A vacuum is created

317
when we stop talking and attempting to reach solutions to problems through dialogue, and that allows men of violence in.
I therefore thank my hon. Friend for her question, her thanks and her hope. I thank her most of all for her offer of prayers.
Mr. Graham Brady: What is the Secretary of State's understanding of the word "significant" as used by the commission? Does it apply to the magnitude of the political step taken, or does it imply a significant reduction in the capacity to undertake terrorist activity?
Dr. Reid: I hate to be tautological, but my understanding is that the word is used to mean "other than insignificant". I do not know whether the word is used to refer to the quantity of arms, or the length of time that such arms could have been used to conduct an armed struggle or terrorism.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read General de Chastelain's report, in which the general gives an indication of why he does not want to go into specific quantities. In our attempts to manage a peace process towards a horizon, we have discovered how difficult it is to move from A to B. General de Chastelain has discovered that too, and his opinion, as expressed in the report, is that to issue further details would not assist—in fact would inhibit—progress towards the goal of a continual process of decommissioning.
I admire General de Chastelain and his work, and I shall not try to second-guess or psychoanalyse his use of semantics. However, the fact that he has bothered to use the word "significant" should be significant for us.
John McDonnell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his knowledge of Gramsci, the Marxist. I hold out the hope that he will one day return to dialectical materialism.
The cross-border bodies are a critical part of the Good Friday agreement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now no obstacle to republicans serving on those cross-border bodies and that they should be allowed to get on with their work?
Dr. Reid: I hope that that will be the case. One reason why the Belfast agreement encompassed a solution to many problems is not just that the two communities in Northern Ireland were able to come together, although that was important, but that the Northern Ireland Assembly, through the Executive and along with our partners in the Irish Government, were able to give an all-Ireland dimension to tackling some of the practical problems without instilling the fear that that somehow imposed a constitutional arrangement. I hope that those involved will be able to do what my hon. Friend suggests in the near future.
I know that my hon. Friend will understand when I say that dialectical materialism was a product not of Karl Marx but of Joseph Stalin, and that therefore I have never adhered to that particular creed.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State tell those in Northern Ireland who, like me,
318
he might categorise as a tad sceptical, why, when considering whether the republican movement is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, they should put more weight on an unspecified event where an unspecified number of weapons were allegedly decommissioned or put out of use in an unspecified way than on the very real record of the 107 shootings carried out by the Provisional IRA during its ceasefire, the 270 so-called punishment beatings, the dozen murders that it has carried out, its gun-running in Florida, its exploits in Colombia, its racketeering and its street violence? Why should we put more weight on the unspecified as opposed to the detail? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that those on the DUP Bench apply no different criteria to a requirement for total, verifiable and visible decommissioning from loyalist paramilitary organisations than they do from republicans?
Dr. Reid: I not only take it from the hon. Gentleman, I believe it I take it, therefore, not as an allegation or an assertion but as something that I am willing to accept. From the use of the word "allegedly", it is obvious that he is not willing to accept the word of General de Chastelain. He and I part company on that. I accept the word of General John de Chastelain and I think that the majority of people in the House accept it.
Andy King: I, too, join the rest of the House in welcoming the very good news about this first momentous step in the peace process. At last we have broken through, and now our prayers must join with those of everyone in Ireland and throughout the country about the continuation of the peace process.
My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the loyalist paramilitaries. What are his views on what steps they should be taking with regard to the next stage in the peace process?
Dr. Reid: I think that the entire House is clear about what step all the paramilitaries should be taking to move forward—they should put their arms beyond use. What I said earlier in response to the comments of a spokesman for some of the loyalist groups is that if they do not feel able to do that, we would welcome them telling us what they could do. Certainly, they should desist immediately from widespread, sectarian, indiscriminate attacks, attacks on small children and attempts to mutilate and ultimately murder people. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone thinks that that will assist their cause. Although we should not be euphoric about what happened yesterday and we should keep our feet on the ground, I hope that the other paramilitaries will consider carefully nevertheless and see how they can build on the events that took place yesterday.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the Secretary of State accept that perhaps one reason for scepticism and, indeed, cynicism in Northern Ireland is that people are genuinely concerned about the level of control that the paramilitaries seem to have over the streets? Given that fact, does he accept that while verification of weapons being put beyond use is extremely important, an assessment—his assessment—of the weapons that are kept by paramilitaries on both sides, and not only by the mainstream organisations, is equally important?
Dr. Reid: Yes. It is not just the weapons that are kept, although that is significant, but the activity for which they

319
are used. None of the ceasefires is perfect. I specified the UDA and the Loyalist Defence Force because the level, scale and nature of the violence in which they were engaged was distinguishable, not by politicians alone but by others whose advice I seek in these matters, from the activities of some of the paramilitary groups—the UVF and the IRA—who, in the round, remain on ceasefire. Our ultimate aim is simple. It is to create a Northern Ireland where people's problems, grievances and political objectives are sorted out and achieved by democratic means. Given the problems that we have had and the length of time for which we have had them on the island of Ireland, while impatience is understandable, the fact that we have managed to achieve in less than a decade things that some people thought would never happen in 100 years should be a spur to us.
I will end with a brief anecdote. On Saturday night, I was in Wexford. I have to confess, although it will destroy my credentials, that I went to the opera. It occurred to me when I was there that it was May 1169 when Robert FitzStephen first landed on the island of Ireland with 600 soldiers. There I was, 832 years later, trying to play some small role in overcoming some of the problems that have persisted ever since. When we understand the nature and magnitude of what we are dealing with and add to that the past 30 years—with the deaths, misery and pain and the burden of history that is on everyone—what we have achieved so far is, thankfully, some recompense to the people of Northern Ireland for having supported this peace process. What we achieved yesterday was another major milestone in that journey.
Mr. Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State outlined a series of events beginning today—his term was "security normalisation processes". This process has been going on for many months—in fact, several years. Just as these events are continuous, obvious and transparent, what steps can he take to assure the House that the decommissioning process, if it indeed has begun, will be continuous, obvious and transparent?
Dr. Reid: I cannot guarantee success in any area. We are all putting our efforts into it, but I will not pretend to the House that the peace process is irrevocable or inevitable. Commentators write about that, but my view is that with human beings things only succeed if we continue to apply all our efforts to ensure that they do so. As a general proposition, I do not think that anyone in the House who guaranteed that the process would be a success would be believed or believable. However, if I am asked what can give us the best guarantee of success in dealing with this difficult issue—putting arms beyond use in the midst of a transition from conflict to peace—I have no doubt that it is the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning led by General John de Chastelain.
If the hon. Gentleman has a better idea of how to put arms beyond use and how to achieve that, I am always willing to listen; but if he comes up with the same solution that has been tried for the past 800 years, on the evidence, I should be somewhat sceptical about it.

Points of Order
5.50 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a succinct point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the exchanges, initiated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and taken up by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and myself, concerning cluster bombs and land mines, and in the light of my approaches to the Chief Whip, the Solicitor-General's office and, indeed, to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, would you look kindly, Mr. Speaker, on my request that, as the Solicitor-General will be in the House at 12.20 tomorrow for Question Time, she make a statement to follow up her written answer? That answer stated:
"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 time to time, on legal issues relating to the use of force."—[Official Report, 18 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1284W–85W.]
It is said that the Americans may have dropped this arsenal—this weaponry; none the less, it is also true that it came from the British base of Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean which brings it into order as a legitimate matter for the House to consider. Will you look kindly on allowing some kind of statement from the Solicitor-General tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: It is up to the Solicitor-General whether she wishes to make a statement. I have no control over those matters. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can raise the matter at business questions tomorrow and put in a bid for such a statement.
Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware from exchanges that took place earlier that the Secretary of State for International Development ducked out of giving evidence to a Select Committee earlier this week, citing as a reason the fact that she was unwilling to instruct her officials to prepare a written memorandum and despite the fact that the Committee had said that it did not require such a memorandum.
You are the custodian of our rights in this place, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be a new development, whereby a Minister declines to be cross-examined by a Committee because of the absence of a written document for whose preparation that Minister is responsible. Can you do anything to ensure that in future neither the House nor its Committees are treated in that cavalier manner?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair has no power to force an hon. Member to appear before a Committee. I heard what the Secretary of State said and I also heard what the Chairman of the Select Committee said. It seemed to me that there was a mood of co-operation, so that should assist the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else.

Relationships (Civil Registration)
5.53 pm
Jane Griffiths: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for civil registration of a relationship between two people who are cohabiting, and for such registration to afford certain legal rights; and for connected purposes.
The terms "common law wife" or "common law husband" are frequently used to describe people who live together. There are various urban myths about what the terms mean and about what rights people have over one another or over one another's property after they have lived together for a period of time. The time could be six months or two years—it all depends on what one hears. However, in British law there is no such person as a common law wife or husband; no legal rights or responsibilities are earned by people who live together in a relationship.
Before Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753, people's relationships could be recognised in several different ways, which attracted some legal and social consequences. One of the most widely known practices was jumping the broomstick. A couple jumped over a broom that was leant against their front door, thereby gaining certain legal rights and responsibilities. Divorce was certainly easier in those days because the relationship was undone by jumping back over the broom in the presence of witnesses. There is no indication of the means used to resolve arguments over the distribution of assets held in common, although probably there were no assets.
The 1753 Act resulted in relationships being recognised by law when a marriage ceremony took place in a church or chapel. Subsequent legislation widened the measure so that non-conformist ceremonies and those held in register offices were accepted.
What do I seek to do through the Bill? In July, my constituent, Rose Green, visited my advice surgery. She had lived with John Pendlebery for more than 12 years; they were engaged but they had never married—they never got around to it. They loved each other and saw no reason to change their situation. They expected to spend the rest of their lives together, but in September last year John Pendlebery died tragically and suddenly from a brain haemorrhage. That is when Rose found out that people who live together have no rights or responsibilities towards each other. She was not allowed to register John's death. She was not allowed to sign for his funeral. She even had to get his family's permission to make an entry in the book of remembrance.
Rose said:
"It was as though I didn't exist, that I had never been part of his life. It was very hurtful. He was my common law husband, my partner, my best friend, my soulmate. I feel that I am John's widow, though technically I'm not. I have no status. There's no word in the English language to describe what I am to John."
That is why I seek leave to bring in the Bill, so that people like Rose and John who live together can have some rights and responsibilities towards each other.
I am grateful for the support that I have received from the Law Society in preparing the Bill. If anyone wants to read the philosophical underpinning for the changes to the law that I propose, they could do worse than look at the report published by the Law Society in September 1999: "Cohabitation proposals for reform of the law". It can be found at www.lawsoc.org.uk under family law.
322
I have recently been contacted by the Solicitors Family Law Association which also proposes that there should be a new cohabitation law, separate and distinct from matrimonial law. Those proposals are based on the experience of the association's 5,000 members in dealing with the breakdown of families, both married and unmarried. They are members of the legal professions who work daily with people in the same situation as Rose and John, their children and families. Members of the association say that the existing law is unclear, uncertain and inadequate.
I am also pleased to have the support of the Thames Valley Police Federation. It is campaigning against inequality in the police pension scheme. If unmarried police officers die, their pension dies with them, whereas if they are married, an annual pension of one half of their final pension is payable to their spouse.
That inequality does not affect only a few people, as some have suggested. A recent survey showed that 52 per cent. of the 6,000 employees of Thames Valley police are unmarried; 40 per cent. of that number have said that they have no intention to marry. That means that 600 Thames Valley police officers, or 10 per cent. of that force's employees, would benefit from the Bill.
I also pay tribute to WPC Alison Brown of Thames Valley police. Alison has been in a stable relationship for more than a decade and, like all Thames Valley police officers, pays 11 per cent. of her salary into the scheme, yet should she die her partner would not be looked after. Alison has been leading a campaign for a change in the police pension scheme.
It is ironic that that situation is reflected throughout public sector pension schemes, while many private sector schemes recognise the rights of partners and allow people to nominate whoever they wish to receive benefits if they should die. Although I said that the situation for Thames Valley police is reflected throughout the public sector, that is not quite true. In July, hon. Members voted for our own scheme to allow pension benefits to be paid to unmarried partners. I supported that change and voted for it. It would be ironic if hon. Members opposed the Bill, thus denying others the rights we so recently gave ourselves. If ask hon. Members to consider how that might look outside the House.
Can we learn from the rest of the world? Is there anything similar elsewhere? In some parts of the world, people are considered to have a de facto marriage after they have lived together for a certain period. That is the case in most states in Australia. I considered that option, which would automatically cover all people who live together, but I rejected it. It is important that people choose to have rights and responsibilities towards each other and that they opt in.
If we look closer to home and to Europe, we see a different model of people who live together earning rights and responsibilities. People have to choose to opt in. The model is one of partnership registration, as I propose today. It already exists in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France, Germany, Belgium and the Catalonia region of Spain. Denmark has had a scheme for registration of partnerships since 1989, with the other countries following on at intervals. Virtually all our near European neighbours have introduced the change and the sky has not fallen in.

323
One concern about the Bill is the financial implication. It would amend social security legislation to place registered partners in the same position as spouses and unmarried heterosexual partners. At present, lesbian and gay partners are treated more generously under social security provision, and it seems likely that the savings to the Treasury that such a change would involve would offset any small costs arising from changes to inheritance tax and pensions.
I am also grateful for the support and help that I have had with the Bill from Stonewall and Angela Mason. Shortly after a piece appeared in my weekly newspaper, the Reading Chronicle, about Rose Green, the constituent I mentioned earlier, I was contacted by Ed and Tony who have been in a stable relationship for many years. Because he was a few years older than Tony, Ed was concerned about what would happen if he died first. I am grateful for the support that I have received from Ed and Tony in putting together the Bill, but they are not alone.
John is in a seven-year relationship. With his partner, he is buying a car, and the model comes with a year's free insurance, but that insurance applies only to what are described as "normal" couples. Therefore, John and his partner have to decide who can be insured for free—the other will have to pay.
Dick and Ben are in their 70s and have been together for 50 years. They have endured the general prejudice against the gay community, as well as some of the injustices that the Bill sets out to correct. They jointly own their home and most other assets, so they will face massive inheritance taxes that might make it impossible for the survivor to remain in their home.
Rachel has been with her partner for 21 years, and they are life partners. Rachel has just been diagnosed with cancer and, because she is the breadwinner, that has brought home to both partners the financial, legal and other concerns that they have. Rachel says that the NHS has improved in its recognition of same-sex partners, although she has also said that one is left feeling grateful rather than with the feeling that one has the right to be recognised.
Mark wrote to me to support the Bill. He said:
"Many people criticise homosexual people for the alleged frequency and rapidity with which they change partners, yet still take the opinion that a measure to support enduring and meaningful gay relationships is also wrong."
I have introduced the Bill for that reason.
An article that appeared in The Times on Wednesday 17 October said:
"Anyone who registers a death on a death certificate must indicate the capacity"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has had her allocated time.
6.3 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I oppose this ten-minute Bill. [Interruption.] I oppose it notwithstanding the comments made behind me and I do so as a Member of Parliament, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and on behalf of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) knows that I hold her in the highest respect and I accept fully her right to
324
introduce the Bill. She has mentioned a number of constituency cases, so I will mention some constituents of mine.
As the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I put my opposition to the Bill crisply and succinctly. Marriage, as the law and as the Church of England understands it, is a commitment between one man and one woman. There is no provision in the Church's understanding for anything other than such a union in marriage. As the House of Bishops makes clear, marriage is a pattern that is given in creation and is deeply rooted in our social instincts. Marriage is not, of course, the only pattern given us for a life of love. Unmarried people may have a different pattern of loving relationships that are also to be valued and appreciated.
The Church recognises that love is not only a question of intimate relationships. Married people love others as well as their partners; they love their children, their friends, strangers and sometimes even their enemies.
I respect my hon. Friend, but I wish to refer to some of the concerns of the constituents who have written me. Constituents from whatever constituency have equal rights and they are entitled to be heard in the House.
One constituent has written to say that the Bill is an attempt to bring in by another route what are, effectively, same-sex marriages. The briefing that my hon. Friend sent me on how civil partnership works in France confirms that. She says that, once registered, the partners enjoy virtually the same tax, social security and property and inheritance rights and obligations as married couples except for the fact that they are not allowed to adopt children. Couples who have a civil registration will, in reality, have all the rights of a married couple. That is also clear from the wording that states that Bill would provide
"for registration to afford certain legal rights".
Such registration is not needed for heterosexual couples and my constituent would not wish it be extended to same-sex couples.
My constituent also points out that there is nothing to prevent such couples from making wills in one another's favour and that my hon. Friend's Bill would bring about a major redefinition of what is involved in marriage.
Homosexual relationships are not new but—notwithstanding references to other jurisdictions—every society has restricted marriages to heterosexual relationships that are intended to be monogamous and for life. Were there to be such a major change from that concept, there should be not only a public debate but a referendum. In any event, the Government's position is that marriage is the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain.
I also draw the House's attention to the categorical assurance that the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), gave to me on the Floor of the House in the debate reported in Hansard on 25 January 1999, at column 22 of volume 324. He said that there would be no reduction in the age of consent to 14 for homosexual acts; that no legislation that suggested an acceptance of homosexual marriages would be proposed by the Government; and that there would be no legal adoption of children by homosexual couples. The former Home Secretary gave me

325
undertakings on all three points and said that it was not the Government's intention to introduce legislation in respect of any of those matters. I shall seek the same undertakings from the current Home Secretary.
I am on public record as being totally opposed to any form of discrimination —whether in the workplace or anywhere else —in relation to one's sexuality. However, I oppose the concept of civil partnership that my hon. Friend proposes. It would provide the same rights as those conferred by marriage, leading to an unravelling of the undertaking given to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
I shall oppose the Bill for all those reasons. I urge all my right hon. and hon. Friends to follow me in the Division Lobby.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 59.

Division No. 41]

[6.9 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Allan, Richard

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Atkins, Charlotte

David, Wayne

Austin, John

Davidson, Ian

Bacon, Richard

Dawson, Hilton

Bailey, Adrian

Dean, Mrs Janet

Baker, Norman

Doran, Frank

Banks, Tony

Doughty, Sue

Barnes, Harry

Dowd, Jim

Barrett, John

Drown, Ms Julia

Bayley, Hugh

Efford, Clive

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bennett, Andrew

Etherington, Bill

Best, Harold

Fabricant, Michael

Borrow, David

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fisher, Mark

Brake, Tom

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Brennan, Kevin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brooke, Annette

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Francis, Dr Hywel

Bruce, Malcolm

Gardiner, Barry

Buck, Ms Karen

Gerrard, Neil

Burden, Richard

Gibson, Dr Ian

Burnham, Andy

Gidley, Sandra

Burstow, Paul

Gilroy, Linda

Cable, Dr Vincent

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grogan, John

Carmichael, Alistair

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Caton, Martin

Harvey, Nick

Cawsey, Ian

Havard, Dai

Challen, Colin

Heath, David

Chaytor, David

Hendrick, Mark

Chidgey, David

Hesford, Stephen

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Cohen, Harry

Holmes, Paul

Colman, Tony

Hopkins, Kelvin

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cotter, Brian

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cousins, Jim

Illsley, Eric

Cruddas, Jon

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cummings, John

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

326

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Price, Adam

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Quinn, Lawrie

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

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Rendel, David

Khabra, Piara S

Ross, Ernie

Kidney, David

Ruddock, Joan

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Ryan, Joan

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Salter, Martin

Lamb, Norman

Sanders, Adrian

Lammy, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Laws, David

Shaw, Jonathan

Lepper, David

Shipley, Ms Debra

Levitt, Tom

Simon, Siôn

Linton, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Lloyd, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Llwyd, Elfyn

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

Lucas, Ian

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McDonnell, John

Stevenson, George

McFall, John

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McIsaac, Shona

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stunell, Andrew

Mactaggart, Fiona

Tami, Mark

McWalter, Tony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Mallaber, Judy

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thurso, John

Meale, Alan

Trickett, Jon

Merron, Gillian

Vis, Dr Rudi

Miller, Andrew

Watson, Tom

Moore, Michael

White, Brian

Morgan, Julie

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Munn, Ms Meg

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Oaten, Mark

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Willis, Phil

Olner, Bill

Wood, Mike

O'Neill, Martin

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Öpik, Lembit

Wright, David (Telford)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Palmer, Dr Nick

Perham, Linda

Tellers for the Ayes:

Plaskitt, James

Dr. Evan Harris and

Pope, Greg

Chris McCafferty.

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Bell, Stuart

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

MacDonald, Calum

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Burnside, David

Martlew, Eric

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Mates, Michael

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Mudie, George

Conway, Derek

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Djanogly, Jonathan

Prisk, Mark

Dodds, Nigel

Robathan, Andrew

Donohoe, Brian H

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Fallon, Michael

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Flook, Adrian

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Francois, Mark

Soames, Nicholas

Grayling, Chris

Spink, Bob

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Steinberg, Gerry

Hermon, Lady

Stewart, David (Invemess E)

Hoban, Mark

Streeter, Gary

Horam, John

Swire, Hugo

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Leigh, Edward

Taylor, Sir Teddy

327

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Viggers, Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Watkinson, Angela

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Tellers for the Noes:

Wiggin, Bill

Mrs. Marion Roe and

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Andrew Rosindell.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Jane Griffiths, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Simon Thomas, Chris McCafferty, Mr. Chris Smith, Glenda Jackson, Mr. David Lepper, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Dr. Nick Palmer.

Relationships (Civil Registration)
  RELATIONSHIPS (CIVIL REGISTRATION)
  Jane Griffiths accordingly presented a Bill to provide for civil registration of a relationship between two people who are cohabiting, and for such registration to afford certain legal rights; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 36].
Orders of the Day

  Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the Secretary of State, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  6.21 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In a packed parliamentary programme, I am pleased to be able to introduce the Bill this evening. The Government regard it as a central part of our drive to keep our democracy relevant to and representative of the people whom we serve. Because I know that many hon. Members want to speak and because of the late hour at which the debate commenced, I shall restrict my comments.
  When the Labour Government were elected in 1997, a record number of women Labour Members of Parliament entered the House. That was a result of the positive measures that had been taken by the Labour party to increase the representation of women. As a Minister since 1997, I firmly believe that several of the policies that the Government have adopted since 1997 came about because of the increased number of women Members of Parliament on the Government Benches.
  We have improved maternity rights and pay. The package announced in the recent Budget increased maternity pay: the flat rate will rise to £75 a week from April next year, and to £100 a week from April 2003. The period for which maternity pay is available will also lengthen, from 18 to 26 weeks, from April 2003. That comes in addition to parental leave, time off for emergencies and the same rights for part-time workers as for full-time employees. The Government have also given a boost to the pay of low-paid workers, the majority of whom are women, through the introduction of the national minimum wage—£4.10 an hour, to be increased to £4.20 an hour in October 2002.
  We have also established a national child care strategy to deliver choice by extending the provision of good-quality, affordable and accessible child care. More than 700,000 places were made available under the last Labour Government, and our target is to make 1.6 million available by 2004. We have also guaranteed a free nursery education place for every four-year-old whose parent wants it; that is to be extended to three-year-olds by 2004.
  Those are all positive policies which were introduced because of the large number of Labour women Members in the previous Parliament. We should be proud of the real progress that was made as a result of their endeavours. Many of those policies were promoted and supported by women Members and the result is a package of measures that will make a real difference.
  The positive discrimination measures that the Labour party introduced and employed in the period before the 1997 election were stopped as a result of a case brought

  329
  before an employment tribunal. The Jepson case put a brake on the development of positive measures to encourage the participation of women in our elected bodies. As a result of the case, the Labour party was unable to adopt the same positive measures for the 2001 general election.
  It is no coincidence that, in 2001, we witnessed the first drop for 20 years in the number of women elected to the House of Commons. We have to admit that responsibility for that drop rests with all the political parties that are represented here. Since the Jepson case, in answer to the question, "What are you doing to improve and encourage the representation of women?", parties have been able to hide behind the decision made in that case and say that they cannot introduce positive discrimination measures because of the outcome of that employment tribunal.
  Once the Bill is on the statute book, however, there will be no hiding place for political parties. They will face a stark choice: to do nothing and say that it will all work out all right in the end—just give it enough time—or to acknowledge that something positive and fundamental must be done and that the situation whereby women are starkly under-represented in our national Parliament and in local government has to change.
  The statistics illustrate the need for steps to be taken: only 18 per cent. of Members of Parliament are female and three quarters of councillors are male. The argument that we should leave things as they are is, the Government believe, not sustainable. We know from our experience in the House of Commons that momentum to improve representation of women can be lost once positive measures are no longer in place. It is clear that there has to be a sustained effort.
  That is not to say that there is not also a strong case for non-direct measures, such as basic equal opportunities training for selection panel members, or parties doing more to encourage participation in politics generally, at all levels and by all sections of the community. However, relying on improvements being made without direct intervention has been tried before and it has failed.
  That view stopped the House of Lords being radically reformed until almost a century after the first attempts were made. It meant that there were 24 women members of the House of Commons in 1945, and almost 40 years later in 1983—four years after the election of the first female Prime Minister—there were only 23. It was that appalling lack of women Members of Parliament that made the Labour party introduce positive measures in respect of candidate selection before the 1997 general election.
  As I said, the Labour party's approach was challenged in 1996 in the case of Jepson and the Labour party. In that case, an employment tribunal held that section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 did cover the selection of candidates by political parties. That decision is the main reason why the Bill is before the House today. The Bill will amend the Sex Discrimination Act and provide that parts II to IV of the Act will not apply to measures adopted by a party to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected as its candidates. Equivalent amendments to cover Northern Ireland are made to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
  330
  The Bill allows political parties choice and flexibility, although the measures taken must be adopted for the purpose of reducing inequality. It leaves untouched all the other rights established under existing case law against discrimination in any other circumstances, as it rightly should, and leaves employment tribunals untouched as the forum for redress. That is the simplest and most focused option available to us. An important principle behind the Bill is that it is not the Government's role to regulate the internal workings of political parties, which would be wrong and inappropriate, so the Bill does not seek to do that. We do not want to dictate what measures could be introduced by political parties to reduce inequality. Indeed, the Bill does not force political parties to take any steps whatever. It is permissive; it simply allows political parties the freedom to decide what measures are appropriate in the circumstances to reduce inequality.
  The Bill is not restricted to representation at Westminster. Although the extent of inequality varies between elected bodies in the United Kingdom, the Government believe that they all have significant room for improvement. Compared with Westminster, the devolved Administrations have been more successful in ensuring that women are represented. Women make up more than 37 per cent. of Members of the Scottish Parliament, and more than 41 per cent. of Members of the National Assembly for Wales. However, it is important that those bodies can increase, or at the very least maintain, the representation of women that they have achieved. It is therefore important that the Bill's provisions cover Scotland and Wales. I am pleased that, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, they will cover Northern Ireland as well. There have been real improvements in Wales and Scotland and we want to make sure that they are maintained.
  The Bill does not just reflect that position and deal with elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons, but—and this has received little attention—will cover the selection of candidates for local government elections. That is important, because many people serve their political apprenticeship in local government; they get used to engaging in political dialogue and debate and it may well be from their experience of local government that they feel able to stand for election to the House of Commons. I do not know whether Members share my experience of constituency surgeries, but it is clear that it is often women who campaign actively on local issues. It is women who come to my surgery to complain about things that are happening in their communities. We should look at ways in which we can involve women; doing so through local government is a positive way to allow that to happen in the political process.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if more women are to come into government, particularly local government, it is essential that vacancies be created to allow that to happen more speedily? Is he aware of what happened in the Republic of Ireland, where long-serving councillors were given a gratuity to enable them to leave, thereby creating vacancies for women? Does he not think that that would be helpful in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Byers: I have been trying to avoid the issue of councillors' allowances and pensions for the last two

  331
  weeks; I thought that that sort of intervention might come from Opposition Members. On a more serious note, I am aware of the scheme introduced in the Irish Republic, but I am not sure that we want to introduce it in the United Kingdom. However, my hon. Friend may have a list of serving councillors on Glasgow which he may wish to pass on; we can see if a local arrangement can be accommodated.
  To return to the serious point about the number of women serving as locally elected councillors, in England, women councillors account for 27 per cent. of local councillors. In Wales, only 20 per cent. of unitary councillors are women. In Scotland, a survey conducted after local government reorganisation found that just over 22 per cent. of councillors were female. Clearly, therefore, there is a major issue of under-representation. Representation in political parties at local government level is low, for reasons of which people will be acutely aware. About 26 per cent. of both Conservative and Labour councillors are women. The Liberal Democrats do better; just over 33 per cent. of their councillors are women, but most people would agree that that figure is still far too low. Some councils do well; 50 per cent. of the councillors on Islington council, for example, are women. The Bill is drafted so that political parties can introduce positive measures to ensure that more women can stand for election as local councillors, and it is important that we recognise that.
  After First Reading, I was asked what was the point of introducing a Bill when only the Labour party would use its provisions to introduce positive measures. It will quite rightly be for political parties to make their own decision, and positive measures will be introduced in different ways. However, it is important that the Bill is being introduced in this parliamentary Session because it will be next September or October that many political parties will determine at conference the method by which candidates for the next general election are selected. If we fail to enact the Bill in this Session, political parties will be unable to introduce election procedures allowing the use of positive measures. I am therefore personally grateful that the Government have been able to find time for the Bill.
  Judy Mallaber: On the point about whether it would be only the Labour party that would adopt the measures, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that, in my constituency at the last election, we had an all-female list of candidates for the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties? That was probably only because we had the encouragement of measures for positive action, and it meant that there was a woman MP. Does my right hon. Friend agree that once having women candidates and MPs is seen to be valuable, there will be pressures on all political parties to seek to use those positive measures to get more women candidates?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has made an important point. People and political parties should be able to see that the priorities of, for example, the governing party reflect the number of women Members of Parliament, as I believe the policies that we adopted between 1997 and 2001 did. The relevance of those priorities to many people, particularly women, ensures that they reflect the priorities of the country's population. One reason why we were successful at the last election is that our programme
  332
  had relevance because it built on the Government's experience from 1997 to 2001. Provided that there is an underpinning power to introduce positive measures, political parties will increasingly feel that they should use the freedom that we want to give them under the Bill to ensure a dramatic increase in the representation of women in the House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local government.
  If we look at our own experience, we can see that positive measures are the only practical means by which we can increase women's representation. I know that there is an argument that we should give support by encouraging people and providing lots of training, as of course, we should. However, the only way to achieve genuine improvement in the representation of women is for political parties to adopt positive measures.
  Joan Ryan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if success in selection and election to national and local bodies was based entirely on merit, there would be many more women in the House and our local councils? The Bill is about removing the barriers that stop women having the opportunities to succeed on merit, which is important. Opposition Members often diminish the significance of such measures to diminish women who want to put themselves forward but face huge barriers.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill will give political parties that freedom and break down the barriers that exist. We must be honest enough in the debate to recognise that, whether we like it or not, those barriers are present in political parties. We must take on the arguments. The Bill will allow parties to have a debate about the positive measures that should be taken. Some political parties will resist positive measures. That will be their decision, but because we are removing the effect of the Jepson decision, there will be no hiding place for political parties. They will have to account to the electorate for any continuing under-representation of women on their Benches. That will be reflected in the way in which people vote in the general election.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: Yes, of course. I know that the hon. Gentleman has some interesting ideas on the subject.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that I have some interesting ideas, and that I will have the opportunity to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye in order to explain them a little more. At this point, I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's ideas. There are different methods of positive action. Parties may choose whether or not to introduce positive action, and they may choose different forms of positive action. To what extent might the Secretary of State contemplate the Labour party taking positive action? Is he advocating a return to the system of 1993–96 and women-only shortlists? More to the point, if he were advocating such a thing, does he think that, notwithstanding the Bill, it would be liable to challenge under the equal treatment directive?
  Mr. Byers: Clearly, it will be a matter for individual political parties to decide on any measures that they want

  333
  to take by way of positive discrimination. We have carefully considered the methods that the various parties have used. The Liberal Democrats have used particular methods for particular elections. In the run-up to the 1997 election, we had all-women shortlists. All those have been examined in relation to the equal treatment directive. The legal advice that we have received is that, provided positive action is proportionate to the issue, there will be no legal problem.
  To understand why positive measures are necessary, we need only look at the level of women's representation in the House: 23 per cent. of Labour Members of Parliament are women. For the Conservatives, the figure is just over 8 per cent., and for the Liberal Democrats, just over 9 per cent. The Liberal Democrat conference was told last month that if just 4,149 votes had gone the other way, the Liberal Democrats would have had no women Members of Parliament at all. That shows how fragile women's representation is on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  Mr. Peter Duncan rose—
  Mr. Byers: I am about to conclude, as I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
  The Bill will allow political parties to take positive action. The Government believe that it is right to give political parties that freedom. I hope that the Bill will be supported in all parts of the House, and that we can send out a clear signal that the status quo is simply not an option, that action must be taken, and that the issue of women's under-representation must be addressed as a priority. That is what the Bill will achieve. I commend it to the House.
  6.43 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill. I listened with great interest to the opening speech by the Secretary of State, including the long list of measures that he read out which the Government have taken to help women into the workplace. No one in the House is in any doubt of his personal commitment to keeping women in the workplace.
  The Bill is an enabling Bill designed to allow political parties the freedom to take positive action to try to secure a greater representation of women as Members of the House. I make it clear from the start that the official Opposition will not oppose the Bill. That is a position that we struck as a party when the Bill was first mooted before the election, and I am pleased to confirm that position today. We support both the aim and the principle that underlie the legislation—the aim to get more women into Parliament, and the principle that political parties should have the freedom to decide how to achieve that and to determine their own selection procedures.
  It may be helpful if, at this early stage of the debate, I make it clear that our support for the principle of the Bill does not mean that my party or I support the concept of women-only shortlists.
  Stephen Hesford: In that case, can the hon. Lady tell us what measures her party might take?
  Mrs. May: If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have got a little way into my speech, I will deal with that.
  334
  [Interruption.] The speech is about our position on the Bill. I will outline some of the steps that the Conservative party has taken, and some of the steps that we might take.
  In his intervention, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) illustrated the point that I was about to make. It is sad and frustrating that the debate about the need to get more women into Parliament and how that can be achieved is so often side-tracked into a discussion about all-women shortlists. There are those who, when the subject is raised, leap to the conclusion that it means all-women shortlists. It does not.
  There are those who—dare I say it?—are opposed to the overall aim of increasing female representation in the House, who use all-women shortlists in order to frighten the horses, if I may use that term. However, those who support the aim of increased female representation should also have a care not to jeopardise that aim by assuming that extreme measures are the only ones that will be successful.
  The Secretary of State referred to the fact that prior to the 1997 election and the legal challenge to what the Labour party was doing, the Labour party used all-women shortlists, but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about giving political parties the freedom to pursue the legitimate aim of getting more women into Parliament through whatever means suit their particular needs and circumstances. It is up to individual parties to assess the extent to which they have a problem and to find ways of resolving it.
  The Bill gives us and other parties the freedom from the threat of legal action and the freedom to take whatever form of positive action we choose. It is important that the Bill is permissive, not prescriptive. It does not introduce all-women shortlists, but takes the selection of candidates for election out of that part of employment law relating to sex discrimination.
  This issue often gives rise to highly emotive debate, and it is important that we lay some of the myths to rest. I am standing at the Dispatch Box not because I believe that Parliament should be rigidly statistically representative of the make-up of the population as a whole, or because I believe that without more women in Parliament, women's issues will never be properly represented. I am a firm believer that all MPs should represent the needs and interests of all their constituents. That means men getting involved in issues that particularly affect women, as well as women getting involved in issues that particularly affect men.
  I shall be honest with the House. There was a time when I never thought that I would stand up in the Chamber and support such a Bill. I am standing here because I believe there are many women who are not being selected and elected who would make first-class Members of Parliament, and that Parliament as a whole, and my party in particular, is losing out on a pool of talent that would strengthen the House and enhance its public image.
  The Bill is about more than strengthening the image of politics and the House. I fear that young women in particular are turned off politics because they do not see it as being for people like them. When I was thinking earlier today about what to say in the debate, I confess that my immediate thought was to make the point that many young women were put off Parliament because they see it as a sea of grey suits—although I suppose I am not in a position to make that comment today.

  335
  Over the years, Labour and Conservatives alike have achieved significant milestones in the history of women in the House. The first woman to take her seat in the House, although not the first woman elected to the House, was a Conservative. The first woman Minister and later first woman member of the Cabinet was a Labour party member. Of course, the first woman Prime Minister was a Conservative. Both parties can claim to have had their successes in promoting women in Parliament.
  As part of the move to involve more women in active politics after the introduction of female suffrage in 1918, the Conservative party agreed to reserve one third of all positions in the party hierarchy for women. Nowadays, I am pleased to say that women achieve positions in the party hierarchy without the need for such positive action. Notwithstanding the milestones that have been achieved, Westminster ranks 33rd in the world in terms of women's representation, with only 18 per cent. of Members of Parliament in this House being women, as the Secretary of State said.
  Helen Jackson: The hon. Lady is making a very supportive speech. She has declared her backing of the Bill and her interest in it. However, does she not feel that the whole of her parliamentary party should be seen in the Lobby or should at least clearly show its support for the Bill throughout the debate? Is she sure that she has the support of the shadow Leader of the House, for example?
  Mrs. May: I can happily assure the hon. Lady that the shadow Cabinet is of one mind on this matter.
  As I said, I do not advocate a strict, statistically correct approach, but I believe that we need to ask whether selection procedures in political parties are currently ensuring that women who would make excellent Members of Parliament are overlooked simply because they are women or because the procedure operates against them.
  The Labour party's use of all-women shortlists in 1997 led to a dramatic increase in the number of women in the House, although it was challenged in the European courts. [Interruption.] It was challenged in an industrial tribunal, but I think that an issue was raised later concerning European legislation with regard to all-women shortlists. European legislation has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The Secretary of State will be aware that we do not oppose the Bill, but those who understand that it is important for this legislation to be enacted believe that it behoves Ministers to be certain that it will not fall foul of European law. I trust that the winding-up speech will include a categorical assurance that that is the case.
  I would like to pick up one of the issues raised by the Secretary of State in relation to local councils. The right hon. Gentleman made a very good point about their importance as a possible route into Westminster and a good training ground for Members of Parliament. Obviously, being a local councillor is a valuable thing to do in its own right. I have been a local councillor, as, indeed, has the Secretary of State, and I know from experience that many of the people who are elected to our local councils would also make good Members of Parliament and can see from working in a council that their ambition could go further. Personally, I have always felt that we should encourage councillors to look to Westminster and consider coming here.
  336
  I have already emphasised that the Bill is about the principle of allowing political parties to take positive action to encourage the election of more women to Parliament. Thus, as the Secretary of State said, its timing is significant. It is important that it is introduced early in the current Parliament to enable political parties to make decisions about their selection procedures. That applies especially in respect of the next general election, although other elections are coming along, such as those for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and so on.
  A number of measures can be taken. Before the last election, the Conservative party had a policy of encouraging our constituency associations to interview at least the same proportion of women as applied for the seat. We are now in the process of reconsidering our selection procedures to see what further measures need to be taken to ensure that women are not discriminated against in the selection process.
  Charlotte Atkins: Does the hon. Lady still hold the view that young women who are considering a parliamentary career should not do so until their families are in a position to be left?
  Mrs. May: I have never held such a view or expressed such an opinion. I suspect that the hon. Lady has read an incorrect report that was featured on BBC Online some months ago. BBC Online made corrections as soon as I saw that the remarks that had supposedly been made were attributed to me, and the production was changed. I am sorry to say that a member of the Conservative party enunciated the views that were expressed, but they have never been mine and I would never make such remarks.
  Virginia Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Baroness Thatcher became a Member of Parliament when she had twin children aged six?
  Mrs. May: I am very happy to confirm that. Those who have been through the Conservative party selection process consider that the election of Baroness Thatcher at a time when she was the mother of young children showed even more the remarkable nature of that particular lady.
  Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Lady also confirm that Baroness Thatcher argued very strongly, on returning to this country after a visit to Moscow, against the provision of child care places? She did so because of the examples that she had seen in the then USSR of poor little children being taken to nurseries at 6 o'clock in the morning.
  Mrs. May: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that I have no knowledge of that particular comment of Baroness Thatcher. All I can say is that parties move on in their attitudes to some of these things.
  I come now to the part of my speech in which I can respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Wirral, West. I wish to speak about a proposal that I have made, together with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is present, as he has long been a champion of the cause of

  337
  getting more women into Parliament—as, indeed, have a number of my hon. Friends who are sitting behind me.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: And beside you.
  Mrs. May: I am very pleased to confirm that they are also sitting next to me.
  We propose a limited list that is more balanced between men and women, and which includes a proportion of candidates from ethnic minority communities. Such a balanced and limited list would enable associations to continue to have the freedom to select their own candidates, but from a candidates' list that is balanced between men and women. It has long been my contention that one of the measures that my party needs to take is to increase the number of women on our candidates' lists. A limited and balanced list would enable constituencies to choose from men and women in equal numbers.
  Stephen Hesford: In reality, we know that Conservative associations can choose whoever they want. They do not have to choose candidates from the list. If they wanted to avoid the issue and choose whoever they wanted, they could do so.
  Mrs. May: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. I suspect that he has never tried to stand as a Conservative candidate, as it is obvious that he does not know as much about the party's procedures as he thinks. There is a candidates' list and associations have the freedom to choose from people whose names are on that list, but they cannot choose from outside it. Limited and balanced lists would therefore help to resolve inequalities. I think that the introduction of such lists is a positive measure that could well be adopted.
  Sandra Osborne: Is the hon. Lady aware that, before the 1992 election, the Labour party had a policy of including at least one woman on every shortlist, but completely failed to succeed in selecting more women? Does she agree that a positive measure is required?
  Mrs. May: I accept that view. I have spoken to a number of people about the sort of measures that parties have adopted in the past. The idea to which the hon. Lady refers, which has been debated in the Conservative party, does not always ensure the sort of positive results that we are seeking. As I said, however, my party is currently considering its selection procedure and concepts such as that of a limited and gender-balanced list from which associations can choose their candidates. The number of women on such a list would ensure that more women were selected to fight for seats.
  Joan Ruddock: The hon. Lady and I have had a number of conversations on this subject, and I well understand the support that she is expressing today. Do the proposals that she and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) have been discussing include any targets regarding the number of years that it might take for the Conservative party to increase the number of women by, say, 20 per cent. or 25 per cent?
  Mrs. May: The hon. Lady will know that it is always difficult to predict election results and to know which
  338
  seats one will be able to win, so it is difficult to predict the number of years that it will take to reach a particular point.
  Caroline Flint (Don Valley)rose—
  Joan Ryan rose—
  Mrs. May: I am answering the intervention that I have just taken. I hope that the two hon. Ladies who have just risen will forgive me for not giving way, as I am about to finish my speech. A lot of hon. Members want to make their own points in the debate and it is only fair to give them that opportunity. I shall complete my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).If we had a limited list, we could have a target number of seats. For example, we could have 100 seats, which were divided 50:50, so that we might be looking at getting 50 women into Parliament. We could approach the issue in that way, rather than having a target number of years, which might be more difficult to work with.
  I am grateful for the latitude that you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that we are not here to debate the internal procedures of any particular political party. However, I have raised those points because it is important to show that the Conservative party is examining the kinds of positive action that can be taken to get more women selected without going down the route of all-women shortlists—positive action that a party would have the freedom to pursue under the provisions of the Bill.
  I repeat to the Government that we share their aim of seeing more women elected to Parliament, and we welcome the fact that the Bill will clarify the legal position on positive action in the selection of election candidates. We welcome the permissive principle in the Bill that individual political parties should have the freedom to determine their own selection procedures, and I hope that at the next election we shall all be able to see the life of Parliament enhanced by the election of more women as Members of Parliament.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches?
  7.1 pm
  Glenda Jackson: I shall begin by thanking my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for introducing the Bill with such speed after the Queen's Speech. I also pay tribute to the present Minister for Women and her predecessors who, I have no doubt, worked long and hard to ensure that the House had the opportunity to debate this important issue. I say that with the slight cavil that there is something rather depressing about the fact that, here in the somewhat ironically named mother of Parliaments, in the second year of the 21st century, we are having to debate how to increase the equality of opportunity for women.
  I was extremely encouraged by the speech made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), leading for the official Opposition. I must be honest—I had expected to hear ferocious arguments emanating from those on the

  339
  Conservative Benches. In the light of the expressions of a couple of female hon. Members sitting behind her, we might still hear some fierce opposition to what is being proposed. We have a side bet running on these Benches as to who will be the first to use the words "token" and "patronising". There is not a lot of money on it, however.
  It is particularly important that the Bill does not attempt to prescribe the methods that political parties use to ensure a more honest reflection of the gender balance of this country. I was surprised to discover from the excellent briefing document produced by the Library that the gender division in the United Kingdom is not, as I had thought, 50:50, but 51 per cent. women. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead that there must be more women in the House—I realise that I am paraphrasing—to reflect those issues that are important to women. I have never argued, and I know that the hon. Lady was not arguing, that we need more women because—
  Mr. John Bercow: She did not say that.
  Glenda Jackson: If the hon. Gentleman would be rather more silent, he would realise that I was making the point that the hon. Lady was not saying that we need more women because only women can proselytise on issues important to women. I have never believed that there is something called a "women's issue". The issues that have made law in this and every other democratic assembly around the world affect, directly and indirectly, the women in those countries. Women are not an homogenous group. There are as many varied political opinions as there are women's views on how we should, dress, bring up our children, and treat or mistreat our male partners.
  To ensure that the life of this Chamber makes a continuing and energising contribution to the democracy of this and other nation states, it is important that we begin to reflect more accurately how the lives of women have changed and continue to change. I do not accept that every woman who comes into this place must be a genius. We shall not have achieved what I desire if the make-up of this place is a conglomeration of human abilities and human moralities, which in the short term would mean that everyone sitting on these green Benches would be a saint or ready for sanctification. That is not what this Chamber should be about. This Chamber should be a reflection of the democratic life of this country—its prejudices as much as its liberalities. There should be a place here for a second-rate woman, as heaven only knows there are places for second-rate men, and have been for a considerable period of time during the history of this establishment.
  The hon. Lady referred to grey suits. Young women—whether visiting the Chamber to listen to our debates, watching them on television or listening to them on the radio—regard the procedures and practices of this place as totally irrelevant to their lives. They cannot perceive anything in this place that is meaningful to their lives, or, more important, any contribution that they could make. That is why it is vital that political parties change the way in which we select our candidates. This is the central and essential issue.
  If we are going to make our democratic processes in central and local government rather more exciting to the electorate, we must ensure that democracy can grow,
  340
  develop and change. It will have to change. The world at the moment is attempting to come to terms with fundamental and basic changes. When ones reads or listens to exchanges arising, for example, out of the obscenities of 11 September, lip service is being paid to the drastic changes in the world, but there is very little change in our approach to these issues, either philosophically or morally. Certainly there are political changes, but it is one thing to say that we want change, and quite another to deliver it. That is why we have to attach and attract future generations, particularly women.
  What is a political arena essentially about? Surely it is about individuals coming together to create a society in which the unique nature of every member of that society can be fostered and encouraged, and in which everyone can live in a structured way without impediment to discovery or dissent, and without going over the precipice into extremes of violence or refusing to listen to anyone else's point of view. A political arena is about how people construct those societies, and how they develop ways of living together and supporting each other across a wide range of realities.
  Here, I have to make my only gender-biased point. It is that I believe that the lives of most women are infinitely entrenched in the realities of the exchanges between individual human beings, partly because we are expected to carry responsibility across a wide range of lives in our own countries. We are expected to be—nine times out of 10 we are—responsible for raising children and caring for elderly parents. We are expected to take the role of nurse, doctor, psychiatrist, business manager, chauffeur, gardener, plumber, electrician, window cleaner—you name it, that is what we are expected to do. We are equally expected to have an interest in and commitment to not only our immediate family but our wider community in the world.
  It has been my pleasant experience always to have met and worked with women who are only too happy to accept those responsibilities. They regard them in many ways as a privilege, because the benefits of that day in, day out exchange with human beings can be immense and, indeed, intense. Such commitment—the rooted sense of what it is to be a human being, with all the accompanying frailties and strengths—is one of my main reasons for wanting 50 per cent. of these Benches to be filled by those of my gender.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) because I very much agree with the points that she made. I shall return to them in a moment. First, however, I must dispel some of the illusions about the Bill. Its scope has been criticised—admittedly not in the House tonight, but outside. Some have said, "Why aren't we dealing with other under-represented groups?" Of course, there is a central difference between women and, for example, those ethnic groups that might think that we should do something for them. Women are a majority in this country and in our view that demands a separate approach and a separate priority.
  It is only right to refer to minorities, however, if only because we are missing the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has an

  341
  interesting view about their representation. He was quoted speaking at a No Turning Back Group dinner, whatever that may mean:
  "All this sucking up to minorities is ridiculous. There are millions of people in this country who are white, Anglo-Saxon and bigoted, and they need to be represented".
  I do not subscribe to that view, but there may be people on the Conservative Benches who do.
  I am delighted with the support given to the Bill by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who made a good speech. I hope that all parties find it in their hearts to examine carefully what they will do under the legislation, even though it is only permissive. That is an extremely important point that she made, and one to which I shall return—but first the context.
  The Secretary of State made a lot of claims about the great improvements made by the Government, but I draw his attention to the fact that, since 1997 and despite all his efforts and those of the Government to improve the representation of women in public bodies generally, there has been only a 1.8 per cent. increase in the number of women appointees to public bodies. The Department of Social Security, the Treasury, what was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Office of Telecommunications, the Inland Revenue, the Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland Office all have a smaller percentage of women on their public bodies than in 1997. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for extracting those figures from the Government.
  On current trends, the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health will reach 50 per cent. in time for a general election in 2005. The Department for Education and Skills may make it within two Parliaments and the Home Office within three. However, we cannot make predictions for the Lord Chancellor's Department, which makes some extremely important appointments, because it has exactly the same percentage as in 1997. The time taken to reach the target in that example could be infinite.
  We approach the debate in that context, to which attention has already been drawn by no less a person than the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie. She described the 1 per cent. drop in the overall representation of women between 1999 and 2000 as "disappointing" and warned of the inadequacies of the present legal situation. She added that those responsible for appointments
  "must however ensure that any initiative or positive action they take to encourage or achieve wider representation is within the law."
  We entirely endorse the Government's view that the legislation is necessary, but the debate involves more than how the parties respond to it. Getting more women to stand and getting more women elected is all very well—it is urgently necessary—but it is not enough. It is essential that, once we attract more women to this place, we make it a better place for them to work in. That is not enough in itself either, because, of course, that is not a gender issue. We must make the House a better place for everybody to work in, especially the parents of young children, and it is extremely important to re-emphasise that point in the context of the legislation.
  I have had the privilege to serve on the Modernisation Committee during the previous and present Parliaments. We have been concerned not with spending less time here,
  342
  but with making our time more productive. That must surely apply to all Members of the House, whatever their gender, age or background. Similarly, it is extremely important to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate in her eloquent speech: we cannot merely make minor adjustments to working hours and conditions—we must consider the culture of this place.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who is recently elected and obviously able to consider the matter from a woman's point of view, is able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and expand the point. Having been around this place for a long time, it is clear to me that, all too often, women find themselves marginalised and even belittled.
  During the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead, there were moments when some male Members on the other side of the House treated her in a way that they would not treat a male Front-Bench spokesperson. We must address that, because it does no credit to the House and it certainly does no good when it is seen on television or heard on radio.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I never noticed such treatment.
  Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Lady is a law unto herself and I would not attempt to categorise her in any way, gender or otherwise.
  The real problem is the culture of this place, which is a Chamber in which loud male voices tend to predominate. Let us consider what happens at Prime Minister's questions. Those loud male voices lack respect and courtesy. Okay, we understand that there are moments of high tension and high passion, but not many women want to bellow into the microphone or from a sedentary position.
  I understand that there are always exceptions, but it is not enough to say, "Wasn't it wonderful? We happen to have had our first woman Prime Minister in this country." Her husband was able to provide the facilities for personal child care. I do not think that he personally provided that care, but the funds were there to make child care available. That is not enough, however, and it is clearly not an acceptable focus for the issue.
  I simply underline the general points made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate about the culture of this place. Furthermore, the political parties must change. Members from all three major parties will have witnessed those occasions when women candidates are asked questions that would not be asked of a man in a comparable position. We all need to examine that. My own party has sought to deal with it by training and example, but I am the first to admit that we have not been wholly successful.
  Similarly, it is not enough simply to deal with the exclusion of women from the political process. We must try to retain them. Labour Members will remember the high-profile exodus from the House of a Member who simply did not feel that her place was here. There may be particular reasons behind that case, but I believe that it represents a critical analysis of the way we operate and it is extremely important that we address it. Even if it applies only to a minority of women who want to become Members of Parliament, it is a perfectly valid point that we must take into account.

  343
  In the end, the whole exercise is not about favouritism or doing women a good turn. It is about ensuring that we all, and parliamentary democracy itself, benefit from improving the quality of our work, tapping the talents of more than half the population and taking full advantage of the particular skills of those who could bring to the job something that we desperately need. I accept the point that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate made in that connection.
  I am bound to say that there are differing views in my party about the necessity for the legislation. I for one am not an optimist. Like Mr. Gladstone, I am an old man in a hurry, so I am not prepared to wait for the results of an attempt at encouragement from some of my colleagues. That is why we made a commitment in our manifesto to deal with the need for
  "more family friendly and efficient working practices for Parliament to bring a wider range of people, particularly women, into Parliament and … enactment of an Equality Act."
  At our spring conference this year, we reinforced that point.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe we need to kick-start the process, and that protective legislation is essential to ensure that it is effective. That applies equally to local government.
  I was slightly disappointed that the Secretary of State gave the impression that it was important to help women to enter local authority work because it was a useful kindergarten for this place. Local government needs the legislation for its own sake as much as we do. In comparative terms our local government figure—33 per cent.—is rather good, but it is not good enough. Our target is 40 per cent., and I hope that the other parties will take the point too.
  As I said earlier, we accept the permissive nature of the Bill. We believe that the Government had two options, and took the right one. They could have been prescriptive, which we think would have been inappropriate. Permissiveness gives the political parties an opportunity to respond to the challenge within the terms of their own party democracy and their own objectives. In making the Bill permissive, however, the Government have taken on a responsibility that they must openly acknowledge. If we take advantage of these measures, there are still likely to be considerable costs. The Government have made no regulatory impact assessment—a phrase used by them—but there is an impact on the parties, and they should assess it.
  The Government's attitude is patent nonsense. Political parties are businesses or charities, or they are both. To say that there will be no impact and no likely regulatory cost is simply wrong. We ask the Government to consider the issue again, perhaps in Committee. I assure them that, if they do not, my noble Friend Lord Lester—who I think is the world expert on this subject—will want to deal with it in the other place. In his view, the Bill as drafted does not fully protect parties against an expensive legal challenge, although such a challenge might not succeed. There is a precedent, in the Neill recommendations on the funding and registration of political parties, for the Government to accept that this is a perfectly legitimate use of public funds.
  The Minister who will reply may wish to contemplate the fact that his party is likely to be first in the dock. I think that the Government should come clean. They will
  344
  have to assess the cost of the legal advice that may be necessary. Legal uncertainty has bedevilled this issue for many years in the case of both Labour and my party, and it is extremely important that progress towards equal representation is not delayed again because the necessary funding has not been available.
  There should be no doubt about the fact that the permissive agenda is absolutely right, but there may be real doubts about whether we shall make progress if the parties are left to themselves to defend themselves against aggrieved applicants at either parliamentary or local government level. That has already been mentioned.
  My colleagues and I are certain that these measures are necessary now. As the Secretary of State has said, other electoral systems facilitate equal representation in a way that ours currently does not. The balance of male and female members of other Parliaments and assemblies is affected not just by selection procedures but by electoral systems. In the Swedish Parliament, 43 per cent. of members—elected through proportional representation—are women. The percentages are 36.4 in the Norwegian Parliament, and 31 per cent. in the German Parliament. My figures for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are not quite the same as the Secretary of State's: according to my figures, 36.4 per cent. of those elected to the Scottish Parliament under PR were women, as were 38.3 per cent. of those elected to the Welsh Assembly. I suspect that that may be because there have subsequently been changes in the composition of those bodies. In any event, the percentages are far higher than those in the Westminster Parliament.
  Incidentally, the Secretary of State did not mention that 40 per cent. of members of the Greater London Assembly are women—again, elected according to a fairer system. According to my figures, 17.9 per cent. of Members of the House of Commons are women, whereas in the last Parliament the percentage was 18.2.
  Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the higher percentage of women in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament is due to the twinning mechanism introduced by the Labour party, rather than to the list system?
  Mr. Tyler: That may be true in the case of the Labour party, but my party managed to achieve precise equality—50 per cent.—in Wales because of the electoral system as well as our internal arrangements. It was a combination of the two.
  I do not claim that there is a magic wand. What I do say is that the Bill is urgently needed now, but I hope and believe that it is strictly temporary, for two reasons. First, there is a very welcome sunset clause. If we manage to achieve a better balance in the House, it can die the death and wither on the vine. Secondly, I believe that in the long term the case for electoral reform—of this House as well as other bodies in the country—is so strong that we will find it easier to ensure equality and a gender balance.
  The Bill, then, is temporary but also urgently required. On that basis, I hope that it will be supported by members of all parties.
  7.26 pm
  Helen Jackson: I am delighted by the introduction of the Bill, and delighted to have an opportunity to speak.

  345
  I shall never forget why I fought so hard to win the seat that I now represent. When, as a fairly mature politician aged over 50, I decided—fairly tentatively—to fight for the coming vacancy, my young male colleagues on the local council, who had been there for about a third as long as I had and had about a third of my experience, greeted my decision with the words "You? We never thought that you were interested".
  It struck me then that it was simply not in their thinking that I might be a competitor. They clearly saw each other as competitors, and were keen to get on with the selection ballot; but they had not reckoned that someone like me—although I had a great deal more experience and good sense than they—was likely to throw her hat in the ring.
  That made me think. My experience of life was substantial: for many years I spent time waiting for my children at school gates and attending school meetings, I worked part time to accommodate school hours and school holidays, I travelled with pushchairs on buses, I worked as a carer for my elderly parents in the years before they died and was generally a pretty active political and community person. All that experience, however, counted for nothing when people were considering who might represent them. From that time, I thought "My experience is relevant to politics." I had known that it was relevant in local government, but it then occurred to me that it was more important to be able to speak at national level, and I worked hard towards that.
  Women form the majority of users of the public services that receive the bulk of the funds that we parliamentarians provide, yet they form a small minority of members of executive committees. Only 11 per cent. of architects are women. Few women are transport executives, health service managers, senior civil servants giving our Ministers advice or, indeed, decision makers like us, here and in the other place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, it is an important disparity in domestic politics that needs redressing.
  Labour has struggled to put those policies into practice within the party, but we need the support of a decision at national level—we need the whole Parliament, not just the party, to be in favour of achieving equality in representation.
  The issue goes wider than domestic politics. It is important to the whole world, particularly areas in conflict. At the beginning of the previous Parliament, I was asked by Mo Mowlam to be her Parliamentary Private Secretary. She asked me to keep people here informed and to do the talking that PPSs do with Back Benchers, but she also asked me to make and to keep in contact with women in Northern Ireland, to listen to them, to hear them and to talk with them. She did not think that she would hear those voices, with the best will in the world, from her officials and advisers or from the gentlemen of the media in Northern Ireland. She gave me that fairly behind-the-scenes role, in which I was accepted by successive Secretaries of State. The four or five years that I spent working in that context made some difference to the important outcome and implementation of the Good Friday agreement, about which we have been saying, "Well done" to each other today.
  346
  I found that after years of conflict in Northern Ireland there was a vibrant group of active women at community level, active women's centres and a huge women's adult education programme. Women in the churches were working together, as were women in business, but there was an equally strong antipathy among those same women to participating in organised politics. At that time, there was not one woman here from Northern Ireland in any political party. That has now changed. We have one very welcome woman from the Ulster Unionist party here today. It was clear in those days that that was not really on that party's agenda.
  We are now in another difficult world conflict. I was struck by The Guardian poll not long ago that said that only 68 per cent. of women, compared with 80 per cent. of men, were totally convinced that heavy bombing of Afghanistan was the way forward. As the Prime Minister has said frequently in the House, most hon. Members recognise that bombing a very poor country on the other side of the world will not alone be the answer to the huge difficulty that we face. Now is the time to be hearing, to be listening to and to be talking with women around the world—in Islamic countries, but also elsewhere—about the longer-term outcome and how we get through the international crisis.
  Many people who had the privilege of attending the United Nations Beijing conference for women and the follow-up conference said that one of the most moving elements of the meetings was the chance to talk to women from the Islamic world and from other parts of the world with a different cultural viewpoint. They were able to come together around the big issues that unite women worldwide—children, caring, education, health—and talk together from totally different viewpoints of poverty and wealth. Now is the time to make it clear that this mother of Parliaments is the right place to say that women's voices are crucial in politics both here and worldwide.
  7.35 pm
  Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I share many of the views of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) about the particular strengths of women and the degree of suffering and disadvantage of women in many parts of the world.
  I need to declare two interests. First, I am vice-chair of the British Council. It works in many of the countries represented at the Beijing conference, in which women do not have access to the education and health care that is needed. They pay the price without any of the privileges, and much needs to be done. Secondly, I am chair of a not-for-profit public sector practice of recruitment headhunters, so I speak with special knowledge of and commitment to the role of women. Of course, my ministerial life was very much involved with trying to secure more female appointments. On the basis of that, and feeling strongly about the need for more women in Parliament, I hope that hon. Members will understand why I have some reservations about where the Bill may lead.
  I feel passionately about women playing an active part. Much more can be done. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about the Government's failure to deliver on their objective to appoint more women to the public sector. One of the measures that I

  347
  took when I became a Minister at the Department of Health was to insist that the NHS joined Opportunity 2000—the biggest employer of women in the world should be the best employer of women in the world. To a degree of ribaldry, particularly from my own colleagues, I insisted that we joined and set targets. Those targets were monitored and for the most part delivered.
  Thirty-nine per cent. of non-executive appointments were filled by women in 1994. The percentage of women who were chairs of new NHS trusts rose to more than 30 per cent. We exceeded the targets. We did so because I had two magnificent women as my allies: Dame Rennie Fritchie, now the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege. Together we tried to ensure that coaching, mentoring and encouraging schemes were introduced throughout the NHS. Far more women were appointed to non-executive posts. Among them were familiar names such as Baroness Dean, Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman, my noble Friend Baroness Park, Ruth Deetch and Julia Neuberger. When people are committed to finding women who have talent and merit, it can be done. However, no one suggested that the programme that we set in place was unlawful. My concern is that Parliament is proposing to change the rules for political parties, but not for the rest of the country.
  One of the areas in which I was particularly involved was the encouraging of a rise in the number of female consultants. I must declare another interest. As a junior gynaecologist, my daughter benefits from the supernumerary specialist registrar scheme for women doctors with young children, which I understand is now under threat. That practical measure was available to help people to combine their careers, overcome obstacles and end up, I hope, as hospital consultants.
  I do not believe that we should act only for Members of Parliament. I dare say that the people of this country care rather more about teachers, for example, than they do about Members of Parliament. I say that with regret, and I am very proud to be a Member of Parliament, but I believe that an opinion poll of our constituents would show that teachers receive a higher rating than we do.
  Having spent my previous career working in the inner city, in a child guidance unit and as the chairman of a juvenile court, I very much share the view that many children with fragmented families have no male role model. I therefore feel very strongly that there is a real child welfare and development issue at primary schools where there are no male teachers. Yet we are not proposing to have all-male shortlists for primary schools.
  My worry is what the public will make of our passing legislation that is specifically for Members of Parliament when we are not prepared to pass similar legislation for other professional groups. I believe that if the legislation has to be amended, it has to be amended for a number of groups and not only for hon. Members. If we do not do that, we shall be seen to be giving ourselves different and preferential treatment.
  Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I believe that when there is a time limit on Back-Bench speeches hon. Members no longer lose time by allowing interventions. Does the right hon. Lady
  348
  not see a distinction between elected office and paid employment in other professions? It is the representative nature of the job that we do that sets us apart.
  Virginia Bottomley: I find that a very dubious argument. I am very concerned about child development. Indeed, I am as concerned about children being raised with a good experience of both men and women as I am about women being represented proportionally in this place.
  Although I want Parliament to do much more on the issue, I recognise that we have already come a long way. Margot Asquith, a Liberal Prime Minister's wife, said:
  "No amount of education will make women first-rate politicians. Can you see a woman becoming Prime Minister? I cannot imagine a greater calamity for these islands than to be put under the guidance of a woman in 10 Downing Street."
  Margot Asquith died in 1945. One of the people who most influenced me in my parliamentary journey was the late Baroness Seear, who was bitterly opposed to special measures for women. Her view was that, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, an hon. Member's job is to represent their constituency, including men, women, the able-bodied, the disabled, the young, the old, the rich and the poor. The next step may be to establish special measures for those who are over 60, under 30, able-bodied or disabled. We are setting a very sensitive precedent.
  I think that the House is united in wishing to address the issue of whether more should be done on ethnic minority representation. When I was chairman of a juvenile court 30 years ago, we made particular efforts to try to recruit people from ethnic minorities to serve in the courts, so that the courts had the confidence of the local community. Hon. Members are, however, behaving as though we are quite unlike any other group.
  I have already mentioned the Liberal party. The Labour party, with its tradition of very male-dominated, white trade unions has made a huge change. I welcome the number of women Members and especially the number of women who are serving as Ministers. I hope that hon. Members can learn some lessons without being accused of having legislation that covers us but not other equally influential and important groups.
  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: I appreciate that the right hon. Lady cares deeply about this issue. Does she accept, however, that there is legal recourse for women who believe that they are as talented and able as male counterparts, but feel that they have suffered gender discrimination at work, and that such recourse simply does not exist in the political sphere? Although hon. Members are subject to sex discrimination legislation that is supposed to protect us, we do not receive any of its benefits. If we want to rectify the democratic deficit and low election turnouts, we have to pay attention to women such as one of my constituents, who never became involved in politics until 1997—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we keep interventions quite short? Time is very limited.
  Mrs. Fitzsimons: My constituent said that she now watches the House's proceedings because there are more

  349
  women in this place who look like her. Now, as she thinks that our proceedings have something to do with her, she is engaged in the political process for the first time.
  Virginia Bottomley: I shall certainly pursue that point. I believe that it is enlightened self-interest for all political parties to ensure that more women are elected. We all should and can do much more. Earlier, I gave an example of a programme for which I was responsible and that delivered results. I agree that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats have not yet delivered the results that we should, but I have been enormously encouraged by the action that my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) have taken already to ensure that we do better and learn more.
  In 1984, when I was seeking selection as a candidate, selection committees seriously asked me questions such as, "Mrs. Bottomley, if you want to vote one way and your husband wants you to vote another way, which way will you vote?" A leading Liberal Democrat in the Isle of Wight wrote to the local paper to ask, "Why is Mrs. Bottomley going round meetings, factories and schools? Why is she not making supper for her children?" My children sharply replied, "Mum, she hasn't tried your suppers."
  I endorse the comments of the previous Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, when she talked about the danger of the appearance that hon. Members were too concerned about their own convenience and not sufficiently concerned about their duties to the House. In the case of women parliamentarians, I worry that if we go too far in trying to seem that we are quite unlike any other group, we shall alienate the public rather than gaining their support. What we must have and can deliver is far more women in Parliament. Women are not only the majority but, as recent education results have shown us, the brighter part of the population.
  7.46 pm
  Joan Ruddock: Last week, I asked the Prime Minister a question, which is not something that I do very often. It was a topical, serious question, but before I got half way through the preamble, there were hearty guffaws from Opposition Members. I exempt from that behaviour the Opposition Members who are here for this debate.
  In my question, I said that I was concerned that all the people who had been brought together to form a post-Taliban Government were men. I asked the Prime Minister if he would examine the mechanisms that had truly enabled women's voices to be heard in the political transitions in South Africa and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) said, in Northern Ireland. The knee-jerk reaction from Opposition Members was very important and very telling, as was the parliamentary sketch in the following morning's edition of The Independent, which joked about
  "All Women Shortlists in Kabul".
  The brutal suppression of women in Afghanistan is designed to make them invisible in that society. For political commentators to express incredulity at the
  350
  prospect of women taking any part in a future Afghan Government only demonstrates how successful that regime has been.
  Afghan women are seen primarily as victims, despite the fact that they once had the vote. Indeed, there have been women Members of Parliament in Afghanistan and there is a long-standing and powerful women's organisation called the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan which still operates from Pakistan and undercover in Afghanistan.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Is the hon. Lady aware that, yesterday, in setting out his vision for the future Afghan Government, the Foreign Secretary omitted to make any reference to female representation, although the Opposition have been calling for that?
  Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. All women Members should be pressing for that representation.
  Being invisible is something that most women understand and many women have experienced. In her opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough gave an example of that fact when she described the reaction of her male colleagues when she suggested that she might be a parliamentary candidate. I believe that that goes to the very heart of why this Parliament is still 82 per cent. male and why we so desperately need this legislation.
  I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friends on drafting the Bill and finding time for its passage. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women could not attend this debate, but she has been hugely influential in pressing for the Bill's introduction.
  I am particularly pleased because, four years ago, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I were the first Ministers for Women, we proposed that such an amendment be made to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. At the time, controversy was raging over the twinning arrangements in Wales and Scotland, which have proved to be so successful. People feared then that there would be a Jepson-type challenge. We argued that only by amending the Sex Discrimination Act could we remove that doubt. The time was not right. The word was out; women had had their chance and it was time to return to business as usual.
  Last year, I asked the Library to undertake a variety of calculations. These revealed that, taking all parties into account and without special measures such as all-women shortlists, it would take another 30 years to get equal numbers of women and men in this place. At the rate of increase in the numbers of women pre-1977, it would take 70 years. I estimate, frankly, that if we depended on the Tory party alone, it would take another century.
  That is why I have asked questions today of Tory Front Benchers about the mechanisms that they might put in place, how effective these would be and what the future might hold. That is why, in March last year, I proposed a Bill to amend the sex discrimination legislation. It was supported by a number of my hon. Friends who are participating in the debate today. My early-day motion was supported by 124 Members from six different parties.

  351
  The publicity that that engendered attracted the usual spate of male responses. One man wrote on the subject of all-women short lists:
  "Instead of ensuring the lady candidates came from the ranks of the intelligent and achieving ladies—there are plenty about—great drafts were sent in from the Just Another Bloody Girl Brigade."
  I reckoned he had to be a Tory.
  Another, describing himself as a socialist councillor, said that he was "fed up with interferences in the democratic process" and would "go ballistic" if they were inflicted.
  Let me spend a few moments exploring these myths; the quality of candidates and the democratic process. The charge that women candidates selected from all-women shortlists were inferior was made first by commentators who did not know the women and even before they entered Parliament. It was made again, on no objective basis, once they got here. Who actually did the work to compare the 35 new women with 35 new men and found them wanting? What were the criteria anyway?
  The truth is that the real objection was to numbers and to difference. Most, but of course not all, women work rather differently from men. Women in this place have tended to fit less well into its traditions and its style of oratory. Because many of us spoke in favour of modernisation during Labour's first Administration, we raised unrealistic expectations for change that could not and should not have been the responsibility of women Members alone.
  As for democracy, selection processes that attempt to address the gender imbalance in a party's list of candidates can only be positive. When 51 per cent. of the population is female, it is a nonsense to maintain that democracy is well served by a Parliament in which women make up only 18 per cent. of the Members.
  This Bill is permissive and makes no interference with the democratic elections of the country. It enables political parties to take their own democratic decisions about whether or not they wish to put special measures in place to ensure that the electorate has a more balanced number of women and men to vote for, not just as parliamentary candidates in Westminster, but for the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, the European Parliament and, importantly, local government.
  I am certain that my party will have to readopt all-women shortlists because no other measure—we have tried all the others that I know—will work for Westminster selections and elections. It will not be easy for the party at local level and we will justifiably continue to be criticised for the fact that people from ethnic minorities continue to be under-represented. However, in the case of ethnic minorities, there is much less ground statistically to make up and I am confident that we can do that.
  The challenge of the Bill lies with the other parties. If the Opposition parties do not change their selection processes, the proposed legislation will be needed long beyond its sunset clause of 2015. Labour Members will all be fighting to win the next election, but the electoral arithmetic is clear. Women losing their seat in an election with any substantially reduced Labour majority would more likely than not be replaced by men.
  The correspondent I quoted earlier asserted that there were plenty of "intelligent arid achieving ladies" out there. Like the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey
  352
  (Virginia Bottomley), I have absolutely no doubt about that. Remarkable women are everywhere. The problem with the political parties is that they do not find them and they do not recognise them.
  Last week, I was privileged to attend the annual Women of the Year lunch and assembly. This unique event is organised by and the inspiration of an exceptional woman called Tony, otherwise known as Lady Lothian. It has been held every year for 46 years and honours 500 women from all over the country, all of whom are chosen for their achievements. The theme this year was courage. The award winners were: Pam Warren, the founder of the Paddington survivors group—the woman in a plastic face mask; Marie Colvin, the war correspondent, who lost an eye in Sri Lankan clashes this year; and Ellen MacArthur, who sailed alone around the world. These are women who can match men any day. They are all highly visible women, but there were 500 others who are much less visible.
  In many walks of life, women are making a contribution, leading and serving communities. We need those women on our councils and in our Parliaments. We owe it to them to ensure that the political parties adopt selection processes that are designed to end the democratic deficit that so distorts our elected institutions.
  7.57 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who has spoken with much feeling and made a significant contribution to the debate. She will not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely agree with her.
  I have always advocated greater numbers of women in Parliament. I have always wanted to see more women succeeding, not only in getting into this House but in holding positions of responsibility. I earnestly look forward to the day when we have a second woman Prime Minister.
  Virginia Bottomley: A Tory.
  Miss Widdecombe: Quite right.
  The Bill is fundamentally wrong. I must ask this question; are all the men in this place sound asleep? Do they realise what the Bill means for them? Have they thought that positive discrimination for women can entail negative discrimination for men?
  I am often quite sorry for men. There are lots of injustices with which they have to put up. For example, they do not live as long as we do, but they have to work longer in order to get a pension. That will not be put right for some time. Some 50 per cent. of young men getting married today will not be able to see their children through to maturity in the same household. Whereas in the past women have had it very hard, there are now a few injustices for men. This Bill will create one more.
  The Bill says that it will be permitted, that one could have—apparently we should be grateful that we are not being coerced into it—out of all the methods that could be chosen, an all-women shortlist.
  What would that mean for a man in that constituency who had given to his local council the same lifelong service that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough

  353
  (Helen Jackson) gave to hers, and who had lived in the constituency all his life? Let us say that the man had worked there and escaped from there, and that he wanted to apply for the seat when it fell vacant. He would not be able to represent the constituency if all-women shortlists were in operation.
  That would be the reality for men under this pernicious Bill, yet hon. Gentlemen welcome it as a great step forward. It is a massive step towards inequality for men, and the poor souls just let the women walk all over them. They do not appear to care what will happen to them.
  Mrs. Fitzsimons: Does the right hon. Lady accept that some of the hon. Gentlemen may be intelligent enough to realise that that has been the experience of women over the 700 years for which our alleged parliamentary democracy has existed?
  Miss Widdecombe: Women have been able to apply for seats anywhere in the country, but the Bill would mean that no man could apply for some seats, no matter how strong his claim to consideration.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I shall be equal and give way to a man this time.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful in many ways to the right hon. Lady, and take her admonitions to heart. However, does she accept that the justification for affirmative action and positive discrimination is that it would remedy the effects of the negative discrimination that exists in the selection process? Is she prepared to condemn the special discriminatory treatment meted out by some parties to some women when they tell those women that they should not put themselves forward—and that they will not be selected—unless they have sorted out their child care responsibilities? Such questions are not put to men with children who apply for selection.
  Miss Widdecombe: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when I entered a constituency selection committee and saw that most of the people there were women, my heart used to sink. We should not get the idea that discrimination against women is performed solely by men. It is not.
  I do not believe that the Bill will do little more than deny some deserving men their basic human rights. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said that there was a bet about when the word "patronising" would first be used. It is now 8.3 pm, and the time has come. If I had been in a selection committee anteroom with two men who had got there by beating off all the competition yet I was only there because a place had been reserved for a woman on the shortlist, I would not feel helped. I would feel humiliated, insulted and patronised. I am glad to say that my party never did that to me.
  I do not believe that the proposal behind the Bill is what was intended by the equal opportunities legislation of the mid-1970s. I remember that legislation, because I
  354
  belonged to that minority in my party that believed it was necessary. However, feminists in the 70s said, "Give us equality of opportunity and we will show you that we are as good as, if not better, than most of the men." Now, a quarter of a century later, we whinge and whine and demand special treatment because we cannot make it otherwise.
  If that is not an insult to women, I do not know what is. Positive discrimination is always negative discrimination against someone. I want every woman in this House to be able to look every man, from the Prime Minister down—or up—in the eye and know that she got here on exactly the same basis as he did. She must know that she has defeated all the competition, and that her path was not artificially smoothed by the removal of inconvenient male competition.
  That is the sort of Parliament that I want, and an example of the sort of women's rights for which I have always stood. I firmly believe that the Bill would create two groups of women in the House. One group would be here on the same basis as everyone else, but the other group would be patronised, helped along and specially provided for. That would create two classes of woman MP—and that would be just about the biggest danger to the standing of women in the House.
  Mrs. Fitzsimons: Would it not be a bigger insult if we had to wait another century for equality? That is how long it would take if the current rate of change in the Conservative party were applied to the House.
  Miss Widdecombe: There is no reason for the House to wait another century. There are other ways in which women can be encouraged to come forward. In the Conservative party, they will not want to do so on the basis that they will be second-class citizens in the House.
  With great respect to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I am afraid that I oppose the Bill. I think that it is misconceived and an insult to women. It would also be terrible for the future of men, and the poor souls just cannot see it. They need to wake up.
  8.6 pm
  Caroline Flint (Don Valley): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). This is my 23rd year as a member of the Labour party, and I know that the right hon. Lady is a longstanding member of the Conservative party. I am sure that, like me, she has engaged in discussions for many years about how women's representation can be increased. I have been at many conferences and meetings where all the people attending, male and female, have agreed on one thing—that there should be more women MPs and councillors. The only problem is that some men have not woken up to the fact that more women MPs and councillors would mean fewer men in those positions.
  If a level playing field existed that meant that candidates were selected on merit, that would lend merit to the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. However, that is not the reality, and later in my remarks I hope to outline why.
  I am also pleased to speak in this debate because I was chair of the Brentford and Isleworth Labour party. That was of one of the constituencies cited by Mr. Peter Jepson at the employment tribunal considering his case for

  355
  overturning the Labour party's position on women-only shortlists. My constituency party volunteered to have a women-only shortlist, and I was pleased that we subsequently elected a woman MP.
  I represent the Don Valley constituency, and I was elected on a mixed shortlist. I do not consider that my role—as a woman Member of Parliament and a woman involved in politics—is to lead the vanguard that all women should follow. My position and circumstances mean that I am an exception to the rule, and I feel that I should do something to ensure that other women have better opportunities to be represented in this place.
  We should recognise and welcome the steady increase in the representation of women in public life and politics generally, although it may not be as great as we would prefer. As someone who has worked in the trade union movement, I take issue somewhat with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). There is no doubt in my mind that the increased voice won by women in the labour and trade union movement has led to the minimum wage, rights for part-time workers, statutory holiday pay, better child care provision and increased child benefit.
  Men lead on the Front Bench on some of these issues. For example, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done much to tackle poverty in families on low pay, but it is the unsung women in our movement who have done so much to make those policies part of the Labour manifesto and the Labour Government's policies. It is no surprise that when male membership of trade unions was on the decline, unions turned to part-time women workers to become members. They have effected enormous change. My trade union is the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union—the GMB—and I was pleased to speak at an equal rights conference not so long ago. I paid tribute to all those invisible women, many of whom could have been general secretaries or Members of Parliament but did not have the opportunity.
  I was delighted that, because of women-only shortlists, in 1997 a large number of Labour women entered Parliament. Policies such as the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and increased child benefit have been part of our vision for what we could achieve in government. It is predominantly women, particularly those in low-paid jobs, who have benefited from those outcomes.
  Whatever the outcome of the debate to tackle inequality in representation, we must recognise that inequality still exists in the wider community, in this country and abroad. Job segregation, particularly in the manual sector, means that women earn 80 per cent. of men's hourly pay rates. Women still find it difficult to juggle child care and carer responsibilities and to be valued for it.
  When I go to economic regeneration meetings in my local community in Doncaster, I am faced with a sea of men, whereas the child care partnership meetings are peopled predominantly by women. The value that is placed on both those important activities is distorted and unfair. It is a sad fact that if a male candidate has been involved in economic regeneration and a woman in creating child care places, the person with the economic regeneration experience may score more points of value than the woman whose contribution has been to child care.
  Even the way in which the media portray women says something about the different ways in which men and women are judged. A radio programme the other day
  356
  referred to research done by major private companies into why women without any child care responsibilities were not getting promoted. The conclusion was that different judgments were still being made. It was said that women get promoted on performance while men get promoted on potential. Merit is not necessarily why people get selected. Too often, people say that a man will go a long way and that even though he has made a few mistakes he has potential and the right kind of face.
  Women continue to gain ground in traditional areas. There is a woman bomber pilot on duty in Afghanistan. We have seen the professionalisation of women's sports. Women have broken through in areas we had never thought possible. However, the fact remains that men run our armed services; they dominate our major sports and will continue to dominate politics for quite a while.
  The achievement of equality of representation in the House of Commons is only part of the picture. My colleagues and I also want to see more fundamental changes in the wider society, to ensure that the experience of men and women is reflected and equality is sought.
  What is so good about the Bill—and I might have liked it to be more prescriptive—is that it tries to find a way forward in which we can reach agreement across the House. Ultimately, political parties will have to choose how they want to address these issues.
  The Labour party did not take the decision to have women-only shortlists lightly. It did not happen overnight. For many years, every conceivable way was tried to ensure that women got the chance to be selected. We have had the coaching, the makeovers, the training; we have had one woman on every shortlist. At the last round, we even had 50 per cent. of women on our shortlists. However, women candidates who got in touch with me have said that the male networks operated to try and put weaker women candidates on the shortlists, excluding some of the stronger ones. I say that without any problem, because women have different merits, and not all are as good as each other. We all have differing points of view, including political points of view.
  The decision to ask constituents in marginal seats to choose women-only shortlists was a means to an end and was taken after much consideration. As some of my colleagues have said most eloquently, when we worked out the figures, we did not see how we would make any progress in our lifetime.
  We like to believe that this mother of Parliaments is at the forefront of democracy, but that is not true. We are far behind some other European countries in terms of women's representation. Indeed, the agreement at Harare in 1991 to try and ensure that 30 per cent. of representatives in national Parliaments are women has been eagerly embraced by many countries in the developing world. I was fascinated when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said today that in Pakistan 33 per cent. of those elected in recent council elections were women. We have fewer women representatives in England, Scotland and Wales, and it is ridiculous to suggest that we are leading the way.
  The political parties have to consider how to operate. Let us consider the last two elections. Of those seats which raised our total gains in 1997 to 146—and from seats like my own, in which a new candidate replaced a retiring Member of Parliament—we added only another

  357
  10 women MPs. The women-only shortlist, where the outcome was at least 50 more women selected, was the main reason for the change. Little were we to know that the endorsement of new Labour would lead to us exceeding our expectations in terms of numbers of seats won, but in fact, it reverted to type without—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady has had her 10 minutes.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) but sorry that we did not have the opportunity to hear more of her comments. In a sense, my starting point for the support that I wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in not opposing the Bill derives from the same origins as the intention of the hon. Member for Don Valley in relation to the Labour party. However we debate the principles of these matters, there is a woefully poor representation of women in Parliament. That is especially true of my Benches, but it is also true of the Labour Benches, and it is important that we change it.
  I will come on to why I think that the Bill does not necessarily suffer from some of the problems to which my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) referred. Perhaps I can go further than my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead in hoping that the Conservative party might use the opportunities available in the Bill.
  We need to do something about the situation. I suspect that in 1975, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, there would have been an expectation that, using the exception provided in the legislation for political parties from the application of sex discrimination legislation, political parties would, if anything, have been more active in pursuing positive discrimination and more successful in achieving the entry of women into Parliament than was the case for some of the other professions.
  When one thinks of Parliament as a profession, one thinks of other professions and the extent to which we, as a Parliament, reflect the nature of the society that we serve. That is why we have to allow the opportunity for more positive action. We do not represent the society that we wish to serve, and we have to do so if we are to be successful as a Parliament. If we consider some of the professions in which women have been increasing their representation, we have clearly failed. In the medical profession, 31 per cent. of doctors are women, but so are 46 per cent. of senior house officers and 50 per cent. of house officers, while 60 per cent. of general practice trainees are women. Although only 19 per cent. of chartered accountants are women—not so many—45 per cent. of chartered accountant students have been women this year.
  The law is often thought of as the profession from which so many parliamentarians have been and continue to be drawn. Of the 6,056 entrants to the profession up to July this year, 51 per cent. were women.
  358
  Something very serious is going on. For generations Parliament has been, broadly, a place to which people come from the law, medicine or other professions, but the composition of the House does not reflect the change that has occurred in society. We must do something about that. We have to allow positive action to be taken, but what sort of action?
  The issue is whether we need this legislation to take such action. The problem—the Minister can no doubt explain this better than I—is that it is unclear whether positive action can be taken. We must make it clear. We should be able to take action to treat genders—and, for that matter, races and minorities—equally. The principles of equal treatment and positive action are not mutually exclusive.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald argued that positive discrimination is undesirable because it results in negative discrimination for others. I am through the gate, as it were, so I am perhaps less vulnerable, but men should not be chary of having to fight for reasonable representation on their merits while women do the same.
  The issue is—my right hon. Friend raised this explicitly—whether, if a man regards himself as exceptionally well qualified to represent a particular constituency, given the nature of our electoral system, it would be grossly unfair for him not to be selected. That is why women-only shortlists are not the way to proceed. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made clear from the Opposition Front Bench.
  With all respect to the Secretary of State, when he answered my question, I think that he missed the point. The Labour party may wish to go down the path of women-only shortlists, but the question is not whether that is proportionate to the objective; the test will be whether, according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the Abrahamsson case, it will lead to a situation in which
  "it will be permissible to confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male competitor, provided that the candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates."
  There is a risk for the Labour party, but as political parties, we would do well to embrace this principle when using the powers under the Bill. We must ensure that where an objective assessment of the personal situation of candidates can be applied, there will always be an opportunity to override what might otherwise be giving priority of preference to remedying the gross under-representation overall.
  I will confine my remaining remarks to the Conservative party. We should set out to arrive at a system that will rapidly amend the gross under-representation of women on our Benches, but which will allow individual constituencies to select candidates on the basis of their individual merits.
  The sort of system that I advocate will operate on the basis that, until now, far too few women candidates who have been endorsed by Conservative central office have been on candidate lists. If we increase the proportion of women, broadly speaking, to 50 per cent., particularly for

  359
  constituencies that we hold or are most likely to win, we stand a good chance of requiring those constituencies to ensure that we end up with more women representatives.
  Miss Widdecombe: Is the small percentage of women on the list the result of the procedures or of the fact that not enough women come forward in the first place?
  Mr. Lansley: It is the result of both, but I will not go into the matter at great length. We need to reform procedures and we need to recruit far more women. We will only be successful in recruiting more—there are many women of obvious talent and merit in the Conservative party—if we have put in place a system that makes it much more obvious that they will not be discriminated against and that their chances of selection are at least as good as those of any man.
  Stephen Hesford: If a list that is 50 per cent. male and 50 per cent. female is issued by central office and local associations must choose their candidates from it, might not the following happen? Those associations that select first might take the 50 per cent. of candidates that are male because they could choose from either part of the list, and the rest would have to take the women who were left.
  Mr. Lansley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think that the Conservative party should have something akin to a twinning system, but on a much larger scale, and in biddable and winnable constituencies. Individual constituencies can select candidates who live in their area, subject to the consent of Conservative central office. It is a process that will have to be actively managed by the Conservative party to produce the necessary results.
  No one should be under any illusions. Under such a system, there is no question of candidates being selected who do not have obvious merit. We will be setting out to create a list of candidates, for winnable seats in particular, made up of people who do have such merits. That is why the Conservative party can use this legislation without fear of its being overturned. I fear that the Labour party may go down the path of women-only shortlists, undermine the case for positive action, and put itself at risk of further legal challenge as the equal treatment directive is amended.
  8.26 pm
  Julie Morgan: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to be here on this occasion.
  On 2 March 1998, during my first year as a Member of this House, I moved an amendment to the Government of Wales Bill that would have exempted political parties from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Obviously, that amendment was not accepted by the Government. Information for the speech that I made then was provided by Val Feld, then director of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Wales, who until recently was the Assembly Member for Swansea East. Tragically, she died in July and I pay tribute to her for the endless work that she did for equal opportunities in Wales. She would have been delighted that this Bill is before the House today with the support of the Government and all the other parties.
  360
  I congratulate the Government on producing this Bill so swiftly in the new Parliament. The need for it is self-evident. As the Secretary of State said, the general election was the last straw. The failure to increase the number of women Members of Parliament firmly demonstrated that some mechanism is needed.
  In Wales there has always been a problem in getting women selected as parliamentary candidates for any of the political parties. At present, women MPs—all Labour—represent only four of the 40 Welsh constituencies. The other political parties in Wales have no women MPs; indeed, the Tories hold no Welsh seats at all. Since women obtained the vote, only seven women have held Welsh seats, and six of them have been Labour Members.
  Since I have been involved in politics in Wales, however, women have always been ready, willing and able to stand for parliamentary seats; they have simply not been selected. It is argued that women do not put themselves forward, but that is not true. In Wales, women have constantly sought selection for parliamentary seats, but they have not been chosen.
  Women are not put off by the hours worked in the House or by its male image. They are not put off by the problems of caring for children or elderly relatives. They have constantly put themselves forward as candidates. Women have experience of juggling jobs and child care; they set up after-school clubs and run voluntary bodies. We women are used to doing myriad things as we juggle our various priorities.
  Why have women not been selected in Wales, even though they always stand? I have no doubt that it is due to a bias against women at selection conferences, even though in many cases it may be an unconscious bias. In Wales, we overcame that bias by adopting the twinning mechanism for the Assembly elections. That resulted in a Labour group of 16 women and 12 men—a unique situation. Overall, 42 per cent. of Assembly Members are women. Thus, the Assembly has the best gender balance of all the UK bodies, followed closely by the Scottish Parliament where twinning was also used. That contrasts with the 17.9 per cent. of women MPs at Westminster—a drop since the previous general election.
  The adoption of the twinning mechanism was extremely controversial. Argument raged while the procedure was being considered by the party. There was daily debate as to whether it was fair or right or whether it should be implemented. Pro and anti-twinners held demonstrations outside Labour's Cardiff headquarters. Those of us who supported twinning even had a song. It might have been rather banal, but we sang "We shall twin to win". The campaign lasted for several months, but it had the desired result.
  After the excellent result achieved for women in the National Assembly, the general election was a huge disappointment in Wales. No more women were elected for Welsh seats. In my party all the seven seats held by retiring Members went to male candidates, despite all the advantages women had gained in the Assembly where they are highly visible and hold prominent positions. Women are in the majority in the Assembly's Cabinet, but as soon as the general election came along everything reverted to type and women did not get a look in.
  Two years after that highly successful twinning campaign to get women into the National Assembly, all that effort came to nothing and we reverted to all-male

  361
  candidates. That makes the strongest possible case for a mechanism to ensure fair play in Westminster selections. That failure to make progress, or even to protect the progress that has been made, shows that equality in selecting candidates for the Westminster Parliament will not occur naturally.
  Some of my hon. Friends have talked about the different mechanisms that have been used. Many methods have been tried in my party. We started off by saying that there should be a woman on every shortlist. At that time, there was certainly one woman on all the shortlists in Wales—sometimes more than one—but no progress was made. At the last general election, there were 50:50 shortlists, yet the result in Wales was that no women were selected for those seven seats, even though no one could claim that there were not able and committed women who could easily have come to the House and played a major role—women were simply not selected. It was not even that men won four or five of those seven selections; they got seven out of seven. That makes the case for the Bill. A mechanism is needed.
  It is only through all-women shortlists that progress has actually been made. That mechanism contributed to the influx of Labour women MPs in 1997. Three of the four women who represent Welsh constituencies were selected from all-women shortlists.
  I am proud to have been selected from an all-women shortlist. When I think of the selection process, I recall the other women who were on the shortlist, what they had to contribute and the range of skills that they had. They represented different sections of the Labour party and, as has been said, women are not a homogenous group. Party members were able to choose between different political positions. I completely reject the suggestion made by Conservative Members that there are two types of woman MP. That is a dangerous way to talk.
  Proportional representation has been mentioned and I strongly support a fairer system of representation. The Equal Opportunities Commission research document on women in Parliament found that women are twice as likely to be elected under proportional representation as under the first-past-the-post system. However, PR will advance the position of women only if the political parties select women for winnable seats. Although PR under a list system may make it easier and may remove much of the stress and difficulty of choosing candidates, the parties must first have the political will to encourage the greater representation of women.
  Twinning was a one-off and it will be difficult to repeat it, especially as there are many sitting incumbents. It is important to know the Bill's timetable and when it is likely to receive Royal Assent. I fear that that might be too late to influence the process of selection for the next round of National Assembly elections, but the fact that the Bill is going through Parliament may affect the way in which selection takes place.
  If the Bill is passed, the Labour party—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.37 pm
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: I stand before the House a little wiser than I was 30 years ago. Then I believed that discrimination would disappear as more women were
  362
  educated and joined the professions and commerce. I believed that they would be able to do anything to which they committed themselves and that, gradually, the numbers of women in senior positions in all organisations would increase. I was wrong.
  In some walks of life women have been able to reach the top, on a par with men, but that is all too rare. This place is the supreme example of the failure on the part of a parliamentary democracy to achieve true representation of the people.
  The reasons are many and complex. We hear that not enough women put themselves forward and, indeed, they do not. Why could that be? The perception of this place is that it is a male club That perception results from its adversarial nature and from the laughter at people's trivial mistakes as well as from long speeches that are designed—to do what? Little is done to convince the public that anything worth while takes place here.
  In the debate on international terrorism held during the first recall of Parliament on 14 September one woman was called to speak. What was the subliminal message to anyone switching on their television that day? It was that, on an important subject of national and international significance, women had little part to play.
  Worse is the impediment here to getting anything done. Local councils have been instructed by law to modernise, and decision making takes place more swiftly there than it does here. Here joined-up thinking appears not to have even started. No thought is given to the costs of debate, as we all oscillate around decisions for month after month.
  I do not have great experience of Select Committees, but I am aware that they pass "difficult" topics such as child care provision for Members around like hot potatoes. Even a decision to do something as obviously sensible as opening the Line of Route in the summer recess has taken hour after expensive hour of everyone's time. I emphasise that I do not criticise right hon. and hon. Members, who do their best in the circumstances. It is the system that is impenetrable, and the culture allows that to happen.
  Then there is the language. A young man at a meeting recently told me that when his black friends switched on the Parliamentary Channel nothing they saw had anything to do with them. Very little of it has anything to do with me. This place is an anachronism, a series of archaic procedures. The words "modern legislature" do not ring true, do they? No wonder some of our young colleagues could not stand the thought of another term of office.
  It is also true that not enough women get through the selection procedures. Why not? It is because there is a mixture of direct discrimination and an inability to select anything that did not have a shave that morning. The male-shaped space wins almost every time in a winnable seat. So why am I here? It is very simple: no one thought I could win.
  I used not to think like this, but years of having "Mum" metaphorically stamped on my forehead have changed my mind. Given the statistics, the best candidate does not always win the selection in a winnable seat. The person who has had the time to build the party networks and can be flexible because someone else is looking after the children has an in-built advantage.
  The playing field is not even. If it were, many more women would be achieving office already. The Bill gives political parties the opportunity to implement measures to

  363
  give more women the chance of standing for Parliament and other political office. That process should not stop at elected office. Only a third of appointees to quangos are women.
  The Bill is not without risk to political parties, a problem that was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
  Some European countries have taken positive measures to ensure more even representation by women. The most successful in terms of outcome have been those that combine proportional representation with a quota system. In the House, there is less than 18 per cent. representation by women. My party has nothing to crow about, with representation by women standing at less than 10 per cent. Women are under-represented in local government, as has been stated, and especially in senior local government positions, which are badly affected by the imbalance.
  We need to stop blaming the victims for the problem and recognise that there will never be true representation in this country until we address the culture of our decision-making bodies. This policy is not about doing women a favour; it is about doing the country a favour.
  It is wrong to regard the playing field as level. The country will continue to need, and should value, the caring role that is largely carried out by women. Most women's lives are not like most men's lives. We need to measure success by outcomes and not the processes used. This country will make no more significant decision this Parliament. We lag behind democracies across the world and action is needed now.
  8.43 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I support the Bill because the requirement to improve the way in which democracy functions in Great Britain is important. Our democracy is deformed by the fact that women are inadequately represented in Parliament. There is clear evidence that the only way to change that is to introduce either electoral reform, which I support, or positive action measures such as those permitted in the Bill.
  The policy gives rise to many anxieties, one of which was eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who I am sorry to see is no longer in the Chamber. She said that men will have to move over to create opportunities for women, but it is not a new phenomenon for one sex to have to give way to another. Men in politics have long built their careers on women—their secretaries, their wives, their agents and the party volunteers who have helped their careers. Many of those women have sacrificed their own ambitions in the process. Now it is time for men to return the favour to help the political system as a whole to do a better job.
  One cause of anxiety is that a system that provides direct assistance to women produces second-rate MPs. The leader of the Conservative party recently expressed that view, saying:
  "All-women shortlists have not been a success for Labour because instead of getting people who are high quality what we have actually got is people who have not really performed for the Labour party."
  He produced no evidence to support that breath-taking observation, and I concluded that he probably did not know which Government Members had been selected from all-women shortlists. I do, so I decided to carry out some research and find the evidence about our performance.
  364
  That evidence shows that we are at least as good as our colleagues and above average in many respects. We are active participants in the Commons: more than 70 per cent. of the 35 MPs selected from all-women shortlists were in the top 50 per cent. in terms of participation in Commons Divisions during the 2000–01 Session. They ask an average number of questions and contribute powerfully in Select Committees. Two have successfully introduced private Members' Bills: my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) promoted the Protection of Children Act 1999; and the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Garston (Maria Eagle) led directly to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. Only 18 private Members' Bills became law in the last Parliament.
  Women MPs are persistent and, as the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions acknowledged, they have helped to ensure that Government policy reflects women's concerns. A parliamentary answer I received on 13 March stated that Budgets set during the last Parliament had improved the incomes of women on average by £440, and of men by £225—showing that we are doing our bit as a Government to ease the income gap between men and women.
  Many MPs who were selected from all-women shortlists have been promoted since 1997, so clearly someone thinks we are doing a good job. Eight have been invited to become Ministers and seven have accepted the promotion; 16 have been Parliamentary Private Secretaries. A comparison with other Members elected at the same time reveals that the same proportion of both groups have become Ministers, and a rather larger proportion of MPs selected from women-only shortlists have become Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
  Something close to the heart of every single Member of Parliament is elections. We have done especially well in that respect. Women selected from women-only shortlists have performed better than other Labour candidates. About a third of us increased our share of the vote, in common with about a third of Labour candidates; but candidates who had been selected from women-only shortlists achieved a higher than average share of the vote for Labour.
  Why is all that relevant? MORI reported that only half of the female population expresses any interest in politics, compared with two thirds of men. Figures that are clearly connected to that suggest that 3 per cent. fewer women than men voted in the general election. Compelling research supports the assertion that women think that women politicians are more in touch with what they care about, their lives and their concerns. I think that a strong argument can be made that women in Parliament will help to re-engage women with politics.
  There is compelling evidence that unless we take direct action—and take the brickbats of those who say that because we were selected from women—only shortlists we must be second-class MPs—we will not have more women in Parliament. We can disagree about the specific tactics required in individual parties, but we all know that the good intentions expressed by every party so far have failed. We need more than good intentions and half-hearted measures.
  I think that we will pass the Bill tonight, but for many of us its enactment will mark only the start of our work. The next challenge will be to win support within our

  365
  parties for the action that the Bill permits. It is unusual for politicians to stress the things that they have in common, but women in every party face the same problems. I have talked to women in other parties who, if the selection system was fair, would be in the House. I think of Jean Lucas, the formidable Tory agent in Wandsworth, and my sister who, I am quite glad, is not a Liberal Democrat MP. Women who read reports by the Bow Group or the Centre for Policy Studies about the struggles of women in the Conservative party to be selected, or who listen to accounts of what went on at the recent Liberal Democrat conference, will have twinges of painful recognition.
  We have all been present when someone arrives in the middle of debate, not having heard what was said, and starts muttering critical remarks in a corner. That happens in our party meetings as well as the Chamber. Members on both sides of the House must discuss how they are going to achieve whatever system is right for the culture of their party and how they are going to get more women in Parliament. Unless we take positive action we will not be able to repair the fault in our democracy; at the moment, we have a men's democracy, not a people's democracy. The only way to repair that fault is for every party to design a system that will guarantee to increase the proportion of women standing on its behalf in elections. Frankly, we all know that if we do not, a phenomenon which I suspect worries everyone equally in the Chamber and was obvious in the poor participation in the last election, when only a small number of people bothered to vote, will become more serious. Democracy is democracy only when Members of Parliament genuinely represent their constituencies; we can represent them fully only if our constituents participate in the business of putting us here.
  The Bill is about who the parties offer our constituents. We are equal as MPs because we are all chosen by the people who live in our constituencies, and we should all be proud of representing them. No one here is second-class, but until we get politics in the House of Commons that make sense to our constituents, we will fail the principle of democracy.
  8.52 pm
  Lady Hermon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) is no longer in the Chamber, as I should have liked to thank her for her kind words about how active women are in communities in Northern Ireland. I want to add to her remarks by bringing a Northern Ireland perspective to our debate and registering the Ulster Unionist party's deep concern that the Bill may result in positive discrimination. We in Northern Ireland have just embarked on a form of positive discrimination that we find deeply divisive and counter-productive; I shall speak about that in due course.
  I am one of only three women in Parliament who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland out of a total of 18 MPs in that part of the United Kingdom. Of course, that is a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs, but it is a great improvement when one considers that for the last 30 years or so all our MPs were men. However, the House might also note—this gives me no pleasure—that the total of three is inflated, as the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Michelle Gildernew) achieved her 53-vote
  366
  majority only with the aid of intimidatory tactics in a polling station. Those tactics were described only last Friday by Lord Chief Justice Carswell in an electoral court in his home town of Belfast as "extremely reprehensible".
  There is little doubt that women are grossly under-represented in political life in Northern Ireland. particularly when compared to other regions of the United Kingdom. I understand that 42 per cent. of Members of the National Assembly for Wales are women. The figure falls to 37 per cent. for membership of the Scottish Parliament. Much worse is the figure for the new Northern Ireland Assembly, where just 13 per cent. of Members are women.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough back in her place, and I thank her.
  Fortunately, the Belfast agreement was not silent about the role of women in public life. As a strong supporter of the agreement, I was pleased that it enshrined, among many things, a clear commitment by all the parties to
  "the right of women to full and equal political participation".
  That is a commitment which the Ulster Unionist party greatly welcomed and still does.
  The agreement also included a provision whereby all the parties affirmed
  "the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity".
  Given the central themes of equality and nondiscrimination which run through the Belfast agreement, which I repeat that I welcome, my party would be strongly opposed to any legislation that ran counter to those themes. We in the UUP are opposed to all forms of discrimination, including positive discrimination.
  I alluded earlier to a recent example of positive discrimination. It relates to the recruitment process for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. For the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who might not be aware of the fact, I should explain that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 incorporated a provision which legalised religious discrimination in recruitment, so that 50 per cent. of recruits would come from the Roman Catholic community and the other 50 per cent. would not. In practice, that means that Jewish, Protestant, Chinese, atheist and Muslim recruits who have made it through all the tests on merit may nevertheless be rejected on the grounds of their community background—their religion.
  My party shares the desire to make the Police Service of Northern Ireland much more representative of the entire community, but we emphatically do not believe that the discriminatory recruitment policy is the way forward. We believe it to be counter-productive and divisive for the new Police Service, and that is not what I wish to see. Likewise, we believe that if the selection of political candidates were brought about by positive discrimination, it would be counter-productive and divisive.
  I have listened carefully to the debate and the contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members. We need a much clearer understanding of the reasons behind the low numbers of women in political life throughout the United Kingdom. I therefore commend to the House the work of the recently established centre for the advancement of women into politics. I must declare that I sit on a voluntary basis as a member of its advisory board. The centre was launched last month,

  367
  on 28 September 2001. It is based in the school of politics in Queen's university, Belfast, and aims to foster an appreciation of women's contribution to politics, government and public decision making in the United Kingdom and Ireland. I believe it to be the only centre of its kind in Europe.
  The centre considers women's political participation as having two important dimensions: the proportion of women in decision making, and the inclusion of women's perspectives in Government policies and programmes. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to its director, Yvonne Galligan, and also to the lady who opened the centre, who is no other than Mary McAleese, formerly of Queen's university and now the President of the Republic of Ireland. I think that President Mary McAleese's well-deserved rise to become her country's elected Head of State demonstrates that the correct blend of determination and ability can bring political dividends for a woman in these islands.
  I appreciate that the Bill is permissive, as opposed to prescriptive. However, although the Ulster Unionist party will always support equality we shall not be persuaded to support positive discrimination.
  9 pm
  Stephen Hesford: I am conscious of the fact that I may be the only male Back Bencher to contribute to this debate. In that respect, I bear a heavy responsibility. I hope not to speak for my 10 minutes, because I do not want to be accused of promoting male domination, especially as others who are present have much more relevant and serious experience of prejudice and loss, which they can eloquently bring to this debate

  I was going to start my speech with a quotation from Peter Riddell, the columnist on The Times, but when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) I thought that it would be irrelevant. Fortunately, however, I was rescued by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I respectfully suggest that she represents more of what the Tories think about the Bill than the hon. Member for Maidenhead, however seriously and honourably she expresses her views. She shakes her head, but we may see in future weeks and months that that is a truism.
  In 1993, Peter Riddell reviewed women's progress in Parliament up to the 1992 election. He wrote:
  "But, as in many other professions, there is a long way to go to redress the overall imbalance and the disadvantages which women face when in a career structure favouring men."
  That was true then, and it is still true now. If there is any doubt about the argument—I shall come to some statistics in a moment—we must remember that that is the principle that we are debating. By giving the Bill its Second Reading and then enacting it, I hope that we will defeat it in this place—and not before time. We are considering an issue of principle, which, as other hon. Members have made clear, is about equity for that 51 per cent. of the population who are vastly under-represented in this place. It is also a question of the balanced representation that people who would otherwise be women MPs could bring to this place.
  The Bill is short, but it will have a significant effect on our political body. Many people fear that change, even though they do not expressly say so. I am sorry to say that Labour Members do not come to the debate with
  368
  clean hands in that respect. I hope that my colleagues will forgive me for saying that the fears that I describe are shared on the Labour Benches. We must grasp that reality.
  Let me read some statistics on women's representation after the 2001 election. Eight per cent. of Conservative MPs were women, and women accounted for 23 per cent. of Labour MPs and 10 per cent. of Liberal Democrat MPs. The Government have done all they could to bring representation of women to the fore in this place by appointing them as Ministers, of whom 30 per cent. are women. In terms of the overall proportions, women are over-represented as Ministers.
  I am pleased to see that that is the case. The Government have done as much as they could. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on looking to bring forward role models to say to the public that this place and this Government in particular are not as irrelevant to their lives as they sometimes perceive. Some 26 per cent. of Cabinet members are women, which is six people out of 23.1 would enter a small caveat in relation to that figure, as it takes into account members of the other place. My point, however, is that if there is a political will within the party or parties, progress can be made.
  The Inter-Parliamentary Union compared democracies around the world, and I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing this information. Of the 179 members of the IP LJ, Britain comes in a very sorry 39th in the list of democracies. To put that in stark relief, and with no disrespect to the countries that I am about to mention—in fact, in some ways I applaud them—we are behind Turkmenistan and Vietnam. We cannot look with equanimity on that fact.
  There is a party political element to this issue. Although I welcome the agreement among the Front Benchers of both Opposition parties, one must look at the reality. The proportion of women Liberal Democrat candidates has fallen since 1992. I have to ask—perhaps rhetorically—whether, in the light of their recent conference decision, they come to this debate with entirely clean hands. However, I welcome their support, if support it is.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am not entirely sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making, and I am not entirely sure that he knows either. We have recognised that we have a problem, particularly with winnable seats. It is somewhat easier to put up women candidates in non-winnable seats. We focus on the winnable seats, and we have a numerical problem with that, given the electoral system. We recognise our problem and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we bring that recognition to our support of the Bill.
  Stephen Hesford: I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me if I simply move on.
  In the 2001 election, 15 per cent. of the Conservative party's female candidates were successful—14 out of 92, its lowest successful proportion ever. So Conservatives cannot, come to the debate claiming that up-to-date statistics are glad tidings.
  Mrs. May: We have said nothing of the sort. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would have heard me say that my party needs to ensure that we, in particular, increase the representation of women on our Benches.
  Stephen Hesford: I hear what the hon. Lady says. When the Labour party, struggling with this difficult issue

  369
  before the 1997 general election, moved to all-women shortlists, there was almost unanimous derision from the Conservatives.
  Mrs. Spelman indicated dissent.
  Stephen Hesford: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is true. There was complete derision.
  Mrs. May: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to pick a fight, but I do not think that the need for a fight exists. Although I recognise that one or two speeches in the debate have taken a different course, it has been interesting to note the degree of agreement about the need to do something to increase the number of women in Parliament. It is right that members of my party have challenged the concept of all-women shortlists; indeed, I did so tonight. The important point about the Bill is that it will enable parties to do what they believe is right in terms of taking positive action—positive action of all kinds—and my party will take the action that we believe is necessary, which may well not involve all-women shortlists.
  Stephen Hesford: We have heard the comments from the Conservatives. I have to say that the contribution of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) was somewhat schizophrenic. She began by speaking in favour of the Bill, then seemed to argue herself out of that view by the end of her speech. The hon. Member for Maidenhead made the same kind of argument in a less obvious way, submit that this is and remains a party political issue. The courage shown by the Government in introducing the Bill forces the issue, and I commend the ministerial team: For that. I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading.
  Two arguments are put to me as a male Labour Member. One is that the legislation is not a doorstep issue. People ask, "Why are you bothering to bring the Bill before the House?" Introducing it is a point of principle, which is important in itself. If we cannot legislate on important points of principle, what good are we in this place?
  The second argument is that the legislation is a doorstep issue for all those constituencies that are more than adequately represented by my female colleagues who were elected in 1997 on all-women shortlists. I am absolutely honoured—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Walter.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: I am delighted that there are two women on our Front Bench to represent the Opposition view—not two token women but two of the most effective women in Parliament. As well as speaking on women's issues, they hold key shadow Cabinet portfolios.
  The Bill marks another milestone in the slow progress in western democracies towards political equality between men and women. The measure should be unnecessary, but alas the inbuilt prejudices that have existed throughout the battle for women's representation persist today. That
  370
  battle extends back to the 19th century and even before, and I am reminded of it every morning. Hanging on the wall outside my bathroom is an item from the collection of political memorabilia owned by my wife, Barbara Gorna. She has campaigned for political equality for many years, as have many women Members, and she inspired me in that cause. She also stood for election to the House in 1997, albeit unsuccessfully.
  I am reminded of the battle for women's representation by the bloodstained scarf worn by Emily Davison when she fell in front of the King's horse at the 1913 Derby. Hon. Members will remember that Emily Davison died in Epsom hospital on 8 June, but my wife has the telegram sent from Buckingham palace to the jockey on 7 June:
  "Queen Alexandra was very sorry indeed to hear of your sad accident caused through the abominable conduct of a brutal lunatic woman. I telegraph now by Her Majesty's command to enquire how you are getting on and to express Her Majesty's sincere hope that you may soon be alright again."
  Queen Alexandra would be at home on many parliamentary selection committees today.
  Progress in the House began with the Reform Act 1832, which massively extended the franchise, although alas not to women. In 1867, the franchise was further extended and by 1869 a small group of female ratepayers gained the vote in municipal elections. At the time, a remark of particular relevance to today's debate was made. Benjamin Disraeli said:
  "In the present age, and under the existing circumstances of the country, the best way to maintain and strengthen the character and functions of the House of Commons was to establish them on a broad, popular basis."
  I do not have to remind hon. Members that it was not until 1918 that the House managed to extend the franchise to women over 30. In October that year, it gave women the right to sit in the House of Commons. The opposition then, and in 1928 when the franchise was finally extended to give women equality, was deep-seated, bigoted and misplaced. The hon. Member for Enfield, Colonel Applin, said:
  "There are at least 75 per cent. of the people of this country who do not want this thing … I feel certain that I am right. It is not an equal franchise; it is an unequal franchise."
  Colonel Applin calculated that there would be 2.2 million more women than men on the register. He went on:
  "It will give the women the power over the finances of the country."
  Then—in a fashion that might find some support among selection committees—he went on:
  "It must mean taking on grave responsibilities, which would perhaps be too great a burden for women."
  Colonel Applin was interrupted by at least one woman Member at that stage, but he ploughed on:
  "Suppose a woman sat on that Bench as Chancellor of the Exchequer … Imagine her introducing her Budget, and in middle her speech a message coming in"—
  he obviously had some foresight about pagers—
  "'Your child is dangerously ill, come at once."'
  He concluded:
  "It is obvious that, with a thousand cases like that, the whole system must break down".—[Official Report, 29 March 1928; Vol. 215, c. 1392–93.]

  371
  And so, today, we come to this Bill. Britain currently has one of the lowest levels of political representation of women in Europe. It has been argued that the best way in which to counter the trend is for parties to use positive action mechanisms. Encouragement, coercion and shame do not work; where positive action has been used, it has dramatically increased women's representation.
  The last election saw 118 women elected to Parliament—less than in 1997. That represents progress at a rate of about 1.5 women per year in the 82 years since women have been eligible to sit here. Now we have gone into reverse: in the European Union, only Ireland and France have lower female representations.
  Positive action, is needed not because women are not able to succeed on merit but because discrimination in the selection process means that they are rarely given an opportunity to try. Experience from across Europe has demonstrated that the use of positive action is a key factor in the determination of whether a country has high levels of female representation. Better training and support for potential female candidates are of course necessary, but they have not made a significant difference.
  Today we have an opportunity to amend the Act that outlawed Labour's all-women shortlists. There are those who argue that candidates should be selected simply on merit—that the best candidate for the job should be selected, regardless of gender. In an ideal world, of course, those candidates should be selected on merit, but at present that does not happen. Opaque discrimination is inherent in the selection processes of all political parties. If a selection committee is determined to choose a male candidate, the woman candidate will not be selected no matter how good she is.
  The predominantly elderly selectors tend to have a clear vision of their ideal candidate. In the Tory party he is married, 40-something, with a reasonable career in the City, the law or the Army. A bit of experience in local government helps, but the real clincher is the attractive wife, two smashing kids and a labrador.
  Positive action is needed not because women cannot succeed on the basis of merit, but because discrimination means that all too often women are not given the opportunity to stand. There are those who say that discrimination should not be countered with more discrimination—discrimination against men. They say that two wrongs do not make a right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made that point. But positive action is not designed to discriminate against men as revenge for the discrimination suffered by women; it is designed to level the playing field, to allow women to compete for parliamentary selection on the same basis as men.
  I have heard female colleagues suggest that it is patronising to women to suggest that they need this kind of help. There are clever party functionaries who say that the problem is not that women are being discriminated against but that not enough women are putting themselves forward. They would say, "Why bother?" But every political party contains talented women who have been trying for years to be selected to fight a safe or marginal parliamentary seat. Even in the Labour party, and I speak as no expert, half the aspiring candidates shortlisted for safe Labour party seats were women, yet only just over 10 per cent. of those seats went to women.
  372
  I have heard successful male candidates argue that women are coming forward but that they are not good women and that with positive action we end up with low-quality Members of Parliament—obviously, those without smashing kids, jam-making spouses and pedigree labradors. They suggest that women elected under Labour's all-women shortlists in 1997 are a prime example of that. I could make a cheap party point, but in all honesty there is no evidence to suggest that the women selected under all-women shortlists are any better or worse than the rest of their parliamentary colleagues.
  The Bill is permissive. Political parties may take advantage of it if they wish. It will not force any political party to adopt positive action mechanisms. It is a desperate measure, but it is temporary. It is essential and it is timely.
  9.21 pm
  Charlotte Atkins: In the United Kingdom, the watershed for women parliamentarians was the election of the Labour Government in 1997 and the election of 101 Labour women to Parliament. Before that, women had never made up more than 10 per cent. of all UK Members of Parliament. But we cannot rest on our laurels. We have just 118 women MPs now. Less than one in five MPs are women, which is well below the record of our European neighbours.
  I am particularly pleased that the Bill extends to local government because it is often at local level that women are most active—for example, as school governors, tenants, representatives or representatives of church organisations. It is a natural step for many women to stand for council and find a route to wider political involvement. However, that route to empowerment locally and nationally can be blocked for women. Only one quarter of local councillors across England are women, despite women's traditional involvement in grass-roots politics. I do not think that anyone in their right mind would suggest that that is because women are less able than existing male councillors.
  Local government cart be a valuable training ground for politicians, but my concern is that we are failing to attract young recruits, just as we are failing to enthuse young people about voting. I recently visited a sixth form in my constituency for a political debate. I was particularly impressed by the articulate and well-informed girls who quizzed me. A few years ago, when I visited schools as a local councillor, it was difficult to get girls to be vocal and to participate. Now there is no holding them back. It is the boys who are less forthcoming.
  If my constituency is anything to go by, we have talented young women interested in politics, but how do we transform that interest into involvement? The Bill will do a lot to help, but we must do more. Putting citizenship on the curriculum is a step forward but democracy should be a real part of young people's lives. All schools should have school councils that mean something—not talking shops but forums to listen to pupils' views and to act upon them.
  We must involve young people in their communities, giving them a stake in those communities. Then they will want to vote and to involve themselves in community politics. I know that that is easier said than done, but it has to happen if we are to have a healthy democracy. Let us be in absolutely no doubt: ensuring that women of

  373
  all ages are involved at every level of government is about building a healthy democracy. We cannot afford to exclude over 50 per cent. of our population from political representation, but that is what we have done. Since 1918, of Members who have served in the House of Commons, only 6 per cent. have been women. That is shameful.
  The trade union movement is another traditional training ground for Labour Members. All too often, however, as Fawcett Society research has demonstrated, good intentions on women's representation are often sidelined in the desire to get favourite sons into safe or winnable seats.
  My experience with Unison has been rather different from that. Prior to the 1997 general election, Unison created a parliamentary panel of 12 members, 10 of whom were women. It provided training, advice, support and assistance with printing, and four Unison women were elected. I am delighted that another woman from Unison, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), joined us in 2001. Unison's use of a small panel enabled it to give support to women candidates which helped them to be selected. I believe that unions have a proud record in promoting women's rights in the work force, by training and by representation. If they have the political will they can do the same for women parliamentarians.
  The selection process itself is central to the promotion of women candidates. It is vital that parties adopt rules that are clear and very much in black and white. Any perceived bias in the selection process must be eradicated if women are to believe that they have an equal chance of selection. There must be a level playing field for all applicants on access to membership information, the use of conduct rules, postal votes and contact with party members, and also concerning the types of information that candidates can circulate.
  I support women-only shortlists because too many women have been put on shortlists simply to reach a 50 per cent. quota. Women-only shortlists helped to break the logjam back in 1997, and they can help us to make further progress now. They are not an insult to women.
  In my selection, I defeated five men. In the mid-1960s, when my father was selected as a candidate for Preston, North, he was chosen from an all-male shortlist. However, he did not feel patronised because he was not taking on allcomers. At that time, women were not even considered for selections. No one batted an eyelid that he was selected from an all-male shortlist because it was traditional, old-fashioned sexual discrimination. It was not positive discrimination to secure a Parliament that properly reflects the experience and skills of the whole population.
  9.27 pm
  Adam Price: I shall keep my speech short.
  It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of Plaid Cymru—the party of Wales—and the Scottish National party on this very important and welcome Bill. It is a pleasure also to add another Welsh voice to the debate. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) said, we come from a country that has elected only seven women to this place from the more than 1,500 Members
  374
  that we have returned here since the Act of Union. Now, however, in the excellent record of the National Assembly, Wales is leading the debate on structures of representation for women.
  As we have heard today, the evidence shows overwhelmingly that the problem lies not with the voters—who are only too happy when given the opportunity to elect women Members—or with women, but with parties and institutions. That is the clear message that I am taking away from this debate. As we heard, many women find the culture of the political arena alien, unfriendly and sometimes even hostile. Consequently, many of them reject politics entirely. Other women face more practical obstacles in juggling personal and political commitments.
  Despite the welcome changes in recent years, the sitting hours of the House and the parliamentary programme have still not been adjusted fully to take into account the dual burden carried by many women and also by many men. I draw hon. Members' attention to the family-friendly hours that are operated by the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. We could learn much on the issue from those institutions.
  Lack of confidence is one of the key reasons for w omen's under-representation in formal political institutions, and this shows the importance of a supportive culture within parties and institutions in nurturing women's political self-confidence. In this regard, I pay tribute to the exemplary record of the Scottish National party, which has had a strong record over the years in terms of women's representation in this House. The party achieved a representation of 43 per cent.—17 women MSPs—in its Scottish parliamentary group without mechanisms. That shows the health and strength of that party's commitment to gender equality.
  We as a party in this House do not have such a good record; that is why, in the 1990s, we instituted a gender balance commission and placed the women candidates for the National Assembly elections at the top of the regional lists. Together with the decision of the Labour party in Wales to operate twinning arrangements, that ensured the excellent result that women made up 41.6 per cent. of representation at the National Assembly for Wales. It should be noted that, throughout Europe, that level of representation is surpassed only by Sweden at 42.7 per cent; it is an excellent and creditable result.
  It is because of the great advances achieved in the devolved Administrations in recent years that my party welcomes the legislation and urges the Government to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, to facilitate still further the selection processes for the National Assembly for Wales. I am pleased to tell the House that our equal opportunities director is currently developing proposals on ensuring fairness and gender equality in the choice of candidates, and these are to he passed at a special constitutional conference in November.
  We welcome and support the Bill, although, in passing, I should point out that the Labour Government might have saved some parliamentary time if they had had the courage to challenge the Jepson ruling, as the Equal Opportunities Commission asked. At least they have given us a valuable opportunity to have a necessary debate, and to look not just at the issue of representation but at the issue of culture and the attitudes that too often exclude people from the mainstream of modern politics.
  9.32 pm
  Sandra Osborne: I want to concentrate my remarks on the Scottish Parliament, because I believe that its success in selecting women can teach us many things.
  The sixth of May 1999 was an historic day for the political representation of women in Scotland with the first elections to the new Scottish Parliament when 48 women entered the Chamber as elected Members. The representation rate was over 37 per cent. and that broke all records for the representation of women in politics in Scotland at local, Westminster and European level. We were only beaten by Wales in that respect, although that was welcome. The significant difference between the parties in terms of the number of women MSPs is directly related to the action or inaction that the parties took to encourage women candidates, either in constituency seats or in the list.
  The Scottish Labour party had a 50:50 gender balance; 28 female and 28 male MSPs were elected. Some 43 per cent. of the Scottish National party's MSPs were female; the figures for the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives were 17 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively. The election results demonstrate that even with a newly elected Parliament—where there is no incumbency barrier—equal representation of women cannot be taken for granted. It can be argued that the results provide evidence that political campaigning and specific policies and mechanisms are essential to ensure that women are represented in significant numbers in political life.
  The increase in the number of women elected to the Scottish Parliament is due in part to sustained campaigning by women's organisations and civic society in Scotland, and reflects the different approaches taken by the different political parties in Scotland. Prior to the election, all parties stated their concern to see more women in politics and their intention to encourage women to come forward for selection. But the Labour party was the only party to operate a specific mechanism to achieve that. Recognising that, under the additional member system, most Labour seats would be gained on a constituency basis, a scheme was devised to twin constituencies to allow both men and women to stand for election.
  The Liberal Democrats signed the electoral agreement published in the Scottish Constitutional Convention's final publication, entitled "Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right". They committed the party in principle to gender equality in the new Parliament. They initially proposed a so-called "zipped" system to get women on the lists at a reasonable level. However, they later reneged, and the party, at its annual Scottish conference, voted against the proposal. The fact that nothing was done contributed to the fact that Liberal Democrat party has so few women in the Scottish Parliament.
  The Scottish National party also proposed a zipping system. Although its conference rejected that proposal, the party put women high on selection lists with the result that its level of women's representation has reached a respectable 40 per cent. However, I argue that the party's use of a specific mechanism—in this case not women-only shortlists, or twinning—was absolutely necessary to produce that outcome.
  The Conservative party continued to express its opposition to special measures, saying that it would select people on merit. I make no comment about the
  376
  Conservative men who are Members of the Scottish Parliament. I have beaten one of them twice in elections, but I welcome the apparent turnaround in the party's approach to these issues. I am surprised, and gratified by it. I hope that it will be reflected also in the Scottish Conservative party.
  The Scottish Parliament proves that a specific positive measure is the only way to get more women into politics.
  9.36 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Tonight's debate may have come as a surprise to some hon. Members, and it is possible that more than one speech anticipating opposition to the Bill from Conservative Front-Bench Members has had to be scrapped. I am delighted that some Labour Members have recognised the important change in my party's approach to this matter, which in fact was made just before the last general election. The turnaround is perhaps not as sudden as has been made out.
  There is simple recognition among hon. Members of all parties that not enough progress has been made in getting women elected to Parliament. No one is against getting more women into Parliament and, although hon. Members differ about how to achieve it, that is the common point from which the debate begins. In that sense, the debate has not been party political. Those who have tried to make it so may have misjudged the mood of the House.
  I hope that the Conservative party has demonstrated its lead on this issue by fielding a woman to open the debate and another to wind it up. We were also joined for much of the time by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). For the record, 50 per cent. of female Conservative MPs sit on the Front Bench. That shows that those who get here get on.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not returned to his place, but he referred at the outset of his remarks to various initiatives that he has taken to help women in the workplace. He mentioned improved maternity benefits, support for low-paid women and better child care arrangements, but unfortunately, such measures are not likely to help in the context of Westminster, where there is no official maternity leave and no child care facilities, and where we MPs are not remotely able to describe ourselves as low paid.
  I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has now returned, so I hope that one of his colleagues can advise him of the point that I have just made. My description of the House is not what puts women off. Women are put off by a strong and true perception that it is very difficult to get selected, and that, once here, the experience is not especially easy. No one aspiring to Parliament would expect an easy life, but good candidates are lost, or never get started, because of the poor perception of the House.
  That perception is based on hard fact: 82 per cent. of MPs are male and, as several hon. Members have noted, that compares unfavourably with other Parliaments in Europe. Closer to home, greater progress has been made with the devolved Assemblies. My hon. Friends and I are especially keen to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), and we, too, are keen for more female representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly. What is even more embarrassing for the mother of Parliaments is that many Parliaments in the developing world have achieved better female representation than we have.

  377
  We support the principle enshrined in the Bill which will allow political parties the freedom to choose from a range of measures to help increase the number of female Members of Parliament and return them to this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, we should not get hooked up on women-only shortlists, as they are only one of the measures that could be used. A range of measures are possible under the Bill, such as the additional training of candidates and selectors, or the scheme proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South (Mr. Lansley) and for Maidenhead. We believe that it should be for individual parties to decide on the best mechanism for selecting their candidates.
  Not surprisingly, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) showed a hazy understanding of Conservative party selection procedure. We have massively enfranchised our grass roots, with each member of a local association having an equal say in choosing the candidate. It is highly democratic, but with those rights come responsibilities to choose the best candidate. Understanding what "best" means requires training, but as the law stands, that could be illegal. The change in the law would make it legal in the future.
  I understand the sensitivity of women who claim that they feel patronised by the Bill. At the Liberal Democrat conference we saw the clash of views between the leadership advocating women-only shortlists and their candidates wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan, "I don't want to be a token woman". None of us wants to be a token woman, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) does not regard me or my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead as a token woman in any way. The correct form of positive action should be chosen to suit a party's culture, and it need not imply tokenism.
  I received good advice from some Labour women MPs who told me that women-only shortlists have created a backlash at local level. We intend to learn from that. It is one of the reasons why I am not in favour of that measure. However, there is much we can do to improve the situation by changing our selection procedure, and several recommendations have already been made in our party to achieve that.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Lady recognise that if the Conservative party rejects all-women shortlists, which it is perfectly entitled to do, and when the Tories eventually reject first past the post—as they will—new options under a more proportional system will be proposed, such as pooling or zipping?
  Mrs. Spelman: With respect, I think that the real question tonight for the hon. Gentleman's party is to decide what it will do under the Bill.
  There is no denying the fact that the use of women-only shortlists in the Labour party had a dramatic effect in the 1997 election. However, some of the euphoria of the system's proponents was deflated by the outcome of the successful challenge by a male candidate—the so-called Jepson case. At the time there was much debate about whether a change to the laws on sex discrimination would be compatible with European law. Those of us who
  378
  support this change in British law make a strong plea to the Government not to get egg on their face a second time if there is a legal challenge regarding its compatibility with European law. That is the Government's job—they have the necessary resources and lawyers at their disposal. It is our job, as an Opposition, to ask whether European Union compliance has been exhaustively checked. I should be very grateful for the Minister's reassurance on that point tonight.
  Conservative Front Benchers welcome the Bill's permissive nature and we will support this change in the law. However, I warn the Government that we may vote on the timetable motion on a point of principle. The Bill enables the parties to choose what will work for them. No country has significantly increased the representation of women in its Parliament without some form of positive action. There is no reason why the United Kingdom should be any different.
  We should put tonight's decision in the context of falling electoral turnout and the female voters who tell us that they are turned off by the style of politics in this place, to which they cannot relate. We need to think how to make British politics more attractive and accessible, and tonight offers the opportunity to show our willingness to try something new which can make a difference.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had a good debate with an encouragingly large number of speakers—20 in total, of whom, significantly, 17 were in favour of the legislation. I appreciate the support that we received from those on the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Front Benches and from Plaid Cymru. We certainly intend to proceed on the basis of consensus to achieve an important change that will make a real difference in the representation of women, not only in Parliament but in democratic institutions throughout the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) supported the Bill and pointed out, fairly and forcefully, that the Conservative party in particular was losing out on opportunities from the reservoir of talent because of the way in which the selection processes operate. She showed some reluctance to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock)—whether the Conservative party would set a target for increasing the representation of women in the party. I hope that the hon. Lady will think further about that.
  The hon. Lady also asked about compatibility with European law, which is an important point. I must make it absolutely clear that the Government would not want any amendments to domestic law to be found to be in breach of Community law. I am confident that the Bill is compatible with EU treaty law and does not contravene the United Kingdom's international obligations. The Government's view is that the selection of candidates does not fall within the ambit of Community law, in particular the equal treatment directive. I hope that the hon. Lady finds that reassuring.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made a powerful speech in favour of increasing the representation of women in this House, but not because specific women's issues required the attention of women—she made a strong case against

  379
  there being specific gender issues. She made the sound and sensible observation that Parliament should reflect the full range of talents and variety in our society and that it should be more representative of women in particular.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, tried to widen the debate to cover appointments to public bodies. I suspect that the motive might have been to draw attention away from his party's difficulties at its recent conference with affirmative measures to assist women's representation. His review of appointments to public bodies was a little selective.
  We are the first to admit that there is an enormous way to go, but it does not do the House any service to paint an unduly gloomy picture. Looking at the record of our Department in government, I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman of the real advances that have been made in the past four years.
  I have three examples. In 1997, the Audit Commission comprised 38 per cent. women; now, 56 per cent. of its members are women. In 1997, only 18 per cent. of the board of the Housing Corporation were women; now it is 38 per cent., with a woman in the chair. When we came to office, the advisory panel on standards in the Planning Inspectorate had no women members. Now, four of the seven members are women—a majority. So there are good examples of cases where affirmative action has been taken and the position is improving.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall compared himself to Gladstone, as "an old man in a hurry."
  The difference is that William Ewart Gladstone carried his party with him on most issues. The hon. Gentleman has not been able to carry his with him. His experience at the party conference must have been galling. How can he have felt when Jenny Willott, a representative of the Liberal Democrat party, said that Labour had won most of the female vote at the 1997 general election because it had women candidates in winnable seats? She said:
  "They looked like a women-friendly party. Any woman who looks at the Lib-Dem parliamentary party now, no disrespect to any of them, but they don't exactly look a women-friendly bunch."
  Mr. Tyler: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that she voted for me?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted that someone feels that the hon. Gentleman at least is woman-friendly in that otherwise women-unfriendly bunch.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of European treaty law and the European convention on human rights. I hope that my response to the hon. Member for Maidenhead deals with that point. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the concerns expressed by Lord Lester as to the need for a regulatory impact assessment. We shall consider that and I am sure that it will be raised in the upper House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) gave an entirely apposite description of her experience when she first announced her intention to stand as a candidate for election and was greeted by incredulity in her own locality. That was a telling example of the problems faced by women wanting to stand for Parliament. My hon. Friend also spoke movingly of her experience in Northern Ireland, where she made an important contribution, liaising with women's groups to advance the peace process.
  380
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) was one of three Members who did not support the Bill. She referred specifically to public appointments and expressed concern about that field. I am pleased to be able to tell her that, since 1997, the number of women on health authorities has increased from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. as a result of measures taken by the Government which I am sure she will support.
  The right hon. Lady is confused in thinking that the Bill applies only to Members of Parliament. It applies to people seeking elected office in the United Kingdom—whether to Parliament, the devolved Assemblies, the European Parliament or local councils. The measure is comprehensive and covers the full range of elected posts.
  The right hon. Lady raised the issue of ethnic minorities. That is a fair issue and an important one to consider. However, there are very different considerations. The right hon. Lady knows well that the distribution of ethnic minority groups around the country is varied; in many areas, they make up a relatively small proportion of the total population. It would thus be extremely difficult to set up a simple, national system of universal application to enable that particular discrimination to be tackled by legislative means. By contrast, we know that throughout the country, area by area, give or take about one percentage point, there is equal representation of men and women in every constituency.
  Virginia Bottomley: The contrast that I was making is with teachers. Would a primary school with an all-female staff who felt that it would be right to appoint a male teacher because it was important for the children to have a male role model be prohibited from drawing up an all-male shortlist?
  Mr. Raynsford: As an experienced Member of the House, the right hon. Lady knows that there is a fundamental difference between people who are appointed to paid employment and people who are selected as candidates and then stand for election. That is a fundamental distinction recognised in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, in an eloquent and moving speech, set out the strong case for the Bill and for ensuring more effective and extensive representation of women. I pay tribute to her for all the work that she has done to ensure that the issue has come before the House. She has been an assiduous and persistent campaigner for the measure.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was the first person, predictably, to use the word "patronising", which she did at 8.03 pm, as forecast by some of my colleagues. She also referred to a phrase used by a member of her party in the past: "whingeing and whining". The fundamental problem that the right hon. Lady must face is that her recipe would leave the Conservative Benches continuing to be overwhelmingly occupied by males—91.6 per cent. to be precise.
  The right hon. Lady suggested that she had other ways of dealing with the problem. She did not specify them but, given that she was in full flood as she put forward

  381
  that view, it reminded me of nothing less than King Lear. Towards the end of the tragedy, as his wits began to go, King Lear said:
  "I will do such things—
  What they are yet I know not—but they shall be
  The terrors of the earth."
  The right hon. Lady's ideas will be the terrors of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) explained the impact of women-only shortlists in redressing the imbalance. Hers was an important contribution.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) supported the principles behind the Bill, but raised questions about compatibility with the equal treatment directive. He referred to the Abrahamsson case but—and he will be aware of the significance of this—that case was brought in relation to the appointment of a candidate for an academic post. There is an appointment distinction, which I have already made, between the appointments to paid posts and the selection of candidates who stand for election. That is why we are confident that the equal treatment directive will not apply.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) opened her speech by paying tribute to Val Feld for her important work on equal opportunities in Wales. I would like to add to that, because I worked closely with Val Feld when she represented Shelter in Wales many years ago. I knew of her sterling qualities. My hon. Friend also commented on the difficulties that women had encountered in being represented in Wales, and referred to the important advances that have been made recently.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) referred to problems of the male club in the House of Commons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) highlighted the important contributions that women have made as Members of the House, particularly in promoting private Members' Bills and as Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was one of three Members who did not support the principles behind the Bill, but she conceded the difficulties that face the women in Northern Ireland who seek selection. I trust that, as she considers the Bill—it is a permissive one—she will realise that it moves in a direction which, I hope she will be able to support.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) approved of the Bill, and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) gave us an entertaining account of the past 150 years of history, including a reference to an obscure blimpish MP in the 1920s. The hon. Gentleman drew a veil over the party affiliation of that obscure military man, but I wager that he was not describing a member of the Labour party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) gave a robust defence of all-women shortlists, and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) referred to the proud record of the Welsh Assembly, where 41 per cent. of Members are women. That would not be the case, however, if more than 50 per cent. of the Labour Members
  382
  in the Assembly were not women. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) made a parallel point about the important contribution that women have made in the Scottish Parliament.
  We have had a very good debate. We have heard much about issues of representation and about the unacceptable levels of discrimination under current arrangements. A fundamental problem needs addressing, and most of us will agree that something must be done, and done soon. The Bill is permissive and aims to open up for political parties the options that are available. It will give them the flexibility to pursue options that will advance women's representation in the way that the parties think is most appropriate. In doing so, they will have to consider carefully how women and men are represented at all levels of government. Our proposals are proportionate and are designed to be appropriate to the problem that they seek to resolve.
  The Bill will remove the excuse provided by the Jepson case for not facing up to our responsibilities. It will enable political parties to adopt appropriate measures. I believe that it will make an important contribution to improving our democracy. It is a short, simple and elegant solution, which will seek to redress a fundamental imbalance that has marred our Parliament for far too long. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (ELECTION CANDIDATES) BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Order [28 June],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill:

SEX DISCRIMINATION (ELECTION CANDIDATES) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Programming of proceedings
  2. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.

  Proceedings in standing committee
  3.—(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th November 2001.
  (2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4.—(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
  (2) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 70.

  Division No. 42

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  David, Wayne

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dawson, Hilton

  Austin, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barnes, Harry

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bayley, Hugh

  Doran, Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Dowd, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Drew, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Edwards, Huw

  Blizzard, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brennan, Kevin

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Frtzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Browne, Desmond

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cairns, David

  Foulkes, George

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Coaker, Vemon

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Havard, Dai

  Colman, Tony

  Heath, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Heyes, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hill, Keith

  Cranston, Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Holmes, Paul

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Hope, Phil

  384

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Julie

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mudie, George

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Illsley, Eric

  Norris, Dan

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric

  Pike, Peter

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Price, Adam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pugh, Dr John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Levitt, Tom

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Lucas, Ian

  Ross, Emie

  Luke, Iain

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lyons, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ryan, Joan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Salter, Martin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sanders, Adrian

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDougall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKechin, Ann

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahmood, Khalid

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meale, Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Merron, Gillian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stringer, Graham

  Miliband, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Tami, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Moore, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  385

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Weir, Michael

  Thurso, John

  White, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Todd, Mark

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Touhig, Don

  Willis, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (DoncasterC)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wishart, Pete

  Wood Mike

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tyler, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Tynan, Bill

  Worthington, Tony

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watts, David

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Webb, Steve

  Mr. Fraser Kemp.

  NOES

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bacon, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Barker, Gregory

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Beggs, Roy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bercow, John

  Luff, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brazier, Julian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bumside, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Burt, Alistair

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Butterfill, John

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Cameron, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Cash, William

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Peterson, Owen

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Pickles, Eric

  Conway, Derek

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangfotd)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robinsson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Fight, Howard

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Flook, Adrian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Swayne, Desmond

  Francois, Mark

  Trend, Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Goodman, Paul

  Watkinson, Angela

  Grayling, Chris

  Whittingdale, John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Hammond, Philip

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hayes, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hermon, Lady

  Yeo, Tim

  Hoban, Mark

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Mr. Charles Hendry.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Off-road Motor Cycles
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  10 12 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a problem that is causing great concern in Skelmersdale, the largest town in my constituency and the place where I live. I am even more grateful that it falls to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to reply to the debate. He and I were two members of a notable band of brothers who were incarcerated in the Cloisters when we arrived in Parliament in 1992. At that time, my hon. Friend was our man in the south-west, now thankfully joined by several other colleagues in the region. He was, and probably still is, famed for the clarity and resonance of his voice. In my first six months or so in Parliament, I came to know more about Plymouth docks than I did about West Lancashire. This evening, I aim to return the favour; I am delighted that my hon. Friend is now a Minister, and trust that he will be so for a very long time indeed.
  The new part of Skelmersdale was built for pedestrians and is a labyrinth of walkways, which were intended—admirably at that time—to separate pedestrians from traffic. Inside the estates, the pedestrian ways often pass right before front doors without intervening gardens. The estates are tunnelled by passageways which debouch unannounced on to further pedestrian ways. The town is characterised by a high proportion of young people; it is an extended playground for young children, and many hundreds of young mothers push prams and baby carriers about the place.
  In recent years, many of the estates have been bedevilled by off-road motor bikes, both youngsters' bikes and adult trial bikes of the type usually associated with scrambling, a sport of which I strongly approve. My estimate, which can only be a rough estimate, is that there are about 100 off-road bikes being used inside the estates, mostly by teenagers, but sometimes by children as young as six or seven.
  Residents have for some years complained bitterly about the noise nuisance, but in recent months increasingly about the physical danger presented by bikes roaring round their houses. The police are deeply concerned about the matter, but are severely handicapped by the impossibility of giving chase to the offenders. Given the structure of the estates, any chase would simply multiply the chances of a serious accident. We have seen many examples on our roads in recent years.
  Two citizens in particular in Skelmersdale have given me vivid accounts of the activities of bikers. Mr. John Gresty of Eavesdale has researched the problem and tells me that it is also common in inner Liverpool, which is not far away. Mr. Gordon Leather of Feltons describes how he was struck by a trial bike ridden by a 13-year-old on a footpath. Mr. Leather was catapulted over a garden wall and received injuries to his legs, back and shoulders, for which he has been receiving hospital treatment since March. He tried to pursue the matter to seek redress, only to be informed by solicitors from the Motor Insurers Bureau that he could not claim because the motor bike was on the pavement. In any case, he could never have identified the lad responsible for the accident.

  387
  I have a personal experience to record. While I was driving through one of my estates during the general election campaign, my car was struck by a young man aged about 17 on a trial bike, who shot out of the shrubbery and hit the front of my car. He went underneath the car. Fortunately, I was going very slowly, at about 10 mph. It was an election campaign and—my hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar with this—I was looking for a long-lost canvass team, buried somewhere in the estate. However, from the crunching noise, I honestly believed that I had run over the young man's head. I got out of the car, terrified and shaking. It turned out that he was not seriously hurt, but the bike was completely demolished, to his evident distress, as he said it was "a mate's". It had no identifying marks on it at all. I was so relieved at the outcome of the accident that I took no further action, especially as his bike fell to bits as he tried to pick it up, which was rather comical. In retrospect, I should have carted him off to the police, especially as about £300-worth of damage had been done to my car.
  The police in Skelmersdale have taken the problem seriously and are close to prosecution in a number of cases, but they are frustrated by the fact that when they catch and deal with a young offender for dangerous driving or riding on the highway, the culprit, once he has been dealt with, returns to his bike. There are no powers to confiscate bikes, which would be a terrific sanction fir the police to be able to employ.
  I know that consideration of such powers is a matter for the Home Office, but I also know from my time as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Home Office that there are regular discussions between officials and Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Office on interface issues, particularly concerning sentencing for road offences. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the serious problem that I have described is included in those discussions as a matter of urgency. There is no doubt in my mind that there are deaths waiting to happen out there on the estates in Skelmersdale.
  Caroline Flint (Don Valley): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, about something that is a problem for many of his fellow Members of Parliament. The Doncaster crime and disorder partnership has identified motor bike nuisance as one of the issues that it intends to address. I concur with my hon. Friend on the fact that the police need powers to confiscate the bike, but does he also agree that housing departments should consider seeking eviction if a family are conniving and encouraging their children to cause this nuisance?
  Mr. Pickthall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I have been unable to ascertain the extent of the problem and it is interesting to know that it is happening in her constituency as well. I am a little uneasy about the idea of eviction sitting on the back of it, but that is another matter.
  The police have dramatic evidence of the dangers that my hon. Friend and I have described, and they have shown it to me. Some weeks ago, the Lancashire police helicopter was in the vicinity of Skelmersdale and was asked to look at a motor cyclist who was riding dangerously through one of the estates. It captured on video many minutes of this 13-year-old, as he turned out to be, zooming past people's doors, along footpaths and
  388
  through the ginnels. At one point—I have seen the tape—he shot through a group of people, striking a man and spinning him round. Fortunately, the man was not seriously injured. The rider spotted the helicopter and sought to shake it off, but he could not; it followed him and the chase ended when the lad got home. His mother came out of the house and hid the bike in the kitchen. I am reliably informed that many of the kids hide these bikes in their bedrooms, although how they get them upstairs, I do not know.
  To my mind, the case for action against these characters is clear. I believe that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that police have more powers to deal with them. However, there are other aspects of the problem that need to be addressed. A couple of weeks ago, I met two young 14-year-old bikers to discuss these problems. David McCullock and Karl Matthews told me that they wished to use their bikes legally—they were decent young lads and I believed them—but that that presented them with great difficulties as to how and where they could ride them in safety.
  We must consider whether it is reasonable and safe to allow children to own motor bikes, which can be lethal weapons. No doubt, some parents believe that they are doing their children a great favour by buying them bikes, not taking into account the fact that their use almost inevitably involves riding on roads and thus breaking the law. They consider neither legality nor insurance responsibility. Having paid large sums for the bikes, they are then reluctant to prevent the children from using them.
  I heard of one case in which the sale of a bike to a boy who is an epileptic was refused by the vendor, so his father turned up and bought it for him. In my opinion, that was very misplaced generosity. Parents have a huge responsibility. One of the boys to whom I spoke told me that he had possessed a motor bike since he was seven years old. David and Karl made the incontrovertible point that, as long as it is legal for them to own an off-road motor bike, it is reasonable for them to have somewhere to use it legally.
  The police, youth service and council in West Lancashire are all keen to identify an area where bikes can be used without causing danger to pedestrians. I am very keen to help with that. We have tried to establish a site before, but people living close to the area that was identified made an enormous protest about the potential noise nuisance, which is always a problem in urban areas. Even in rural areas, where scrambling tracks are not uncommon, the noise can be ferocious and can carry a long way. I have a problem on the border of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), where noise created at a track in one local authority and constituency area is causing nuisance in the neighbouring one, which is mine. Such cross-border problems are very difficult to deal with. We may be able to identify suitable areas in industrial estates, but we will then face the problem of ensuring that the off-road bikes get to the legal venues without riding on roads or using footpaths. The logistics could be very difficult, although that is matter for local agencies and councils to consider, alongside the many other demands on their resources.
  I was uncertain as to how widespread the problem was. I raised the matter at a Lancashire police forum a couple of months ago and was told that, in Lancashire, it seemed to be confined to Skelmersdale. However, since then,

  389
  I have learned that it is a problem in inner Liverpool and in Doncaster. It may be that there is a particular problem in Skelmersdale because of the peculiar geography of the town.
  In summary, I am certain that it is not right to place the onus on pedestrians in Skelmersdale to dodge these missiles. It is not right that the residents should be harassed by the persistent noise emanating from bikes roaring up and down the walkways just outside their homes, often in the early hours of the morning. That happens very frequently; it is not an odd occurrence. It is not right that a situation that clearly presents a risk to life and limb should be allowed to drift without an effective remedy.
  I therefore ask my hon. Friend to use his ministerial authority to institute an examination of the whole issue of off-road motor bikes: the circumstances of their sale; the suitability or otherwise of young children's ownership of such bikes; the insurance requirements; and the powers of the authorities to prevent the abuse of these bikes and to protect citizens from the effects of their abuse. It is my duty as the MP representing Skelmersdale to do something about this menace before one of my constituents—one of my neighbours, indeed—is killed, rather than seeking to do something after a killing has happened.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). He and I first came to the House in 1992 and I remember those heady days in the Cloisters when we almost had to sit on each other's laps. It says a lot for the accommodation situation in this place that things have improved so much over the years. I remember my hon. Friend as a strong advocate for many causes, but, as we have heard tonight, he has most of all been a powerful voice in this place for his constituents.
  I will ensure that the points that my hon. Friend has raised are dealt with in my Department's discussions with the Home Office. In the short time that I have this evening, I shall give some background to the issue and try to clarify the law as it stands at the moment. During my hon. Friend's contribution, I could not help thinking that, yes, the law is there to make sure that people are protected, but that there would be no need for the police or other agencies to intervene with these young children, some as young as seven, if parents were doing their job and making sure that their children were not causing the kind of nuisance that my hon. Friend so clearly described.
  I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend was the victim of such an incident; I know how distressing that can be. I was glad that neither the young man nor my hon. Friend was injured. I also hope that my hon. Friend's constituents who have been involved in these unfortunate incidents are making a rapid recovery.
  I assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate his concern about the use of these vehicles in inappropriate places, and about the noise nuisance and safety problems that they cause. This debate gives me the opportunity to explain to the House my Department's current
  390
  consideration of the ways in which we might better regulate their off-road use. I shall go into a little detail about that, and I shall outline the current position on the use of off-road motor cycles on the public highway and on the pavement.
  When an off-road motor cycle, such as a scramble or trial bike, is used on the highway, it is considered to be a mechanically propelled vehicle. As such, it is subject to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which requires such vehicles to have vehicle excise duty paid in respect of their use. It should also comply with the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989. These require that vehicles must be safely constructed in terms of lighting, braking, tyres and so on. Anyone riding an off-road machine on a road could be prosecuted for failing to comply with these regulations.
  Riding or driving any vehicle on the pavement is an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, and the police are responsible for enforcing those provisions. That became a fixed-penalty notice offence on 1 August 1999, which has made enforcement somewhat easier. Before issuing a fixed-penalty notice, however, the police and traffic wardens must see the vehicle being driven on the pavement, as opposed to simply being parked there.
  My hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) suggest giving the police powers to confiscate vehicles. Although the police have no powers to confiscate vehicles used illegally off road—there are no plans to give them such powers—a general power exists for the courts to enable them to confiscate property used in the commission of crime, which includes vehicles when certain conditions are fulfilled. One is that an offence—perhaps, for example, drinking and driving, causing death by dangerous driving, an offence of manslaughter or wanton and furious driving—be imprisonable under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
  Other powers are available that may be relevant to the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire. For instance, charges may be brought for breach of the peace and causing a nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Part III of the Act, as amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, provides local authorities with the powers to prevent or abate noise nuisance from any vehicle, machinery or equipment on the street, premises or land.
  Those powers could apply to the use of off-road motor cycles, but it would be for the local authority environmental health officer to judge whether a problem complained about could be deemed a statutory nuisance. If that were the case, the authority would have to serve an abatement notice on the person responsible for the vehicle. If the person responsible could be found, the notice could be fixed to the vehicle.
  Other available powers are in the Road Traffic Act 1991, which allows for prosecution against dangerous driving and careless and inconsiderate driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place. They enable prosecutions to be brought for offences committed while driving vehicles in off-road areas to which the public have access. Under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—the example of wanton or furious driving—a rider of any such vehicle causing death or bodily harm to any person whatever could be prosecuted by the police.

  391
  As scramble or trial bikes are classed as off-road vehicles, other statutory requirements relating to on-road motor cycles do not apply. That means that there is no minimum age restriction, nor is there any requirement to have a driving licence, hold insurance or wear a safety helmet.
  The Motor Cycles (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1998 require riders and passengers on motor bikes to wear helmets when on a road. We currently have no plans to extend that to off-road use of bikes. The nature of off-road use, which tends to be infrequent, often on private land and usually over difficult terrain, means that effective enforcement would require many scarce police resources.
  To ensure that every off-road motor cycle rider has a driving licence, a national registration scheme for all off-road motor cycles would have to be put in place, but it would be costly to set up and administer. It is doubtful whether those who occasionally use unlicensed off-road motor cycles would comply with the scheme and it would be difficult to enforce, which would add to the burden on the police.
  I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that, in its view, the current legislation is sufficient to deal with the majority of off-road motor cyclists and it is not seeking the introduction of any additional offences or powers in that respect.
  John McDonnell: I do not want to contradict the police officers who advise my hon. Friend, but I must reinforce the point that this is a key issue. Apart from car dumping, it is the worst environmental crime in most of our constituencies. We cannot cope. Whatever advice has been provided to my hon. Friend we need changes in the law and it is critical that we tackle the issue. Lives are at risk on pavements, in public parks and elsewhere.
  Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend. Perhaps the following remarks will deal with the issues that are important to his area.
  I shall now say something about what we have done to combat the problem of off-road motor cycles in public spaces and on land. Under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle without permission on to common land, moorland or land of any description that does not form part of a road. It is also an offence under that section to drive a motor vehicle on a footpath or bridleway.
  The offences under section 34 did not extend to off-road vehicles, because a motor vehicle was defined in section 185 of the 1988 Act as
  "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on the roads".
  As some motor cycles, for example scramble motor cycles, are classified as off-road vehicles, such vehicles were not covered by the prohibition in section 34. However, an amendment to section 34 was included in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which received Royal Assent on 30 November. That amendment had the
  392
  effect of extending to off-road vehicles, the offence under section 34 of the 1988 Act, and came into force on 1 February 2001.
  Another use of off-road motor cycles is for off-road motor-cycle racing. Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, any land can be used for up to 14 days in any year for motor cycle racing, including trials of speed, without the need for an application for planning permission. The only exception is land within a site of special scientific interest, where express planning permission is always required.
  The Government recognise that, although such activity is restricted to 14 days a year, local people can be significantly disturbed by the noise that it creates. Without the requirement for planning permission, a local planning authority has no opportunity to impose suitable conditions that could reduce the impact of such activity.
  Last year we commissioned Baker Associates to conduct research including consideration of the temporary uses provisions. Its report was published in September this year. The researchers recommended that the "temporary uses" provisions should be withdrawn entirely, and that no temporary use should be allowed without express planning permission. That recommendation would apply to off-road motor cycle activities. I am sure that that comes as good news to my hon. Friends.
  Before deciding whether to accept the researchers' recommendations, we will issue a public consultation paper early next year. It will include options for amending the "temporary uses" provisions. I hope that my hon. Friends' constituents who are affected will participate, and will make their views known either directly or through my hon. Friends.
  Caroline Flint: Would my hon. Friend consider discussing with his counterparts in the Home Office how local authorities and the police can use antisocial behaviour orders to build a case against persistent harassment on estates when residents—independent witnesses—can give accounts to the police, so that those kids can be dealt with under the regulations and laws already provided by Government?
  Mr. Jamieson: I think that in certain cases in which disturbances are extreme, it would be worth establishing whether they fell within the relevant part of the law. Tonight I have tried to refer to matters that are the responsibility of my Department; when we have finished our consultation, we will—rapidly, I hope—decide on the most appropriate way in which to proceed.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for raising an issue that is important to many people in many constituencies. Such offences often affect the quality of life of the most vulnerable, such as younger children and the elderly. My hon. Friend spoke with his usual thoroughness and, as always, with great good sense.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Manufacturing Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Angela Smith.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, how nice to see you in the Chair today.
I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to talk about the manufacturing industry for various obvious reasons, so I had better declare my interests now. I am a senator on the board of the Engineering Council, which regulates the engineering profession in the United Kingdom and has about 250,000 members. I sit on the board of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, which has a membership of about 150,000. I am an adviser for the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which is the largest engineering institution in the UK, and I also advise and support my colleagues in the other 37 engineering institutions that manage the engineering industry in its broadest context in the UK.
You must forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my indulgence and for the terms that I use to refer to my industry, which I love with a great passion. These are difficult times for us. On Friday last week, most people probably would not have heard that Rolls-Royce announced approximately 5,000 job losses. For those of us who are interested in the business, it was 5,000 more job losses in what has been an exceptionally difficult year.
In addition, last week, the World Economic Forum announced in its annual survey that Finland is now top of the league as the world's most competitive economy, a fact that was validated even after the awful events of 11 September. It was intriguing that such a small country could do so well. The fall of the United States from the top spot, which it shared with Singapore for the past few years, is blamed partly on the collapse of high-tech shares and the resulting slow-down. Much to my dismay, guess where we appeared—it was not fifth and it was not eighth. Both Ireland and the UK have now slumped out of the top 10. The World Economic Forum says that that is a result of slow economic growth.
Those of us who have a passionate interest in manufacturing want to know why that has happened. More importantly, we want to know what is going on in Finland, as it has achieved a great prize. Over the past 10 years, Finland has become not only the world's most effective technology-driven economy, but has invested effort and money into social policy. I wonder, as do most of my colleagues, whether Finland has developed a new paradigm that produces outstanding competitive advantage and whether it is, therefore, a country to which we should turn for some valuable lessons.
A significant indicator in Finland is the long-term plan—the "Finland 2015 plan"—which aims
70WH
"to improve the knowledge, skills, resources and networks of top-level Finnish decision-makers in matters concerning the future of Finland".
Many of the institutions that I have the privilege to work with and represent have set about producing similar plans that need Government assistance if they are to realise their objectives on our behalf. I do not believe in propping up industries that are badly managed and that do not hunger to be the best in their field. My colleagues however, are grappling with multiple—not single—complexities.
After my short foray into the European continent, I turn to the United Kingdom. I want, specifically, to examine how our manufacturing industry—and our mutual passion—is faring. We have been given the impression, particularly by the media, of a manufacturing industry that is in terminal decline and on the road to becoming an ever-decreasing proportion of the UK's economy.
I shall list some of the job losses that we have experienced since last October. For instance, at Vauxhall—there are colleagues present who are interested in the car industry—2,000 jobs were lost. The reason for that was over-capacity in Europe—nothing to do with monetary policy. At Cammel Laird, 189 jobs were lost in a contractual dispute. At British Aerospace Systems 3.500 jobs—perhaps 4,000—were lost. It has experienced losses and orders are down; we can expect more bad news from that sector.
However, do these figures really matter in the greater economy, which is a mixed and diverse economy? How serious are they for the current and future successes of our world as a whole? Is it time for us to forget manufacturing and rely on the service economy? The answer must be an emphatic no. No one present will forget the MacGregor days—I certainly will not because I come from south Wales—when, under the direction of Margaret Thatcher, he stepped into south Wales and devastated entire industries without any thought of the impact that such action would have. Those of us who work in that wonderfully creative world were constantly derided. Although others insisted on consigning us to the bin, we understood the value of manufacturing to the gross domestic product. We also understood that we needed and could nourish the culture and intellectual activity of the UK.
Let us consider a few facts. First, manufacturing is still very important in international trade. In 2000, manufacturing industry contributed £156 billion to UK exports, which is a remarkable 59 per cent. of the total of all exported goods and services. The truth is, although it may be unpalatable to some, that output has risen in the long term. In 1961, the index of manufacturing output was nearly 63. By 1995, that figure had increased to 100—a rise of nearly 60 per cent. The effects of recessions were felt in the early 1980s and 1990s and there was a further decline in 1998 in the wake of the south-east Asian crisis. By 2000, the index recovered to 105, which is very encouraging. However, I fear that there will be another decline this year after the events at ground zero.
The second fact is that productivity has risen in recent years. It rose by 3.5 per cent. in 1999 and by a further 5.5 per cent. in 2000. Those of us who are critical and realistic about our colleagues who work in

71WH
manufacturing know that we desperately needed to improve our productivity if we were to remain competitive in the market for low-value technologies.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Would the hon. Lady acknowledge that that increase in productivity over the two years that she has cited has been achieved by a reduction in the numbers employed in manufacturing industry, rather than by the preferable route of greater investment?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes. That is an extremely valid point. I would not deny the mix of downsizing and the acquisition of new technology. Those factors were essential. Some industries were over-staffed, and I think that a number of industries have failed to develop their asset base.
I shall turn to that very point. Slightly more than 5.8 million people were employed in manufacturing industry in 1982, and the figure fell to 4.8 million in 1987 and to 3.9 million in 1994. By May 2001, the figure was about 3.8 million. The number of people working in manufacturing has reduced dramatically. However, that does not demonstrate the current diversity of the business compared with its nature in the past. It used to rely on heavy utilisation of individuals rather than technology.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend makes a cogent and interesting case. Does she accept that one of the problems is that employment in manufacturing is often hidden? In the rural economy, that is more important than people would have us believe. I would not belittle in any way the impact of foot and mouth disease on agriculture and farming, but the loss of manufacturing jobs in my constituency in recent years has been much more devastating.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes. Later, I shall come to the pithy issue of the limited definition of manufacturing. The manufacturing that my hon. Friend referred to could be collated under the title of agricultural activities, which need not include manufacturing. As long as agricultural activities are outside of manufacturing, they do not receive the support or recognition that they deserve.
The proportion of GDP accounted for by manufacturing has declined in the past century. In 1990, manufacturing represented 23 per cent. of GDP, but by 1999 it had fallen to 19 per cent.—if we use the Government's definition of manufacturing. Manufacturing has not been so unprofitable since 1992, and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply's index on manufacturing business activity is below 50 per cent. for its seventh consecutive month. August's reading was the lowest since 1999.
The Engineering Employers Federation, which is a difficult organisation to deal with, although its strength is in its valid statistics, declared when it released its quarterly survey that the manufacturing sectors were almost certainly in recession. I lament that, because it is a source of great concern to those of my colleagues who work in these sectors. The EEF has called for monetary easing, as have many other organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry.
72WH
Manufacturing and engineering are in recession. They have suffered two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The contraction in manufacturing output—about 4 per cent. in manufacturing and 9 per cent. in engineering between December 2000 and July 2001—suggests that negative growth will soon stretch to double figures, and beat the decline seen throughout the 1992 recession.
These are grim times for our engineering industry, but we should not be perturbed by facts alone. After all, the picture is the same across most of the developed world. In a successful modern economy, our challenges and priorities will vary. We must ask where those lost to manufacturing have gone. One of them is standing in front of us today.
Mr. Graham Brady: The hon. Lady is right to say that we face the common challenge of loss of employment in the manufacturing sector. Is she not concerned that Britain adds disproportionate costs to our manufacturing sector? I speak particularly of the climate change levy, which is a higher cost than that faced by competitors in, for example, Germany.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I wish it were that easy; I wish that it were just one tax structure, such as the climate change levy, that prevented us from having a level playing field. I know many engineers who work in Germany who talk about the myriad initiatives of ours that they do not have. They envy us the research and development investment that we have introduced in the past few years. They realise that although it does not bring us short-term gains, we will reap long-term benefits.
Some of my fellow engineering colleagues are in the House; we appear everywhere, much to the betterment of other Members. By and large, we are straight, factual people, not given to the fantasies that sometimes infiltrate such a political environment. That does not necessarily make us good politicians, but it makes us a safe pair of hands.
Some of us engineers, and some businesses, have transferred to growth areas in manufacturing which, until recently, included electronics, aerospace, machine tools and motor vehicles. In these areas, inward investment and growing global markets have played a major role. Engineering and technical skills are in great demand, but unfortunately there are too few of us to satisfy the diversity of that demand. There has been an increase in employment in the construction industry in recent years; for that, we must thank God for the Labour Government and their commitment to rebuilding our dilapidated transport and health infrastructures, which employ many of my erstwhile colleagues and fuel their innovative and practical skills.
The losses have been felt mainly in the country's old industrial heartland, and it is here that we start to unravel the story.
Mr. Hammond: To pick up on the hon. Lady's last comment, which related more to the construction than the manufacturing industry, what impact does she believe sustainability in public spending will have on the viability and competitiveness of the manufacturing

73WH
sector? The rebuilding that she mentioned implies a level of public spending that many in the manufacturing industry fear will impact negatively on the environment that it faces.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the 1980s and early 1990s his party introduced several environmental-led pieces of legislation—for example, the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health, or COSHH, Regulations 1988. For someone working in the chemical industry, the COSHH regulations were extremely onerous. As someone responsible for undertaking audits and compliance with the environmental legislation passed by that Government, my experience was that it was not only an arduous task to comply, but hellishly expensive. For example, when I worked for Shell Chemicals, we did not discuss whether it was morally right to comply with good environmental policy, but whether we could afford it. The answer was no, so we had to shut down previously profitable activities.
If I were asked whether that was the correct thing to do in the long term, I would say yes. It forced my colleagues in the R and D department to work out how to create a clean and sustainable production environment while still making a profit. If we step outside the UK, we see that we have engendered respect for our environmental competence. I will speak later about the money that engineering companies are making from consultancy, which is partly because of the legislation passed by the previous Government. They said that certain changes had to be made for good reason. That was done at a short-term cost, but the long-term gain was the development of world-leading technologies and intellectual capacity. Under the Kyoto agreement, which I hope will resurface, there is a worldwide requirement to produce in a sustainable way, which looks damn good for my colleagues in environmental and sustainable consultancies.
Until recently, the high sector growth, to which I referred, has been growing dramatically. Between 1990 and 1998, output in the electronics sector grew by 60 per cent., and the sector is worth about £30 billion. During the same period, manufacturing output fell by 4 per cent. After its peak in December 2000, the high-tech sector has fallen—tell me about it, for those with shares in the businesses have suffered the consequences—by almost 14 per cent. in five months, but the structural impact is unlikely to have a long-term effect in that consumer-driven market.
It must surely be time to rethink radically our definition of the manufacturing industry, using the interventions that have been made today and the comments that I have already made. We should have a more inclusive definition, which would assist policy makers in understanding the kaleidoscopic nature of a sector that requires essentially a common skill base and managerial and operational structures. We have all witnessed the shift in the UK and industrialised world to a service-based economy, so let us understand what that means for UK manufacturing.
Earlier this year, Warwick university's Institute for Employment Research forecast a net fall of 315,000 jobs in engineering manufacturing between 1998 and 2009, a drop of 17 per cent. with the bulk of it taking place between 1998 and 2004.
74WH
However, it says that that drop contrasts with growth of 8 per cent. in employment in the economy as a whole, so overall the picture is robust. Once again, the sectors bearing the brunt are likely to be the traditional areas of mechanical engineering and base metals. Geographically, most regions of the UK are forecasting a decline until 2004, although the decline will be only marginal in the south-west, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The paradox in the success story that manufacturing is today is that employment reductions will be due mainly to technology change, which brings about improvements in productivity through the more flexible use of labour and changes in working practices and organisation. Changes in markets and the effects of price competition will encourage such trends.
When I worked for Shell, I visited a factory that employed about 150 people. By the time I had traversed the length of the factory, I had estimated that 140 staff could be laid off without any loss in productivity. That was tremendously sad, because those people were using skills and doing work that they clearly enjoyed. However, we cannot ignore developments in technology and the opportunity to improve profits, because we all benefit from that.
Mr. Hammond: Is not the challenge to ensure that manufacturing industry grows, as well as productivity, so that employment remains stable while becoming more productive?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes, it is. However, I said earlier that people leaving a particular business—the factory to which I referred manufactured lost-wax metal components; a great process, fantastically fiddly and marvellous—leave with a certain skill mix. All the employees at that factory were men, I am sad to say. I told the managing director that he could lose 140 of his employees, get money at preferential interest rates and make a good return on his capital investment. However, what do we do with the people who have gone, bearing in mind that they support families? What was missing in the past was an opportunity to retrain; I am pleased to say that it now exists.
The parlance and curricula in further education suit old and not new industries. That is largely because we underpay staff in that sector and do not provide them with the investment in their asset base to allow them to produce the type of services that their clients need. Many of them know what the demands are, but they are simply not equipped to meet those demands.
Future economic success will be based increasingly on quality of labour, and we in the engineering community are acutely aware of that. We have rested on our laurels for years. We were shocked to learn from a study that we undertook that UK engineers were not rated the best in the world; unfortunately, our colleagues in Germany were. I do not wish to involve the House in the tribal warfare that exists between engineering communities of both a professional and a craft nature. However, it does not sit terribly well with British engineers to find that, in world opinion, we lag somewhat behind our German colleagues. Therefore, the race is on to try to improve the ability base, not of our academic engineers only but of our skilled technicians as well.

75WH
There is a plethora of academic engineers in the UK, but they cannot translate dreams into reality; only a good technician can do that. I ask those who are interested in house renovation to try to find a good electrician. It is very difficult to find a good, reputable electrician, in whom one can have confidence. Such people are not easily to be found because we as a society do not sufficiently reward them, not in a material or financial sense but in acknowledging that they are important to our infrastructure.
I have lost count of the number of undergraduates that I have heard of who were keen to study law or work in the media. The number of graduates in the media in the north-east last year was 30,000 whereas the number of individuals doing engineering had declined to approximately 1,000. There is a complete mismatch between graduates and the demands of the local economy, which leads to industries moving away. In the north-west we have low-level technology activities, and the strength of the pound is forcing some of those businesses out of business. In other parts of the world, salaries are £1 an hour or, worse still, £1 a week. We cannot continue to engage in low-value technology activities, but we do not have a sufficient skill base in the north-west to underpin the development of alternative high-value technologies. Such assets are the product of years of sustained investment by a Government who are committed to diversity within the economy but who understand that diversity requires money at the front end, with very little return in the short term.
I took great pleasure in being a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which considered the UK R and D budget. It was appalling when we took power in 1997, I suppose because the previous Government did not understand the relationship between R and D investment today, bottom line return tomorrow. We have put £1.4 billion into the R and D infrastructure in the UK's academic provision. We will not get a return on it immediately, but we are sitting on an enormous asset base that will be realised in 10 years' time. I say to the Minister that in these difficult times we should not forget the long-term impact of R and D investment. We must continue to invest at that level if we are to resume our dominant world position in productivity and innovation.
I shall now bring my remarks to a close, sparing hon. Members another 10 pages of statistics and interesting facts. I make no excuse for being well prepared, as I represent a wonderful business that is keen to do its best but which needs our assistance.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced several new initiatives and is committed to taking full advantage of the fact that the UK has some of the best scientific and academic brains, and the best practical skills, in the world. My right hon. Friend said that she is committed to ensuring that "invented in Britain" becomes "made in Britain", which is fantastic. At a manufacturing summit in November, she will unveil plans to help to build a manufacturing industry of the future and I am glad that I will be part of those discussions
I want to take this opportunity to tell my manufacturing colleagues that it is time for them to put up or shut up. They must be prepared to sit down and
76WH
articulate their vision for the future and to seek out those who are charged with managing the environment in which they work. I say to my engineering colleagues that no comment means no future. I have lost count of the number of institutional meetings I have attended where there was a great deal of pontification about what was going wrong but an absolute failure to articulate those concerns and to make them known to the people who matter.
I am wedded to a Government who want us to do well and to support industries in our environment to help them to achieve their best. They cannot do so in a vacuum of silence. We are a capable group of individuals, but we are not yet telepathic. We need to make our views known in writing at the very least but even more by our physical presence.
Investment in R and D and capital is essential. I shall leave my hon. Friends to talk about R and D investment and the tax incentives that are needed to make investment in capital more realistic for those who are struggling and having to reduce margins to remain viable. When the Chancellor announced R and D tax breaks for small companies in the 1999 Budget, I was the only Member in the House to jump up and shout. I thought it was absolutely fantastic. I have run a small, struggling business and the notion that one has money to do anything other than the job one is doing is farcical. One wants to do more, but needs an incentive to do so.
The tax incentive for development is extremely important, but let us not limit it to small companies. Large companies now need tax breaks for development. I want to see products developed in this country, not in other countries. It is essential to keep innovation here. Let us export the operational sectors if we must, but let us keep the R and D function here. High value means high returns means better profit margins.
I look forward to hearing the Minister, who has a difficult job. Manufacturing in its broadest context falls under many Departments and Ministers, not him alone. I mentioned that I have worked with the Engineering Council and other organisations, and they are keen to hear what he has to say. We want to hear him acknowledge the benefits that engineering and manufacturing bring to our economy and the value that they constantly bring to our gross domestic product. We also want him to acknowledge their contribution to the cultural development and intellectual capacity of this country. We want him to support us in these difficult times. We are the innovators and the doers. We remain a prized and coveted commodity, worthy of this Government's great protection and support.
10.1 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to contribute to this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her excellent introduction. I have a great interest in manufacturing and believe that it is a vital component of our economy, which has been sorely abused over the past several decades.
In my first year as a Member of Parliament my constituency was hit by the closure of Electrolux with the loss of 700 jobs. More recently, Vauxhall has announced a plant closure with several thousand jobs lost. Our problems go back much further. My first

77WH
temporary job as a student was working for a company making high-quality microscopes. That company has now gone. Recently, I attended a conference on the health service. The conference centre was built on what used to be an aerodrome—previously owned by a manufacturing company for which I had worked. It is now a conference centre, not a manufacturing plant.
We have serious problems in Luton. The small firms in the supply chain for the motor manufacturing industry, especially those dedicated entirely to providing for Vauxhall Motors, are in serious trouble. These are desperately hard times for such firms.
I want to focus on the main problem faced by manufacturing in Britain at present: the high pound. I have some trade statistics relating to trade deficits in finished manufactures, at current prices. Between 1991 and 1993 the trade deficit rose from £2.5 billion to £9 billion. Between 1993 and 1995 it fell from £9 billion to £6.2 billion. Between 1995 and 2000 the deficit rose from £6.3 billion to £23 billion and it is continuing to worsen. The first two quarters of 2001 has seen an annualised extrapolation of a deficit of £27 billion or £28 billion in finished manufactures. Our trade problem is serious.
To explain the significance of those dates, from 1991 to 1993 we were suffering from the delayed inertia J-curve effects of the exchange rate mechanism disaster, the overvaluation of the pound, which caused desperate problems for our manufacturing. Unemployment rose and large sections of our manufacturing industry closed down. From 1993 to 1995 we had the benefits of the substantial depreciation of nearly 30 per cent, which gave a tremendous boost to our manufacturing and improved our trade deficit. That meant that we reduced the problem of our deficit in respect of manufactures. After 1995, however, the pound started to appreciate rapidly and strongly against other currencies, particularly those of the euro zone. During that period, the desperate trade balance and much more serious difficulties for our manufacturing sector emerged.
There is no sign yet that the pound will reduce, although we have yet to see what happens when the euro really gets started next year. I suspect that there might be a change then. The parity of the pound is critical for the UK's competitiveness. We constantly talk about the need for education and training, investment and consideration of our skills base and supply side components, but we always seem to ignore the desperate problems faced by manufacturing when the pound appreciates, especially by more than 40 per cent.—a stunning figure.
If a company is trying to export motor cars, as Vauxhall was from Luton, and over a few years there is a 40 per cent. appreciation in the currency relative to those of our major competitors, that company has desperate problems. Indeed, Vauxhall had a wobble three years ago, when there was a possibility of its closing. Many Labour Members and one or two Opposition Members lobbied the Government, manufacturers and General Motors, and we managed to save Vauxhall.
During those discussions, I told Nick Reilly, Vauxhall's then managing director, that there was a problem with the strong pound, and he agreed. I said that it could not stay like that for ever because it was obvious that it was massively overvalued and that it
78WH
would soon fall. Mr. Reilly thought that a reasonable point. Indeed, it may have been a factor in Vauxhall's deciding to stay in business at least for the time being. It reached an agreement with the work force that was beneficial for the company, and it stayed for another two years until announcing its closure suddenly and unacceptably. Nevertheless, the strong pound was a major factor if not the major factor.
It is much cheaper to manufacture General Motors cars, which are called Opel on the continent and Vauxhall here, on the continent and export them here. The cars are identical. We are talking not about second or third world countries, but about Belgium and Germany—plants in other prosperous, developed countries.
With the all-party rail freight group, I recently visited the SNCF in France, where we looked at rail freight facilities and investment. With a straight face, the French told us that they had a little problem with their rail freight going to Britain, because all the trucks were full of goods going into Britain but empty coming out, which was not good for their business. The reason is obvious: we do not export enough and we import too much.
When we talk about trade, we should not focus only on exports. They can increase over a period, perhaps slowly or too slowly, but imports are the problem. We have an enormous propensity for importing too much, because our currency's value is too high. Foreign goods are cheap and domestically produced goods are expensive, whatever we do in other respects. Adjusting the pound downwards to a sensible level would overcome that problem and at least give manufacturing a fair chance.
Mr. Hammond: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Given his clear view of what is needed, what are his recommendations for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister on future public spending plans if the objective is to bring down the value of the pound?
Mr. Hopkins: As the hon. Gentleman will know, managing the macro-economic economy depends on monetary and fiscal factors. If we need a fiscal stimulus in a recession, I am happy with that. However, if there is a fiscal stimulus when the value of the currency is too high, it will draw in imports but not promote development of the domestic economy. Therefore the two go together.
I would focus on getting the pound down to a sensible level first. Indeed, I have said this publicly and written to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor several times, saying what I think we should do. The Government must intervene in the currency markets and the long-term bond market. Others have proposed a technique for bringing down the value of the pound relative to the euro zone currencies in particular, where we have a false parity.
My hon. Friend the Minister cannot answer for the Treasury, but I ask that he speak to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the problem of the pound and press him to do something about it. The value of the pound is far too high and is causing desperate damage to our manufacturing industry. We must address that before we can start to win.

79WH
I live in a town that was built on manufacturing and where relative living standards have fallen over recent decades. We are a great manufacturing nation with a great tradition of manufacturing, which is a vital component of our history. If we do not do something about the macro-economic environment in which manufacturing now struggles, we will do serious damage to our economy and future generations.
10.10 am
Adam Price: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for initiating the debate at a time that is critical for manufacturing industry, right across the United Kingdom. As is apparent from my accent, I, like her, am from south Wales. I echo many of the points that she made.
We heard last night a slightly complacent passing comment from the Government on the resilience of the UK economy. I look forward to their considered approach. The Government seem unable to grasp or even admit the gravity of the current crisis. We have heard examples of some of the problems that we are facing across the UK. The British Chambers of Commerce this month warned that manufacturing was in a critical condition, with domestic orders and export sales down, further job cuts in the pipeline and confidence ebbing away. Last month there was a 0.2 per cent. decline in factory prices, which is the largest since records began in 1958. This is a serious crisis.
Professor Steven Nickell, a member of the Monetary Policy Committee, has talked about the dangers of a two-speed economy. Of the 300,000-plus manufacturing jobs lost since the Government came to office, almost two thirds have been the wrong side of the north-south divide, in the most disadvantaged regions of the United Kingdom. Scotland has reported the largest fall in business confidence since 1980 and in Wales more than 25,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the Government came to office—an average of just under 23 jobs per day. Another estimated 20,000 jobs are at risk because of deteriorating economic conditions. I shall listen intently to the Minister's response.
The global economic slowdown is certainly a factor in the deepening problems of the sector, but it is important to recognise that, as has been said by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), manufacturing has been in crisis for many years. Indeed, in the second half of the 1990s, manufacturing output hardly grew at all. At the heart of that failure has been the Government's inaction on the key question of the exchange rate. For the third time in 20 years, the high pound is decimating our manufacturing base.
One of the fallacies that cloud the debate is that it is about not the strength of the pound but the weakness of the euro. I remind hon. Members that the biggest rise, in the exchange rate, pre-dated the launch of the euro, so the issue is clearly more structural.
Mr. Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that appreciation was at least partly to do with an
80WH
anticipation of the euro? Those who knew it was coming started to get out of euro zone currencies and into other currencies, particularly the dollar and sterling.
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. I should have informed hon. Members earlier that by convention we commence winding-up speeches, of which there are usually three, 30 minutes before termination of the debate. That means that, in order to get everyone in, right hon. and hon. Members must take account of the need to be concise and clear and for any interventions to he brief.
Adam Price: I am grateful, Mr. Cook.
Anticipation plays an important part in the action of currency markets. Rationality unfortunately plays a far lesser role. The hon. Member for Luton, North pointed out that a remedy to the problem of the high pound is available to the Government. It has been pointed out by a fairly distinguished list of economists, including Roger Bootle and Gerry Holtham, former director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, who is now the head of Britain's largest investment fund, Morley Fund Management.
The Government could lower the pound by buying euro-denominated Government bonds, which would offset the pressure on sterling to appreciate. They could do that in a way that was at least neutral in terms of its costs to the Exchequer, and they could even make a small profit. The notion that the Government should never intervene, regardless of the market rate, is bizarre. The tools are there. It could be done overnight. It would have a marked impact the viability of manufacturing business across the length and breadth of the UK. The Government's stubborn refusal to do that has led to the loss of more than 100,000 saveable manufacturing jobs this year alone.
The Treasury and the Bank of England have shied away from currency market intervention, in part because of the debacle of 1992, when the Government intervened to prop up sterling by using, or indeed losing, all our foreign exchange reserves. As a general rule, it is easier to temper a rising currency than to prop up a falling one. There is a precedent, of which I am sure the Minister will be aware, of the United States in September 1985, when the G7 Finance Ministers approved the Plaza agreement to puncture the dollar bubble. A fortnight later the dollar had fallen by 10 per cent. against the yen.
We have heard two propositions against those arguments from the Bank of England and the Government. Sir Edward George has consistently said that interest rates would be significantly higher were it not for the high level of the pound. A strong pound keeps import prices down and depresses borrowing costs. A weak pound necessarily imports inflation and, other things being equal, forces interest rates to rise. The key phrase is "other things being equal". The Government could change their fiscal stance and use fiscal rather than monetary measures to stave off inflationary pressures. That would allow the Bank to set lower rates than it otherwise could.
Another argument is that the problems of manufacturing are principally due not to the high exchange rate but to the persistent problem of low productivity.

81WH
Over the summer, the Chancellor claimed that higher productivity in competitive firms would help offset the impact of an adverse exchange rate. There is almost a Thatcherite feel to this: the medicine might not taste nice but it is doing good. The problem here of course is that higher productivity is essentially a long-term policy. Welsh manufacturing firms are being hit in the here and now, and simply may not be around to enjoy the benefits of higher productivity, higher research spending and better skills in the future. Even for those that survive, the high pound will wipe out productivity gains and prevent the investment needed to improve their competitiveness.
There is a deep-rooted historical problem of lower productivity in British industry linked to lower skills and under-investment, but productivity growth for most of the past 20 years in the UK has been quite impressive; it has been similar to that of the US and other advanced economies. It is output growth that has been negligible. That is the key point. Since 1970, manufacturing output per head of population in the US has risen by 108 per cent., whereas the UK figure is 15 per cent.
The greatest weakness of the UK economy has been the failure to translate productivity growth in manufacturing into output growth. One of the main reasons for that has been the poor macro-economic environment. During the crises of the early 1980s and 1990s, and now in the millennium, we have seen wave after wave of gradual de-industrialisation of Britain. As the hon. Member for Luton, North said, our manufacturing trade balance has deteriorated massively, which has been hidden to some extent by the high exchange rate. We have ceased to be a manufacturing economy. There is an inherent danger in that because many of the higher value-added services in the so-called knowledge economy are embodied within manufactured goods. For example, I draw the attention of hon. Members to design and its relationship with manufacturing.
The long American boom of the 1990s was as much a manufacturing-based phenomenon as a service-based phenomenon. We can ill afford to lose our manufacturing industry. Such matters are particularly worrying for us in Wales because manufacturing industry represents 27 per cent. of our economy compared with 20 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. In the past five years, the strong pound has caused much damage to our economy. It may become a handicap in the difficult times that could lie ahead. The Government need to accept their responsibilities and to take action. The tools are there to enable them to intervene in the currency market. There are undoubtedly risks involved in taking such action, but doing nothing will incur incomparable greater danger.
10.21 am
Mr. David Chidgey: For the best part of a decade I have attended debates on the decline of the manufacturing industry. The arguments about the lack of investment, loss of market share and employment have been well rehearsed yet again today. I shall not dwell on them because time is short. However, Governments come and they go, and whenever they are forced to deal with the decline in the manufacturing industry, they come up with a five or 10-year plan that
82WH
they can kick into touch so that what is happening is not their problem. I do not expect the Government to come up with an instant panacea to resolve the ills of manufacturing. The problems are far too well-embedded for there to be an instant solution. However, I expect them to apply their policies in a manner that will support manufacturing, not add to its burden.
I shall cite two examples to show how the Government's actions are threatening yet more manufacturing jobs in aerospace and railway engineering in my constituency of Eastleigh. This month, about 100 skilled craftsmen have lost their jobs at Hamble Aerostructures—a firm that I have known well for many years and which is a major supplier to Boeing for its 737s. As a direct result of the atrocities of 11 September, the firm's order book has been slashed from 17 aircraft a month to eight, and 25 per cent. of its export sales are now going at a stroke. The Government are not to blame, but they are failing to ensure that Hamble can compete successfully under their programme to secure future work.
I turn now to the A380 airbus. Hon. Members will know that the Government have provided £530 million of assistance to Airbus Industries UK on a preferential loans basis. Airbus Industries UK is now placing invitations to tender on that programme throughout Europe, the far east and elsewhere. However, the rub is that Airbus Industries UK is expecting its suppliers to finance the upfront, non-recurring development costs. That will increase the tender costs and prices of Hamble and other United Kingdom firms and make them less competitive. Their competitors in Italy, Belgium and Holland do not have the same problem. In Italy, the Government's assistance to the A380 programme has been split; 50 per cent. goes to the prime contractor and 50 per cent. to the subcontractor and the supply chain. Hamble Aerostructures is competing against suppliers in Italy that have the benefit of direct Government assistance. That cannot be sensible and it is a direct result of the Government's policy.
If the UK's aerospace firms such as Hamble are to receive their fair share of the programme, the Government must change their policy and either restructure the assistance to Airbus Industries so that 50 per cent. of it goes to the supply chain and 50 per cent. to the main contractor, or insist that Airbus Industries absorbs the upfront, non-recurring costs itself. After all, it is taxpayers' money.
My final point, in the short time that I have, is about the rail industry. The Government have appointed the Strategic Rail Authority, which is charged with increasing rail-rider numbers and improving and expanding our rail industry. However, at the same time, the Government have decided not to proceed with renewing 20-year franchises but, instead, to extend them for two years. That has an enormous impact on the rail industry. Nobody has the confidence to invest or to confirm orders for new rolling stock or for renovation. That has a direct effect on my constituency and Alstom's railway works, on which Eastleigh was built, which is waiting more than six months for confirmed orders while jobs are shed week after week. There is an answer. The SRA has the power—under section 54 of the Railways Act 1993—to underwrite investment that is required to give clients the protection to make orders firm and, simultaneously, to stop jobs leaching from my constituency month after month.
10.26 am
Andy Burnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful and convincing speech. This is a time of great change in the United Kingdom's manufacturing base, and the human cost of that is sharply felt in the communities that we represent. I wish to put on record the experiences of my constituents who work at the Ingersoll-Rand portable compressor plant at Hindley Green. I shall draw out two lessons from them, which I ask the Minister to address.
Four weeks ago, Ingersoll-Rand announced that it was to move the manufacture of compressors from Hindley Green to the Czech Republic, thereby breaking a long-standing association with my constituency. Two hundred and fifty jobs are expected to be lost over next year and in the early part of 2003. The factory is based at the heart of a former coalfield area, and it is a tragedy that many of the people who will lose their jobs were previously employed at local pits. It must be extremely difficult for such people to face the situation and to try to find new employment.
The work force mounted a magnificent campaign to try to save the jobs, and I pay particular tribute to the union convenors, Ian Bryant and Mike Hughes, for their leadership, energy and resourcefulness in trying circumstances. I also thank the Minister for Employment and the Regions for his work to try to keep the jobs. Negotiations continue to keep an after-sales centre on the site.
I raise two points after having gone through all the stages of the campaign and reflecting on it. Do we need greater protection of existing employment in this country? I realise that there are two sides to the coin, and the last thing that we would want is an environment that does not encourage companies to invest here. However, I ask Ministers to examine the matter again and to ascertain whether more can be done to tie companies more firmly to the UK after they have located here. That occurs in other European countries.
I turn to the impact that the enlargement of the European Union may have on some of the oldest industrial areas in Europe. During the period of job losses at Ingersoll-Rand, it was suggested that the removal of trade tariffs for the developing economies of Europe, as part of the Nice treaty, makes it more attractive for companies to locate in countries in eastern Europe and to move away from countries such as ours. I know that labour costs are the main economic driver for the decisions, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister the extent to which the removal of the tariffs contributes to the problems suffered by British manufacturing.
Few people—if any—in Hindley Green would oppose the development of a strong and united European Union, and they would not question the need to help developing economies in Europe. However, they would reasonably ask why they have to pay the price for that.
I would like to see more debate at the European level about how the EU can help some of the oldest economies in Europe to make the transition into a new era.
10.29 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on animating the debate with her clear personal commitment and experience. I think that we crossed paths in industry without having been aware of it.
The remarks of the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) were a useful point of departure, which brought us up to date with the painful reality that manufacturing is in a severe and critical state. Reports are coming in more or less daily illustrating the seriousness of the situation. The most recent CBI study suggested that there is more spare capacity in the manufacturing industry than at any time since the early 1990s. A report published a few days ago by the Machinery and Metal Trades Federation argued on the basis of a survey of its members that investment is likely to fall by 40 per cent. over the next 12 months. In addition, a recent survey by the Item Club, which is one of the more reputable mainstream forecasting outfits, suggested, on the basis of an optimistic picture of the British economy—about 2 per cent. growth—that manufacturing industry would decline by about 1.5 per cent. this year and next year, with much greater falls in employment.
The outlook in the short run is therefore difficult. There are two basic reasons for that, which have been touched on at various points in the debate. As the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) expressed clearly, manufacturing industry has been struggling with a seriously overvalued exchange rate. The figures are all too clear. The key measure is called the real effective exchange rate, which is the overall measure of competitiveness of the UK economy as against other economies, given relative inflation. That suggests that the competitiveness of the UK economy, because of the exchange rate problem, has declined by about 30 per cent. since 1996. It has remained at roughly that level ever since.
Over the past two or three years, manufacturing industry has got by, essentially by accepting low profit margins but keeping the volumes going. That has been stopped because of the incipient global economic recession, which predated the events of 11 September. There are plenty of signs that east Asia, the United States and parts of western Europe are in serious economic trouble. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) described in relation to the aerospace industry, that is compounded by all the special problems arising from events in September. British manufacturing industry is being hit by the double whammy of an overvalued exchange rate, which has existed for three or four years, combined with serious problems on the international front. All that is superimposed on the long-term problem of relative decline in British manufacturing. Those of us who are a bit long in the tooth will remember the 1950s and 1960s, when endless tracts and books about the problems of British manufacturing industry were written. Similar tracts were written in the 19th century. We have therefore been living with the problem for a very long time.
How much does the relative decline in manufacturing industry matter? One can be philosophical about it—in all industrial or developed countries, manufacturing is in relative decline. In developed countries as a whole, the

85WH
share of GDP represented by manufacturing has fallen from about 30 per cent. in the 1960s to about 20 per cent. today. The problem with Britain is that the decline has happened much faster and gone much further than elsewhere. That is why it is worrying.
Manufacturing industry is important, although probably for more subtle reasons than is often acknowledged. One of the most important reasons is that manufacturing industry is the best source of productivity growth. In an ideal world, one would have lots of productivity growth combined with stable employment. I listened with interest to the interventions of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who was trying to make that point. There may have been a way of achieving that, but the Conservative Government whom he supported did not discover it. I concede that their productivity performance in manufacturing was exceptionally good—between 1980 and 1995, productivity growth in manufacturing was about 4 per cent., as opposed to 2 per cent. in the rest of the economy. On the other hand, manufacturing employment collapsed from 6.8 million to 4.1 million. Therefore, there was growth in productivity without employment stability—it is very difficult to get both.
Looking to the future, what could the Government usefully do? I shall make three points in that regard. First, it is important that the Government do not rush into all sorts of clumsy and unhelpful forms of intervention. We went round that circuit in the 1960s and 1970s. The Minister of State recently made the unfortunate remark—I hope that I quote him correctly—that any half-decent bird watcher can tell the difference between a lame duck and a bird that can fly, heralding a much more active process of subsidising and bailing out failing enterprises.
I suspect that all Governments experience that state of hubris in which they imagine themselves to be entrepreneurs. If that is the Government's new policy, I fear that their public expenditure priorities will be badly distorted in the next year or so, with no obvious benefit. Perhaps the Minister will make it clear what his Department intends to achieve at the proposed manufacturing summit. It could be an exercise simply in hot air and public relations, or a serious process of examining what the Government should and should not be doing in this context. It would be helpful to hear a little more about what they have in mind.
The second aspect in which the Government's role is relevant is tax policy. Everyone to whom I have spoken in the various manufacturing federations always starts with the climate change levy. They, and I, object not to the principle of environmental taxation or of it being used to curb carbon emissions, but to the extraordinarily complicated, cumbersome and abrupt way in which it has been introduced. Manufacturing industry has been hit up front with a large levy with numerous and rather arbitrary exemptions. It could have lived with a form of climate change levy bearing on carbon emissions throughout the economy, phased in gradually, but being hit with the tax in the way that it has, and at the time that it has, has been extraordinarily onerous.
To some extent, the climate change levy is water under the bridge, but I fear that the Government may repeat exactly the same mistake with the proposed
86WH
research and development tax incentives. The principle behind them is admirable. R and D is clearly important, and if the Government can envisage a way of encouraging them, I am sure that we would be all in favour of it. I understand that the proposal is for all companies to have to distinguish between new R and D and the R and D that they were already doing. I am not sure how that is done, but they will be required to do so, and will be given a generous tax break for the new R and D, and nothing for the R and D that they were doing anyway. That is a complicated and distorting way of intervening in manufacturing industry. A much simpler way of dealing with the matter, which the various industry federations are trying to press on the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, would be to spread R and D tax credit evenly across all R and D activity, with the same revenue implications. That would be a much more efficient approach.
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the tax environment in which companies operate, but is that not relatively small beer compared with the massive overvaluation of the pound? Given a correct valuation for the pound in competitive terms, could we not live with the tax changes and might we not need support such as we had in the past when we had similar problems with an overvalued pound?
Dr. Cable: I do not disagree. The complaints that industry has had about tax measures such as the climate change levy and the framing of R and D tax incentives are that they are irritants. The hon. Gentleman is right that, compared with a 30 per cent. change in the real value of the exchange rate, the matter is indeed rather small beer.
The central role of the Government in the matter is to get the basic macroeconomics right and achieve stability. In terms of monetary policy, interest rates and basic fiscal policy, they have done that to a remarkable extent. However, the big lacuna at the heart of the matter is the exchange rate, as the hon. Member for Luton, North suggests. Having said that, I recognise that these are not easy matters. In the current world of floating exchange rates it is not possible to decide arbitrarily to have an exchange rate that is 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. lower. It does not work like that. Intervention is not easy to secure, which is why my colleagues and I have always argued that it must be done in the context of a big long-term decision about euro entry. It is significant that a few weeks ago the Prime Minister chose, even in the midst of the present crisis, to make it clear that that big choice must be faced, and probably soon. That can be done in a way that secures a stable, sustainable, long-term exchange rate.
Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cable: I would have been happy to take an intervention, but that was my last point. I will draw my conclusions to a close.
10.39 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing this debate. As we have learned this morning, she is eminently well qualified to speak on these matters.

87WH
All hon. Members will agree that changes in the shape of a dynamic economy are inevitable and, indeed, welcome. Equally, however, a healthy economy is a balanced one. The sometimes dramatic growth and spectacular successes of parts of the service sector have appeared to be at the expense of our manufacturing base. Despite some of the Labour party's rhetoric in opposition, the Government appear not to have reversed the cultural bias against manufacturing, but often to be obsessed with the so-called new economy.
Most people agree that our manufacturing competitiveness in 1979 was at a pretty low ebb. A high price was paid in the early 1980s for achieving a leaner and more competitive industrial base. That was essential, but I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that we did not go far enough. We failed to achieve the holy grail of improving productivity not only absolutely, but enough to ensure that the employment growth that resulted from the expansion of the manufacturing base outweighed inevitable employment losses. The US manufacturing economy has managed that, but we have not.
Put bluntly, the debate must, when taken in the context of anything but the shortest term, be about productivity. All other things being equal, our manufacturing industry will grow in the long term if our productivity increases faster than that of our competitors; however, our manufacturing base will shrink if productivity increases more slowly. We are talking about a relative gain, not an absolute one; the issue is how we perform in relation to our competitors. This might not have been apparent in the past, but it is now recognised across the political spectrum that the long-term issue is how we ensure that British productivity gains are in line with, or better than, those of our competitors.
Our manufacturing industry finds itself in condition red. I will not repeat the data that the hon. Member for Crosby outlined in some detail, but historic data tell only part of the story. Anyone who is in touch with manufacturing industry and the associations that represent it understands that many businesses are clinging on by their finger nails. If the situation does not improve in the relatively near future, we shall see a step change in the rate of decline in our manufacturing base. Confidence is at an all-time low, projections for inward investment are dramatically down, uncertainty pervades industry, our international competitiveness is falling, we have a huge and rising trade deficit and crucially, profitability in manufacturing industry is at a record low. The CBI quarterly trends report will come out later this morning. I do not know what it will say, but I confidently expect it to show that demand is weakening further.
The Chancellor has recognised that the issue is one of competitiveness. Government support for improved competitiveness in the manufacturing industry can be effective, but I caution the Minister that it is likely to be only an expensive short-term palliative measure if it is not targeted at improving competitiveness over the longer term. Budget after Budget, we have heard the Chancellor pay lip service to improving Britain's productivity and closing the productivity gap. However,
88WH
Budget after Budget, we have seen measures that have damaged productivity further and led to the widening US-UK productivity gap.
Manufacturing is on the rack. High exchange rates, weak world demand, a faltering domestic economy and loss of confidence by the manufacturing sector, as well as heavy burdens of taxation and regulation, have hammered the competitiveness of our manufacturing businesses, and have led to a squeeze on margins that will inevitably lead to abandonment of investment plans.
The situation that we face demands a short-term response from the Government, but also action to prevent long-term damage to our future productivity growth caused by the reaction that business inevitably makes to short-term problems. To put it bluntly, we must not allow the margin squeeze faced by business to become the seeds of a downturn in the next economic cycle due to cancellation of investment, as that will translate into failure to maintain productivity in the next cycle. The Minister must stand up to the Treasury and insist that no more tax burdens are piled on business. He must stand up to Brussels, which has a not-so-secret agenda of costly burdens on British business that will erode our competitiveness further.
In the long-term, competitiveness is the key issue, and it can be achieved in several ways. Low wages are not desirable and not possible in an economy in which manufacturing makes up less than 20 per cent. of the total. Low profits are not desirable either, as they inevitably lead to low investment and the lack of a future for our manufacturing industry. Artificially set exchange rates are also not a long-term sustainable solution, although I agreed with hon. Members who emphasised the need for macroeconomic management to ensure a realistic exchange rate, so that manufacturing industry was not unfairly and inappropriately disadvantaged.
Growth of productivity is essentially an enterprise-level issue, a business management issue, but one in which the Government have a large role to play. Investment—bringing the capital-labour ratio of British Industry up to the levels of its international competitors—is crucial. It is self-evident, to me at least, that the Government's piling of burdens, expenses and taxes on business takes money away from investment that would improve the competitiveness and productivity of British industry.
The Government have a large role to play in flexibility and rapid responses to changes in demand through alterations to the labour-output mix. They must ensure that regulation is not over-prescriptive and that regulations intended to protect employment and employees do not have the perverse effect of preventing employment growth. The Government must also foster innovative research and development; other hon. Members have spoken about the relevant tax credit proposals and I share the concerns about the mechanics of the project, but its objectives are clearly positive.
One of the Government's most important roles—industry alone cannot take responsibility for it—may be in skills and education. We hear much about the knowledge-based economy, but manufacturing is a knowledge-based economy as well. The Government

89WH
have so far failed to translate their rhetoric into a real move away from the bias against engineering and manufacturing skills in our education system.
Before 11 September, manufacturing was already in recession. The tax burden was rising on the economy as a whole, and certainly on the manufacturing sector. The climate change levy was introduced at the worst possible time, with a hugely disproportionate burden on the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing needs a breathing space, a chance to regroup to recover from the burdens that it faces as a result of what the Government have imposed on it and what is happening in the world. We need not more summits and tsars, but solid policies that will allow manufacturing businesses to ride out the storm and ensure that they continue to grow and improve their productivity in the future. The real danger for our manufacturing economy is that the squeeze on margins today will jeopardise investment in capital equipment, training and innovation and will undermine future productivity growth in the next economic cycle. It is only by maintaining that investment that manufacturing industry will maintain its competitiveness and stabilise its share of overall output in the next cycle.
I hope to hear the Minister's proposals for tackling the immediate needs of manufacturing industry, including lightening the burden of regulation, and in due course I hope to hear from the Chancellor what he intends to do in his next Budget to underpin the future growth in productivity and competitiveness of the manufacturing sector.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing this debate on manufacturing, which is the bedrock of our economy. Manufacturing and engineering matter. They matter to the Government, to our economy and our people, to those who work in them and to all of us who enjoy their products.
I do have a cultural bias in favour of manufacturing, which accounts for more than a fifth of our national income and almost £150 billion of output every year. The sector employs about 4 million people directly, and millions more depend on manufacturing for their livelihood, including 2.5 million people in the service sector. A strong manufacturing sector is the backbone of our economy, and the manufacturing summit will reinforce that message.
As the Minister with responsibility for small and medium-sized enterprises, I have visited manufacturers whose forebears were pioneers 200 years ago. These manufacturers are innovators, at the cutting edge of competition. Manufacturing is led by some of our most innovative businesses, which invest heavily in research and development. It drives innovation in the rest of the economy and creates jobs and prosperity. It is the crucible for production improvements across the economy through advances in technology and new goods and processes, but most of all through a highly skilled, highly flexible and dedicated work force.
In the past four years we have helped 3,000 businesses and supported £6 billion of investment and 135,000 jobs, most of them in manufacturing. These challenging
90WH
circumstances make it all the more important that we adopt strategies that allow us to be successful in the global economy. We can no longer compete on labour costs and raw materials alone. Globalisation means that low value added goods can be produced more cheaply elsewhere.
In the past month I have visited factories in Norfolk and the east midlands, where new technologies are transforming every product and service in every part of the production process and in every sector of the economy. The companies that I visit and the directors and the workers who I meet tell me that the challenge for the UK is to shift the focus from competing on the basis of cost alone towards high skill, high value added products and processes based on quality, innovation and know-how.
Many of our manufacturing companies in the textiles sector, for example, are responding to that challenge. Leading textiles firms have transformed themselves from companies making traditional textiles into leading-edge manufacturers of technical textiles and engineering materials. Brintons began in 1820 and is now the largest yarn manufacturer in the northern hemisphere. Based in Telford, the company is the world's largest manufacturer of woven axminster. Hamilton's paintbrushes and Hudson's whistles span three centuries of manufacturing in Britain. Both are leaders in their sectors in the new century.
That is the direction of manufacturing in this country, but it does not mean that we will lose our traditional industries. Investments in the UK by Jaguar, BMW and Nissan demonstrate our continuing strength in global industries such as vehicle manufacture. Component suppliers are equally important. By investing in technology and most of all by creating the most highly skilled work force, HR Adcock of Loughborough, employing 50 people, has beat off the world and supplies the suspension components for all Ford Focuses.
The Government have a clear role to play in helping companies face the challenges of globalisation, technology and varying states in the business cycle. That can be achieved by helping businesses to become more productive, to innovate and to cope with change successfully, by helping people when changes of jobs are required.
Change is inevitable, driven by technological innovation and globalisation, and the Government can help UK industry to manage that change. We are investing £15 million in a new manufacturing advisory service to spread best practice, which will include a centre for manufacturing excellence in every region. The new manufacturing advisory service and centres of excellence will provide the main point of contact for manufacturers who want to raise their game.
Our Faraday partnerships initiative is helping innovative companies to turn research into new products and services for British industry. We are enabling firms to access high-quality research and the expertise of industrial research organisations. We are helping established industries to modernise and compete in new markets. Faraday is helping the United Kingdom textiles industry to exploit the growing market of technical textile products in the medical, automotive, construction and defence industries.

91WH
We can support manufacture by encouraging sustained investment in research and development. Industries need to keep ahead of the game. Even during a slowdown, companies must maintain research and development investment. When the world economy picks up, those who have invested in R and D will be ready to succeed.
I assure the hon. Members who have raised the matter today that the Government know the importance of R and D, which is why we are introducing a new R and D tax credit for industry. We are supporting the manufacturing jobs of the future by strengthening our science base and ensuring that the knowledge and technology coming out of our universities goes into our industries. That is why we are putting more than £1 billion into sciences in addition to the £1.4 billion that we have already invested in partnership with the Wellcome Trust. We are providing new incentives for commercial application of research, with a fund of £140 million to get more of that science and technology out of the labs and into the factories.
We can support the manufacturing jobs of the future by creating strong regional economies. That is why we pledged £1.2 billion, rising to £1.7 billion, to our regional development agencies to support innovation and enterprise. In raising the game of every region, RDAs are working in partnership with the public and private sectors, with businesses, universities and local authorities. We support manufacturing jobs of the future by investing in a skilled work force, and are investing in the skills people need—in schools, the university for industry, the learning and skills councils and the technology institutes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke with knowledge and feeling about the recent job losses in his constituency. I acknowledge that
92WH
our manufacturing industry is feeling real pain and that workers with 10, 20 or 30 years of skills and experience face redundancy. When jobs are threatened and businesses need support, we do everything in our power to save jobs and find new ones. In the past four years, we have helped more than 3,000 businesses, supported £6 billion of investment and ensured that 135,000 jobs—most of them in manufacturing—were safeguarded or created. We are investing £40 million in Jaguar, saving 2,900 jobs and creating another 500. When redundancies are inevitable, we will not walk away, but do everything we can to help people to find new jobs and, if necessary—and it is necessary—learn new skills. We are doing that for the workers at Corus.
The job transition service and the rapid response units will provide an intensive and personalised response to large-scale redundancies. At Fujitsu in County Durham, a rapid response unit helped to ensure that about 94 per cent. of the work force found new jobs in 12 months. At Siemens in north Tyneside, the Employment Service played a major role in helping about 90 per cent. of the work force to find new employment. In future, instead of providing retraining when people lose their jobs, we shall retrain them while they are still in work, so that they can move straight into new, higher quality work.
Our aims can be achieved only by the Government and manufacturing sectors working in partnership. We must continue to improve the UK's skills base. promoting closer links between education and industry and providing a supportive framework for technological advance. We must look to the long term, delivering a framework of stability and steady growth and delivering our strategy for supporting manufacturing and British industry in a global and competitive economy. In that way, we are optimistic that British manufacturing and business can rise to the challenge and match the best in the world.

Asylum Applications
11 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject today. Not only has there been a great deal of debate concerning the position of the Oakington immigration reception centre, which is in my constituency, but last Friday, the Court of Appeal gave its judgment on the legality of the detention of asylum applicants at the centre. In addition, we learned at Home Office questions on Monday that the Home Secretary anticipates that his review of asylum will be published by the beginning of next month. My purpose is to set out for the benefit of the Minister and, I hope, for the Home Secretary's review, some thoughts prompted by my experience of the circumstances at Oakington, and a little about how it fits into the system of management of asylum applications.
First, I should like to thank the staff at Oakington immigration reception centre. Whatever our views about the desirability of the centre, we should express our appreciation for the way in which the staff have buckled down to the task of trying to manage it in an effective and decent way that is sympathetic to the circumstances of the asylum claimants who reside there. Many of them are my constituents, and I applaud their work. I know from visits to Group 4 on the security side, to the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre, that the people who maintain the centre and those who advise asylum applicants do a good job to the best of their ability.
Although it is not relevant to the debate, I understand that in the past few days the Oakington reception centre helped to accommodate those affected by flooding in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I am grateful for that neighbourliness on the part of the Home Office.
I shall attempt not to be tedious in terms of the statistical background to this subject; the Home Office is already painfully aware of it, particularly in relation to the review. What is important is to try to manage the process better. That is best done by analysis and by discussing principles, not by trading statistics, especially if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle) agrees that we should not now ascribe guilt or otherwise about the past, but should consider where to go to from here.
The management of asylum applications is a serious issue for the United Kingdom. Last year there were some 80,000 applications—two and a half times more than there were four years ago. Some countries in Europe have experienced similar increases and others have seen reductions, so there are clearly a number of factors at work. If we examine them, they might point to the reasons why the UK attracts a larger number of asylum applications than other European countries do, and that could assist us in respect of the decisions that we have to make in the review.
The failure to take asylum decisions was a chronic problem until last year. I do not ascribe blame only to the present Government; prior to that, too, there were insufficient case workers. Those who have held ministerial office in Governments of both political
94WH
persuasions, including the Minister, will know that the shortage of case workers and their resultant inability to make decisions quickly is at the heart of the problems that have emerged in recent years.
The Minister will no doubt tell us that the increase in the number of case workers has made a substantial difference and that the number of initial decisions made last year exceeded the number of applications. However, the Government's expectation that that factor, along with the implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, would lead to a reduction in the number of asylum applications has proved wrong. The backlog of decisions has turned into a substantial backlog of appeals; the dispersal system and support arrangements are, at best, overstretched and in some places chaotic and only a small fraction of those whose applications are refused have been removed from the country. The overall result is that our immigration and asylum systems have been undermined, and opportunities for abuse have increased, as have opportunities for the malicious stirring up of xenophobia. The effectiveness with which we can offer a haven for genuine refugees is severely constrained.
I do not propose to discuss border controls and to concentrate on the subsequent management of asylum applications. I submit that the best way to restore the integrity of our border controls would be to relieve the pressure that is placed on them by people who claim to be asylum seekers, but are actually economic migrants who attempt to enter the United Kingdom and avoid subsequent removal. I shall begin with the Oakington reception centre.
The High Court, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, accepted that under the Immigration Act 1971 the Government had the power to detain asylum applicants pending an initial decision. The issue upon which those cases turned was whether detention was compatible with article 5 of the convention on human rights, which covers the circumstances in which deprivation of liberty may occur. The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State was acting within the terms of article 5 because the action was intended to prevent unauthorised entry into the United Kingdom. It was held that the restriction of liberty entailed by detention for up to a week, and the circumstances in which the applicants were held at Oakington made the use of detention in such circumstances proportional to the objective and thus not an unacceptable infringement of liberty.
As I said at the time, I agree with the Home Office view and therefore with the Court of Appeal. I know that the Home Office was not using detention to assuage local concerns about asylum seekers wandering about the area. In truth, it was used because of the concern that applicants would not be present when they were needed for interview.
As of last month, there were 11,618 detainees at Oakington, of whom 2,310 were women and 1,817 were children. I shall not dwell on those figures, but it is important to recognise that the cases heard by the Court of Appeal were in relation to four Iraqi applicants. Those applications were brought in respect of four Kurdish men, not in respect of women and children held at Oakington. We should be aware of the risk that similar cases might be brought in respect of families with children and that the use of detention as a proportional

95WH
measure might be open to further challenge if it were applied in relation not only to adult men but families. It may be more arguable as a proportional measure.
We know that 0.28 per cent. of asylum seekers at Oakington have absconded. It is a small number—about 30 of the 11,000. Whatever the original fears of the Home Office about the absconding rate in the absence of security measures and the power of detention, applicants are held for such a short time that absconding would lead to the effective abandonment of a claim. It would also lead to the loss of access to benefits and support, and, if discovered, it would lead to detention. All that suggests that applications could continue to be processed at Oakington while it is redesignated as a reception centre for the purposes of temporary admission. Therefore, the fact that the Court of Appeal has allowed the Government to continue their regime at Oakington does not mean that there is no case for change.
Change is possible. A much greater proportion of applicants—perhaps all of them, except in-country applicants and those who do not need to be detained—should, in the first instance, be housed in reception centres while an initial decision is made. Applicants who are refused asylum on initial decision should also be housed in such reception centres until they are removed from the country, have had their appeals heard, or are detained for other reasons.
It is important to give support to claimants. In my visits to Oakington and my discussions with people who work for the immigration support services, I have been struck by the fact that, while thousands of applicants are sent to the Oakington reception centre, many others, who do not fit the criteria for residence at Oakington—which often means that their applications are less obviously manifestly unfounded—are dispersed around the country. Those applicants are asked to produce evidence to support their claims under different circumstances than those enjoyed by the residents of Oakington and, frequently, in the space of a mere couple of weeks. The perverse result of that is that, sometimes, those with a manifestly unfounded claim for asylum are resident at Oakington, where they have access to support and legal services, and to help with translation and interpretation, and that enables them, if their application has any validity, to pursue it successfully. That rarely happens, as many of them are selected for Oakington on the grounds that their applications are manifestly unfounded. However, applicants who are dispersed, and whose claims might be better founded, do not have the same access to services. Therefore, it might benefit such applicants to be accommodated in reception centres that offer legal, translation and other services.
The latest figures with regard to the number of decisions where asylum has been refused on non-compliance grounds indicate that applicants who have been dispersed around the country might face serious problems in substantiating their claims—not because they have no evidence to support their claims, but because they are unable to assemble the evidence and understand the questions that they must answer and the forms that they are required to fill in.
96WH
In 1999, 1,085 cases were refused on non-compliance grounds under the normal procedures. In 2000 there were 26,630 such refusals. The figures must be considered in the context of the considerable increase in such cases: however, the problems that I have outlined arise out of the process of trying to clear those cases at a faster rate. All hon. Members must be concerned that, although refusal on the grounds of non-compliance might often be justified, it might also lead to the refusal of a significant number of applicants who have a genuine claim to refugee status but are unable to validate it, and are not given the support to enable them to do so.
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that subject. Does he understand that there is a strong legal argument that refusal on the grounds of non-compliance is incompatible with the convention on human rights, and that there is authority for saying that, in the end, that is not a justification for refusal? The technical grounds cannot undermine the basic case, so in addition to the practical arguments that he has proposed, there is a legal argument.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. However, I suspect that I am better at practical arguments than I am at legal arguments. The hon. Lady will perhaps take note of that and comment on it later.
My understanding is that the refugee convention requires those who seek to make a claim for asylum to be able to support it and to demonstrate that it is well founded. The inability to produce evidence to support such a claim can mean that it is refused on non-compliance grounds because there is no evidence to support it and in legal terms that is entirely justified. Whether I am right or wrong about that, my argument relates to the practicality and the desirability of giving asylum applicants a better service. I hope that I can demonstrate that that is in the interests of both the management of the system and genuine refugees.
Essentially, it is a perverse situation. Those who manifestly or apparently have unfounded applications seem to be given a better service by way of support for their applications. We could go further down that path. Reception centres for temporary admission are successful and help genuine refugees to support their claims more effectively. I have a proposal to put to the hon. Lady and to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and, via him, to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) who, I am happy to say, as he is experienced and knowledgeable, has responsibility for these matters in my party. I recognise that my suggestion would represent a shift in both Government and Opposition policy.
The policy of the Conservative party at the last election was one of universal detention. Last Friday's Court of Appeal judgment suggests that prolonged detention while applications were being dealt with would have been in conflict with article 5(1)(f) of the convention. That is one of the reasons, if not the only reason, why it is in the interests of my party, as well as the Government, to look for a wholly different legal solution that is none the less compatible with the regime at Oakington.

97WH
An alternative is available. Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 empowers the Secretary of State to provide accommodation for those granted temporary admission. Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 gave powers to impose residence conditions during temporary admission. Schedule 14 to the 1999 Act would enable the extension by regulation of the purposes for which such residence conditions can be imposed. The legal structure seems to exist. My suggestion to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is that those powers should now be used to speed up the handling of applications in respect of initial decisions and appeals.
One sure way of improving the management of asylum and enhancing the situation for genuine refugees would be for applications to be processed more swiftly. I am sure that a greater use of reception centres would assist, but the number of appeals heard each month must also be increased. The appeals backlog doubled between mid-1997 and the middle of last year. The number of adjudicators is now increasing and I hope that the Minister can confirm that there will be a substantial increase in the number of appeals that are determined each month. The present rate of appeals, together with the backlog, which is something of the order of 50,000, suggests that a capacity of some 6,000 a month is required.
We are well below that capacity at present and the introduction of one-stop appeals last year should have been accompanied by greater capacity. It would be desirable for that capacity to come on stream, but it can be helped by the continuing availability of applicants who have appealed for the provision of information and interviews. In view of the increase in budgets and the £835 million annual costs of the asylum system, I suspect that it would reduce costs to proceed down this route, rather than dispersal, given the difficulties associated with managing appeals for those who are dispersed around the country.
Indeed, the whole process of dispersing people around the country has many consequences, one of which is the establishment of stop-off points. As the Minister may know, Wackenhut, or the Premier Group which manages these matters on behalf of the Home Office, is proposing to establish one at Great Gransden, just outside my constituency, presumably to deal with those being dispersed from Oakington. Great Gransden is only a few miles from Oakington, so it is surprising that they need to stop off so quickly. Will the Minister explain why that is necessary and why such an inappropriate location has been chosen? Many of my constituents who live in the area would appreciate an explanation. At the moment they do not understand the proposal and they disagree with it.
Although it is important to deal with applications speedily, that will not suffice as an explanation. The presence of many nationalities and communities in our country, our relatively buoyant labour market in compared with that of some of our European neighbours and our comparative lack of internal enforcement often makes the UK a destination of choice for economic migrants. I do not criticise people for making that choice, but we have a responsibility to uphold the right of a sovereign state to determine whether aliens should be able to enter our territory. If the Home Secretary proposes to offer significant
98WH
opportunities for migrants to work here, he should also introduce further measures to prevent the abuse of our asylum procedures by those who want to enter this country for purposes of economic migration.
I therefore call on the Minister to enforce the employment checks and sanctions provided in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996. Unless further measures are taken, the pressure to introduce other forms of identity checks inside the UK—up to and including ID cards—will increase. I view the introduction of ID cards for the purposes of managing the asylum system as the tail wagging the dog. It would be an undesirable infringement of our liberties. If we choose to go down that path, it should be for wider and more important reasons. It is much better to deal with asylum in its own terms than to impose further constraints on the liberties of the whole population.
The further strengthening of our asylum system will also depend on the effective removal of persons whose claim for asylum is refused. Additional detention places are being provided, hopefully so that detainees need no longer be put in prisons. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) may have more to say about that. I understand that the Home Secretary has committed himself to ending the use of prisons for detention purposes within four months. Will the Minister confirm that? I recognise, however, that we need more detention centres in order to be more effective at achieving removal.
The limitations of our expertise as well as time constraints mean that it is difficult to go further in the comprehensive analysis of the asylum system urged by the Home Office. Other issues are relevant. However, I have referred to the need for some substantial and necessary changes. We must establish the principle that those with a viable claim to asylum should be given leave to enter and remain in this country, while those who cannot substantiate their claims should be housed in decent circumstances, given the opportunity to be heard, but not dispersed around the country. Subject to the refugee convention, they should be returned to the country from which they entered, their country of origin or a safe third country.
Those dispersed should be those with a prima facie case for refugee status and the choice of accommodation should be the subject of informed discussion with the refugees themselves or their representatives. They should be sent to areas with good community support, good community relations and the necessary facilities to look after refugees in an appropriate manner. Those given leave to remain could be given greater opportunities for work; we could try to dispense with the voucher scheme and escape from the risk of stigmatisation and abuse associated with vouchers; and we could give people with a genuine case for refugee status the facilities and support that they need.
In that context, the Minister may be aware that this morning the British Medical Association and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture have put out a document called "Asylum Seekers and Health", which describes the experiences of medical practitioners working with asylum seekers. The two organisations want the dispersal system to be reformed and the well-being of asylum seekers improved in the community, not least by scrapping vouchers in favour of cash benefits.

99WH
The health screening facilities at ports of entry are not effective enough, and the health facilities and support available to asylum seekers dispersed around the country are often not appropriate. At Oakington, people have to deal with asylum seekers' health matters despite the fact that those who come to them have not always been screened. The medical practitioners also recognise that the time that they are there—seven days—is often insufficient to deal with that properly. Unless asylum seekers are housed in reception centres for sufficient time for health facilities to be concentrated to support them, some of the unhappy experiences to which the BMA and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture refer in their dossier will continue.
I do not underestimate the difficulties of managing the asylum system effectively, and I am aware of how the Government's expectations of the beneficial impact of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 have been dashed. The present review must be wide ranging, and changes may need to be substantial. The Government and Opposition may have to accept new solutions, but that does not necessarily mean toughening our asylum laws in a knee-jerk reaction. What is in the interest of refugees may also be what is needed to reform the system: faster decisions; clear separation of refugees from economic migrants; a generous welcome and work opportunities for those who appear to have a good claim; and decisive action to detain and remove those wishing to abuse our system. Making the system less open to abuse will not harm the interests of genuine refugees. On the contrary, it should cut the ground from under those who would abuse our welcome and frustrate those who would want to treat all asylum seekers as bogus.
11.27 am
Simon Hughes: I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for the opportunity to have this timely debate. He made his points in a measured and helpful way, which, given the points of view that were attributed to him before the election, is encouraging and will correct some perception of his position. He has clearly benefited from having Oakington in his constituency.
The debate is timely because the Home Secretary made clear again on Monday that the Government are reaching the end of their initial review and will make proposals soon. I have an initial procedure question for the Minister, which she may want to answer. Apart from debates such as this one, and given the general courtesy of the Home Secretary to seek as much agreement as possible on such matters, are further representations best made urgently—between now and the date that the Home Secretary is minded to make his initial response—or should we wait for that initial response on the understanding that it will have Green Paper status rather than White Paper status, and provide an opportunity for reconsideration? It would be unreasonable if the proposals, when made, were firmly stuck to without any flexibility around the edges. The
100WH
best approach is the Green Paper approach, so that the proposals can be considered before any firm decisions are taken.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. If I were him, I would make my representations urgently.
Simon Hughes: In that case, there will probably be a call to the Home Secretary, asking for an urgent meeting with him or the appropriate Minister of State. However, I urge the Government to present their proposals in a way that allows debate and response based on the broad experience that hon. Members have gathered on the issue from around the country.
How we deal with asylum seekers is one of the tests of our civilisation. Obviously, it is comparatively easy for a country to take responsibility for looking after its own citizens. It is always more difficult and more controversial to take responsibility for looking after people who come from elsewhere, and the issue often engenders irrational, primaeval instincts about differences and alienation and causes politicians, the media and the public to overreact and become overly defensive.
As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, there has been a rise in the number of people who are making applications to the United Kingdom; however, that is part of a worldwide trend. Nothing that has happened, is happening or is about to happen changes the obligation that we entered into immediately after the war when we signed up to the universal declaration of human rights and, later, the United Nations convention on refugees. We must take responsibility for and accept those who are refugees within the definition of the convention.
As the fourth most successful economy in the world, we must accept that the situation is one that we can manage. If we have been bad at handling asylum applications, it is because we have been incompetent and not because the issue was unpredictable or the obligation unclear. The record of Governments, the Home Office and those dealing with the matter over the years has been one of slow response and periodic incompetence. That has worsened the situation and made it far more problematic. People have been allowed to say that there is a great problem that we cannot handle, whereas it is not a problem and we should be able to deal with the issue without considerable difficulty.
In that context, it is unfortunate that the Home Office continues to get its figures wrong. I hope that it will not happen again; I cannot understand why it happens so regularly. We had an admission just a few weeks ago that the figures for asylum cases waiting to be dealt with had been 100 per cent. wrong. We cannot go on like that; we must be able to rely on the Home Office figures so that we can make accurate projections and formulate appropriate public policy.
The basis of the debate is that individuals have not only the right to asylum under the United Nations convention, but the right to seek asylum. That may sound trite, but one cannot obtain asylum unless one can seek it. Therefore, one of the first questions in

101WH
respect of how we manage asylum applications is the "What?" question: what rights do people have? We have all recited and read often enough the provisions of article 1 of the convention, which was updated by the protocol that makes it relevant to people who are fleeing now. It contains an exception that deals with one of the concerns of the past six weeks; namely, those with a criminal or terrorist background who are seeking asylum. Article (1)(f) is clear:
"The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes:

(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

It is important that the public understand that Governments have a right to tell people in those categories that they cannot claim asylum in another country. That does not apply to people who may have been active in attempting to overthrow an undemocratic regime in their country. We must be careful about generalising that people who have been associated with violence are therefore presumed to be ineligible for asylum. The most obvious example, which is always given, is in respect of people who fought against apartheid in South Africa when it did not have a democratic Government. With the benefit of hindsight, no one would now argue that they should be prevented from leaving that country just because they had an association with the anti-apartheid movement. We must be mindful of the difference between people who have been associated with seeking to overturn Governments on the one hand and those who clearly, and tightly, come within the definition of article 5(1)(f) of the convention on the other.
The next question is, "Where should people make their application?" I repeat this in every debate on the subject: of course some people make their application here having coming to the United Kingdom lawfully. They come on the basis of the free right to travel, if they come from another country where there are no travel restrictions, or they may have a student or tourist visa. However, as we well know, many people have to risk life and limb to avoid the authorities in order to come here to put their case, because at present the only place where people can apply for asylum to the United Kingdom Government is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Ministers owe the House a better answer than we have had in the past to the question, "How can you put your case if you can't get here lawfully?". It will be helpful if the Minister can now say that the Government are considering that question in the general review.
It is absolutely proper that people should be able to make their asylum applications at United Kingdom missions abroad. I have never understood why it is not possible for someone who leaves a country where there is conflict and goes to a nearby country which is a safe place where there is a United Kingdom foreign mission, or one representing the United Kingdom, to put their case there. I have visited foreign missions and I am
102WH
aware of the pressure of their immigration and visa work, but that is a practical matter; it is about having staff on the ground at least to receive the applications. It must be better for people to avoid the risk of travelling across the world to put their case, often being exploited in the process. Are the Government willing to consider allowing people to make asylum applications at British missions overseas?
Another obvious matter to consider is what arises from the experience of Sangatte and similar places. People there are in territorial France, but subject to that understanding we could have British officials in Calais and Paris to deal with matters in that part of the territory that was negotiated under the Canterbury treaty, which is technically under UK jurisdiction. There are also people in the Red Cross holding centre, the Eurotunnel building appropriated for the purpose. I have had discussions with Eurotunnel and with the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, who was extremely courteous and helpful. A sensible proposal would be to allow applications to be made to the United Kingdom from a place outside the United Kingdom. It would be far better for people who say they want to come to the UK, who are waiting on the other side of the English channel, to be able to put their case there, rather than—
Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that under the terms of the Geneva convention, people are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach? That convention does not give them a choice of country in which to claim asylum. If people are in France—I assume France is a safe country—why on earth should they not claim asylum in that country? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that people should be allowed to choose the European country in which they claim asylum? That would be the end of the Dublin convention.
Simon Hughes: I was coming to that and I will answer the Minister's question. This is about not the Geneva convention but the Dublin convention. I understand that it requires people to claim asylum in the first safe third country. The convention is nonsense, because people often arrive in the first safe country completely by accident.
The example that I give most often relates to the civil war in Sierra Leone. When people fled from there, they often arrived immediately in a French-speaking west African country. They did not claim asylum there but got on an aeroplane to Europe to seek asylum in the UK. However, flights from the Ivory Coast, for example, always went to Paris, because that was the traditional link, so people ended up in France. By the logic of the Dublin convention, they should claim asylum in France. The fact that they did not speak French and had no tradition or links with the French was disregarded, which was complete nonsense.
We should recognise that when people leave a country where they cannot stay or do not feel that they can stay and they seek haven in a safe country, a number will come to Europe. We must therefore have a broader vision than just saying, "Let's send them back to the first safe third country."
The convention is also nonsense in practical terms, which I discussed with the French ambassador. People who end up at Sangatte without paperwork will not own

103WH
up to the name of the first safe country at which they arrived; they simply do not answer that question. It is no good saying that they must—they do not. Most people will have come by land across western Europe. It depends whether we consider non-EU countries relevant, but people will have been through non-EU countries and many other EU countries. According to the logic of the convention, a lot of time is spent deciding whether to send them back to Germany, Romania or wherever, which is a completely pointless exercise.
A better solution lies at European level. We could reasonably consider processing in the EU but not necessarily in the UK asylum applications in respect of the UK.
Mr. Lansley: Did not the Dublin convention have more to it than simply the specification that applicants should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach? The convention was drafted, among other things, in contemplation of relatively large numbers of asylum seekers from eastern Europe, who at the time arrived in Germany, Austria or Italy in the first instance.
The extension of that principle is one of burden sharing. If a relatively large number of asylum applicants from Sierra Leone arrive in Paris, there should be a burden-sharing system involving the French and others. Whether or not an asylum seeker has papers, the simple incontrovertible fact is that someone at Sangatte is in France, a safe country, so their application should be managed in France. If a burden-sharing system is needed, we can manage it between us and France, rather than allowing people to make applications from across the world and importing them all to the UK to deal with them.
Simon Hughes: Let me explain the consequences of that. The French Government told me—I have no reason to disbelieve them—that they interviewed all or many of the people in Sangatte and asked them whether they wanted to seek asylum in France and that they said no. The reason was that they did not speak French, had no links with France and so on. An opportunity was offered but not taken up. It is no good having legal systems that will never work in practical terms. We need the combination of a legal structure that works practically. Logically, we should work out a common EU policy, and that is on the drawing board.
Can the Minister tell us where we have got to in progressing the common EU policy in terms of burden sharing? I have always taken the view, as have my colleagues in the European Parliament and elsewhere, that burden sharing is the right way to proceed. However, one should not implement that in an arbitrary way because those who have links with the United Kingdom, because of Commonwealth traditions and so on, would be more likely to come to the UK. It should not matter where people first make their application.
The Dublin convention is also protective of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, almost everybody coming to Europe from outside—or who came from the Balkans during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia—comes first to eastern and south-eastern Europe. That fact has loaded the responsibility
104WH
on to Germany. Britain was about the last place that people would reach and it was very much in our interest and that of the Irish Government to minimise the number of people who came here. That does not seem fair. We should have burden sharing.
Angela Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman musing? The whole policy area is difficult. Is he expanding the Liberal Democrat policy by advocating the abolition of the Dublin convention, giving people a free choice to decide in which country they wish to seek asylum and for those processes to be automatically accepted by the country concerned? Is that Liberal Democrat policy?
Simon Hughes: Of course I am not musing. It is our view that the Dublin convention is not appropriate and that it ought to be replaced by a Europe-wide policy—that is why I asked how much progress we are making on that—as soon as possible. That means that people who came within the European Union territorial boundary would make an application—in law, because of subsidiarity it has to be made to the country in which they arrive—and that we would accept a responsibility to accept claimants proportionate to our population, so that we all took an appropriate share of people coming to Europe. The accident of whether one arrives in Britain or in Germany should not be relevant.
Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I am intrigued. He is expanding a choice mechanism whereby asylum seekers can choose in which country they will end up. What if the number of people making claims to that country is larger than its allocation under the system of burden sharing? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that asylum seekers should have such a choice, regardless of their numbers? Asylum seekers wanting to come to Britain may end up in Sweden, Germany or Spain.
Simon Hughes: I did not say that there should be a choice-based system. I said that people coming within the boundaries of the EU should make their case and that it would then be sensible to interview them to establish the most logical and appropriate place for them to go. Asylum seekers can reasonably express a preference. In as far as it can be accommodated, that is appropriate, but if three quarters of applicants—to take a ridiculous number—said that they wanted to come to the UK, it would be entirely disproportionate.
The purpose of burden sharing is that the burdens are shared appropriately across the European Union. We should therefore take people's preferences into account. The reality is that many people coming to the UK from Sangatte and elsewhere have done so as a means of going on to the United States, Canada and other countries. We need to be more intelligent about working out how we process cases in ways that share the burdens across the EU and take account of people's community, family and linguistic ties. I therefore repeat my question to the Minister: how far are we going and how urgently are we making progress in the EU-context, which seems the essential way forward?
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. I have been becoming a little concerned for some time now. The subject of the debate is the management of applications

105WH
for asylum in the UK. The hon. Gentleman, conscientiously I am sure, is expanding the debate and almost hijacking it. I ask him to confine his comments more closely to the subject that was introduced by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). If the hon. Gentleman wants to explore the matters that he seeks to, he might be better to have his own Adjournment debate.
Simon Hughes: I was trying to respond to questions and I shall move on.
For me, the next matter is the "When?" question. I share the view of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that the processing of asylum applications in the UK should be done as quickly as possible. That has logical consequences. We need more case workers; we have always needed more. Apparently, they are neither relatively expensive nor difficult to recruit, so there is not a supply problem.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view—it would be an interesting development of his party's policy but I welcome it—that the best way of processing cases is at reception centres. I have always taken that view. That is how Finland and other European countries manage the matter. The benefit of that is that one accepts that detention centres are illegal, which seemed to be the Court of Appeal judgment, although the matter has yet to reach the House of Lords. We may then do what other countries do, and give people an incentive to stay by telling them that their case will only be processed if they do. The Finns have done that. If a person walks away and disappears, he or she loses any benefits. In that case we would not need detention centres or prison and I welcome that, should it be the Government's clear view that neither should be continued. We would allow what is effectively, but not technically, bail; people would be free to go outside and be able to go elsewhere. Also, there would not be the totally unsatisfactory dispersal policy that has been imposed, through which people are dispersed to places that are inappropriate for them and for the host community.
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman said that we did not need detention centres. Does he mean that there should be no detention centres for the purpose of detaining people while making a decision? Surely by the time a decision has been made and a person is pending deportation, there must be substantial detention facilities.
Simon Hughes: I can give the hon. Gentleman two quick answers. It is clearly lawful to detain people who have committed offences or who are reasonably suspected of being about to commit offences. That is always an exception to the general policy of permitting people to come and go. Secondly, there is the matter that he rightly raised about what happens at the end of the process. I agree that we have had inadequate policy relating to people whose applications have been rejected and who are thus not entitled to stay here. There must be a combination of factors, such as better tracking conditions while people's applications are processed—signing on and so on. That is not difficult. People who
106WH
have exhausted their right to put forward their case may be detained prior to their removal, and I do not argue about that.
I have two questions for the Minister. Are we examining increasing the numbers of people accepted for resettlement? Our numbers for that have been extremely low. Will the Government address the system of managing people whose applications are turned down? That system has clearly failed and discredited much of the rest of the system by containing no adequate provisions for managing such people. Do the Government accept that that should be done on a European Union-wide basis?
The best way forward is to ensure that the way in which we manage our applications is consistent with the way in which our neighbours in the EU manage their applications. Thus, if the burden were shared, it would be reduced and the controversy and difficulty of the policy would be minimised for this and other Governments.
11.54 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: In light of the lengthy peroration of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), I shall be brief because I am keen to hear the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). In fairness to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the way in which the debate has developed may have been inevitable. The problem with asylum seeking and how we process asylum applications is bound up intimately with the profoundly changed circumstances that now prevail compared with those when the original conventions were drawn up in the 1950s. No one at that time had the slightest notion of the novel way in which asylum applications and asylum seeking would develop.
I am sure that, when the conventions were drawn up, the idea was that people would spill over the borders from areas of localised conflict or persecution into adjoining states and that, at the conclusion of the political problems or hostilities, they would return to their own homes. In reality, we have once more in the world a "volkervonderung"—a wandering of peoples who move around for a host of reasons. Whether or not they may be asylum seekers does not mean that their aims or ambitions are invalid. One has only to consider the conditions in some of the countries from which such people come to appreciate that the distinction between an economic migrant and someone seeking political asylum is thin and grey. The Government have an extremely unenviable task that demands from Opposition parties measured support whenever it can be provided. They have to make difficult distinctions, which are particularly problematical when defining whether asylum seekers fall within the criteria under the convention that political asylum ought, as a matter of right, to be granted.
The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire to the debate was particularly valuable. Rather than adopting theoretical rhetoric, he drew attention to practical problems and emphasised the need for the application process to be speeded up in a way that is fair to applicants without infringing on their

107WH
human rights. In that context, the reversal of the initial judgment on Oakington is welcome, although it has yet to go to the other place and we do not know what the final outcome will be. No one wants to infringe the human rights of asylum seekers by detaining them, but the problem—of which I have had personal experience before becoming a Member of Parliament—is that asylum seekers who are released into the community present two challenges. First, we must know whether they are receiving the help that they need to conclude their asylum application and, secondly, we cannot escape the fact that certain asylum seekers find such a process a convenient way in which to exploit the system.
I had to prosecute on behalf of the Department of Social Security individuals who had made multiple applications for asylum and who had adopted different personae for the sake of milking the benefit system. In one case, an individual had adopted 30 different identities. Once within the system, such people did not respond to the invitations to present themselves at Lunar house to be interviewed so that their asylum application could be processed. Therefore, there is an enormous difficulty, and the Government are entitled to our sympathy. It is difficult for Conservative Members, who are in opposition and who, therefore, do not benefit from the input of officials, to arrive at hard and fast ideas about the best way to tackle the problem. However, the key to solving it is to increase the speed at which applications are processed. Ultimately, it matters not whether that is achieved by telling applicants that they are free to go into the community but that they must attend their interviews, or by arranging reception centres where their cases can be streamlined. However, it is essential to speed up the system: that will ensure fairness and, ultimately, it will deter those who wish to abuse the system from doing so because they will know that they will rapidly be found out, and that appropriate steps will then be taken to ensure that they are removed from the country if they do not fulfil the criteria.
I will now conclude, as the debate has only 30 minutes left to run, and I want to hear the Minister's remarks.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, because he put forward some sensible and pragmatic proposals, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
12 noon
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. McWilliam.
The debate has been interesting because hon. Members have acknowledged the difficulty of the practical and policy issues involved in ensuring that the asylum system in the United Kingdom works well, and expressed some sympathy which I am happy to accept.
I welcome all the contributions to the debate. They have been serious and they have wrestled with the key practical issues and I assure hon. Members that the Government always listen to representations. I also welcome the opportunity to consider the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). However, although the
108WH
debate is timely and important, it puts me in an awkward position, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will soon make a statement about the matter under discussion, and I cannot pre-empt it.
The Government are determined to adhere to their obligation under the 1951 UN convention to maintain the integrity of the asylum system. With regard to the practical issues that the nation faces, I welcome the fact that not one hon. Member—or anyone else—is thinking, or has thought, that we should renege on our commitments to genuine refugees who flee from torture and oppression. The Government would never do that.
It must be recognised, however, that there is growing concern about the number of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who have recently entered the United Kingdom, particularly as many of them are economic migrants. It is not wrong for people to aspire to better their lives, and I do not condemn them for wishing to do that, but it is important to examine how we fulfil their aspirations: it must be achieved in a more sensible way than by asking the UN convention to take the strain because it was designed to perform a different task. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that we need to be more rational about economic migration, and I am pleased that, in general, raising the debate about asylum has been welcomed outside the House. A rational debate about the matter is necessary. There is also an emerging debate in Europe about the possibility of creating a common migration system; that would be beneficial to all.
It is necessary to ensure that a credible and faster end-to-end asylum system is created, and that there is closer contact between applicants and the authorities. At the end of the process, those who are given refugee status because they need to be protected must be integrated into society, and those who are not must be removed.
People generally recognise that there has been a huge increase in applications throughout the European Union, not only in Britain. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, that trend has continued partly because of changed world conditions, and we must have a way of managing it.
I shall spend some time giving specific answers to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, especially about the Great Gransden site. I am told that it is not true that the site is used for Oakington cases. It is in fact used by Wackenhut, an internal escorting contractor used by the Home Office in the dispersal process, as a satellite-operating base, and it has several such places in various parts of the country. It is intended as a 30-minute transit stop for staff and detained persons being transferred over long distances north to south and vice versa. It is a secure area in which a stopover can be made. Sometimes staff and vehicles are changed, too. It is also an opportunity for a comfort break. It deals not with Oakington cases but with those being dispersed. There is no intention at present to use it for overnight accommodation. It is simply intended for short stops.
Mr. Lansley: I do not expect the hon. Lady to be aware of the physical circumstances of Great Gransden in the Huntingdon constituency, which is next door to mine. Those of us who are should immediately

109WH
appreciate that it is not convenient for either north-south or east-west transfers, and that other locations would ostensibly seem to be much more directly on the Al or A14 north-south or east-west routes. Great Gransden is not, and it still seems an inappropriate location.
Angela Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, as I am sure he will, and as his neighbour already has, I am sure that we can continue to debate the matter. I wanted to ensure that any misconceptions about the connection with Oakington were corrected.
I should also like to confirm that we fully expect to be able to end detention on remand in remand wings of prisons, at Cardiff by Christmas and elsewhere in the prison estate by the end of January, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made some understandable remarks about what he called technical refusals, made on the basis of the statement of evidence form not having been filled in and returned to the appropriate place in a sufficiently timely fashion. He suggested that reception centres might be able to deal with the matter more effectively. It might cheer him up a bit if I tell him that we have introduced a post box system, which has massively cut the number of late arrivals and forms registered late, and therefore the technical refusals about which he was so worried. When the system was introduced, 400 to 500 forms a week went astray and were not appropriately registered on a file, which meant that we had to change a technical refusal to a reply saying that we had received the form but not in the right place. The simple administrative introduction of a PO box cut that number to 50 a week.
Having spent three years at the Department of Social Security, I know that obvious and modest administrative coherence can make an enormous difference to a system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have made progress, although I accept his point that technical refusals are not always the best way of dealing with cases.
A fast system is part of the answer. As hon. Members hinted, the system must be fast but fair. It should give people appropriate time to make representations, but hurry cases along. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield hinted, people often seek delay because they do not want a decision to be taken. The system must therefore continue to set tight timetables while making them achievable. That is the tension with which we must always deal.
I want to comment briefly on action at EU level. Action to equalise and harmonise the way in which asylum seekers are treated within the European Union can have value-added benefits that prevent the kind of asylum shopping that we have witnessed. Hon. Members will know about the Tampere extraordinary council in 1999, which reaffirmed our commitment to setting minimum standards and establishing a common European asylum system. The Government fully support action at Community level in this field, and believe that moves towards harmonisation of the process should ensure more equitable treatment for those requiring protection across the EU, thereby reducing the secondary movement to which I referred.
To date, the Council has adopted several measures in this field, including Eurodac, which is a computerised central database of fingerprint images. That allows us to
110WH
deal with people who claim to have different identities and nationalities, and make multiple claims in the same system, to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred, and which I have also encountered. The fingerprinting system allows us to discover fraud quickly, and deal with it. If it is available at European level, it will enable us to ensure, for identity and fraud purposes, that people traffickers and those who seek to abuse the system are spotted quickly.
Proposals under discussion include a directive on minimum standards in asylum procedures, a draft regulation on how to determine which member state is responsible for examining an asylum application—colloquially known as Dublin II—and minimum standards on the reception of asylum applicants. We await a proposal from the Commission in the next few weeks on minimum standards for qualification of refugees. Progress is being made, and Britain is in the forefront of urging faster progress. The Laaken council will assess progress towards the Tampere goals, which will include putting the bricks of a common European asylum process in place. I am therefore optimistic that we can make good progress in that area. That should help us to handle the flows of people currently coming through Europe, along various people-smuggling routes.
The key to establishing an efficient asylum system that is not susceptible to abuse is to process claims quickly. We have taken a range of measures to ensure that that can be achieved, which have included additional financial resources, new streamlined casework procedures, the expansion of the appeal system and the recruitment of new staff. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate now has approximately 10,580 staff. That is 4,180 more than in April 2000, which includes 1,000 new operational grade staff in the immigration service.
A project has also been undertaken—it is now well advanced—to transfer responsibility for aspects of asylum casework from the immigration service to the Integrated Casework Directorate. The ICD will be able to serve decisions in port cases itself rather than sending them back to the immigration service. That will enable immigration officers to concentrate on core enforcement work and other activities designed to establish the true identity and nationality of asylum seekers. As part of that project, the asylum process will be reviewed to enable speedier handling of cases. Asylum seekers will have a clear point of contact, file movements will be reduced—which is one of my bugbears—and unnecessary duplication will therefore be eradicated. I expect to see tangible benefits from those administrative initiatives by the end of the year, and further benefits next year.
Hon. Members have acknowledged that the number of decisions has outstripped the number of applications, at least in the first tier. In the past financial year, 132,840 decisions were made, compared with 52,040 the year before. We must acknowledge that there has been a step change in the past year in the amount of work that has been done. Neither I nor the Home Secretary are complacent about the way in which the system works, but it is important for the morale of those who work in this difficult area that we acknowledge their contribution and the step change that has been made. I

111WH
thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for acknowledging the good work done by the staff at Oakington in making the system work.
The quality of decision making remains high, and the Immigration Appellate Authority dismissed 80 per cent. of appeals in the past financial year. When we examine the coherence of the system, we must have regard to removals, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is no good having a system—however elaborate it is—for reaching decisions, if they cannot be put into effect.
The Labour manifesto said that more than 30,000 people who could not justify their claims would be removed by 2003–04, which is about 2,500 people a month. The Home Secretary announced that the Government had decided that the target must be met by next year. That will enable us to make a commitment to exceed the 30,000 removals by 2003. To achieve that, we are implementing a wide range of measures, and I welcome the acknowledgement by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that detention will have to play a role at a certain stage in the process if we are to achieve our target.
We have increased the number of immigration staff and are training further immigration arrest teams, which will have the power to apprehend those who will be removed. As has been acknowledged, we are in the middle of expanding the detention estate, which we need to do to establish transit for removals. We are also establishing an enhanced reporting system, improving the existing return arrangements and finding new routes of return to countries to which return has been difficult up until now.
Before people can be removed, they must be issued with papers from the countries to which they are going. The process is not fast, and people cannot simply be put on aeroplanes—it is more complicated than that. We rely for some of our success on co-operation with the countries of return in ensuring that appropriate papers can be issued.
In July, the immigration service and the police signed a protocol, which was formally introduced at a meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers. That means that the police now have a firmer footing and know where they will be required to assist in the removals process. We have also seconded a chief superintendent to coordinate relations with the police and the provision of police support for immigration service operations.
We are at the beginning of what I hope will be significant increases in our ability to remove those whose asylum claims have failed. Again, however, I ask hon. Members to acknowledge that the process is difficult.
Simon Hughes: Has the Home Office done any work to establish whether there is a link between the speed of applications and the number of appeals, which has recently increased, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said? I am not trying to put the Minister on the spot, but can she tell us what the trend is for the
112WH
success of appeals and whether there are more appeals when the process for dealing with initial applications is speedier?
Angela Eagle: I do not have the latest figures on appeals in front of me, although I ran the social security appeals system. There is little reason for people who have claimed asylum not to appeal under our system. I mentioned a figure of 80 per cent., and the rate at which appeals are overturned and original decisions are upheld as valid is extremely high. The figure for overturning appeals at Oakington is 95 per cent. including those who withdraw appeals and those who return voluntarily before the appeal process happens. There is a high level of confirmation by the Immigration Appellate Authority of the original decisions taken by our case workers.
I should like to say a little about the purpose of Oakington. An important feature of our asylum policy has been the introduction of new procedures to speed up the consideration of claims, and the establishment of the reception centre at Oakington has been a key element in the effective operation of tough but fair immigration controls. It is there to help to deal with claims in those cases where it appears that a rapid decision can be taken. Decisions cannot always be taken quickly; any one of a range of issues might mean that appeal is not appropriate because it cannot be done in the seven to 10 days allotted by Oakington—the circumstances might be complex, it could be difficult to obtain evidence or we might be dealing with children. The straightforward cases are taken to Oakington.
Under existing immigration powers to detain, applicants are required to stay at the centre for a short period of about seven days. There is a relaxed regime with minimal physical security—the recent use of some of the spare capacity at Oakington to accommodate the victims of flooding in the area demonstrated that it is not a grimy, horrible place, where people are locked in cells, and says something about the kind of facilities that are there. I welcome the thanks recorded by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire in that regard.
Fast-tracking Oakington applications that are, mainly, unfounded brings applicants to the point of removal sooner than would be the case if their applications were processed in the normal way. That is because, in addition to the seven to 10 day fast-track process, most Oakington appeals are accelerated and can be heard within four to six weeks.
Since Oakington opened, we have been able to deal more quickly with straightforward claims, which has helped to reduce the pressure on immigration control. For example, applications from nationals of eastern European countries—many of whom were accommodated at the centre and whose claims were found to be manifestly unfounded—have fallen by about 50 per cent. In particular, there have been big drops in the numbers of asylum applications received from Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania—down 73 per cent., 55 per cent., and 45 per cent. respectively, if one compares the figures for the six months before Oakington opened with those for the same period a year later.
That effect has been noted. We shall keep an eye on such figures to see whether the drop is sustained. Up until 12 October this year, 12,200 people were referred

113WH
to Oakington—9,815 were principal applicants, with 2,385 dependants—and 8,762 asylum applications were decided there, 8,690 refusal decisions were served and 72 grants of either asylum or exceptional leave were made at the initial decision stage. There were 235 allowed or conceded appeals. Of those, 7,826 applicants appealed against the refusal decision and 4,444 appeals have been decided, of which 95 per cent. have been dismissed by the adjudicator or withdrawn or abandoned while 5 per cent. have been upheld.
The fact that Oakington exists in the form that it does sends a strong message that we shall deal speedily with asylum claims, many of which are unfounded and would otherwise impose a considerable burden on the taxpayer and undermine public support for genuine refugees. We therefore welcome the judgment of the Court of Appeal last Friday but recognise that leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the detention of asylum seekers at Oakington for a short time in order for speedy decisions to be made on their applications is lawful, and that seven to 10 days is not an excessive period for the consideration of an application for asylum. We shall continue our review and to develop our thinking on the reform of the asylum system.
I welcome our serious and informed debate, and assure Opposition Members that there will always be at least a two-way process, because the issue affects us all. I am pleased that all Members who spoke condemned the xenophobia raised by some of the more hysterical coverage of the problematic system. As the Minister with responsibility for race relations, I understand that it is important to make our systems as robust and effective as we can while we continue to tackle such a challenging issue.
Mr. John McWilliam: I invite Members who do not want to stay for the next debate to leave quietly.

Sport on Television
12.25 pm
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate on access to sport on television, a matter of great importance to my constituents and to people throughout the land. I shall discuss three aspects of the issue: why access to sport on television is important, some of the current problems of access to sport on television, and what may be done to improve levels of access.
We may ask ourselves why access is of such significance. Anyone who was in the country when Tim Henman reached the semi-finals of Wimbledon, or when David Beckham hit that free kick at Old Trafford a couple of weeks ago, will be aware of the sense of national pride felt across the nation when we do especially well at sport. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is keen to encourage participation, and greater visibility of sport on television will lead to further encouragement. Participation in sport helps to reduce unemployment and crime and leads to better health and qualifications.
The formation of a university of Gloucestershire was announced yesterday, and it will concentrate on sports science at a campus in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating everyone involved in that announcement on their hard work to ensure that the project has come to fruition.
A wide range of parties have different interests in how sport is shown on television, including fans, players, clubs, rights holders, competition organisers and digital, terrestrial, satellite and cable companies. However, at times some effective mediation seems to be missing between those parties, and agreement between them is also missing. Several governmental and non-governmental organisations including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Office of Fair Trading, the Independent Television Commission and Oftel—it will soon become Ofcom—are trying to fit into the mediating role, but we need to look at the issue more closely.
As the DCMS put it, we have a duty as a Government to provide quality broadcasting for the many, rather than the few. In some cases, the Government can safeguard universal coverage due to the listed events under the Broadcasting Act 1996. Come what may, we know that certainly the final stages of Wimbledon tennis will be on terrestrial television, as will the Olympic games and the football, cricket and rugby world cups. Under the 1996 Act, the ITC is required to ensure that a non-free-to-air broadcaster, or a free-to-air broadcaster, can show any part of a tournament live only if a free-to-air broadcaster with at least 95 per cent. coverage has acquired similar rights or been given the opportunity to do so on fair and reasonable terms. It is those terms that sometimes cause confusion.
Thanks to that legislation and to good government, the Minister for Sport, working with ITV and the BBC, was able last week to announce that the World Cup in Japan and Korea will be available free to air. I should like to think that my early-day motion 221 calling for the World Cup to be on terrestrial television had had some effect.

115WH
I want to take a closer look at the deal that was struck last week. The TV company Kirch Media that bought the rights to the World Cup in 2002 did so with the clear objective of maximising profits by selling the rights to the highest bidder. Kirch insisted throughout that it would make only England matches, the opening match, the semi-finals and the final available to terrestrial television channels. That would have meant their missing the Brazil v. Argentina match and games involving Italy, Germany and France. We need greater clarity in the regulations, because in seeking to back up its position Kirch said that selling the rights to the highest bidder in each country was in line with the regulations of FIFA, football's world governing body.
The European Commission investigated the television rights to Champions League games, and it signalled that UEFA may have violated competition laws. An EC spokesperson described the system of auctioning TV rights to the highest bidder in each country as highly anti-competitive. The self-regulatory system of major football rights holders ultimately limits TV coverage and reduces access to sport on television. I am delighted that good government should have prevailed over profiteering for the rights to the 2002 and 2006 World Cup. We must remember that, during the last World Cup, even games such as Belgium v. Sweden and Cameroon v. Austria attracted 7.3 million and 8.7 million viewers respectively—bigger audiences than for most live games on terrestrial television.
I would like to see the BBC and ITV deal replicated for those rugby matches in which the British Lions are playing. My constituency of Gloucester, a rugby-loving town with a successful team—the cherry and whites—had problems in the summer during the British Lions tour. Live games were available only on satellite television, and in order to watch them my constituents had to choose between signing up to a satellite TV package and visiting a pub. often at 9 o'clock in the morning. Those who wanted to see highlights of the games could do so only by popping over the border into Wales and watching S4C, a far from satisfactory arrangement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): Good for Welsh tourism.
Mr. Dhanda: Yes, good for Welsh tourism, but the British Lions tour games are steeped in such history that they should be on an even footing with the rugby world cup, not least because rugby world cup games such as Tonga v. Argentina are better protected for terrestrial viewers than British Lions tour games of Australia.
Access to sport on TV could affect not only how we watch sport; it has the potential to determine the future of broadcasting. When people buy new television sets and choose to subscribe to pay TV, their choice is usually determined by the availability of sports and movies in the package. The massive growth of pay TV during the past 10 to 15 years has been driven by the public's appetite for watching football. The rights to show sport have a positive effect by increasing subscription and are therefore hugely significant as a
116WH
factor in deciding who will be the dominant provider. Today's debate about access to sports on television is therefore also a discussion about the shape of broadcasting in the longer term. It is a complicated but important debate about a highly aggressive market, in which technical and legal arguments are often used to make things much foggier.
The television market is made up of different providers—Sky, the BBC, ITV and so on—on a range of different platforms such as digital terrestrial, cable and satellite. The TV that we are most used to is the traditional analogue television, which is picked up with an aerial on the roof. The Government plan is to phase out analogue TV at some stage between 2006 and 2010. The reason for switching to digital is obvious: it gives a vastly better picture than analogue, provides more channels and choice, better mobile reception and greater interaction. The advantages are there for all to see, as last week's digital action plan made clear.
The plan, however, did not define a clear date for the switch-off of analogue TV; we know that it will happen at some stage between 2006 and 2010, but we need to take a closer look at the date. The lack of clarity on that point has had some negative effects for sport on television. By setting a date, we would allow our forefront digital companies to plan for the long term, which can only help to bring down subscription costs. Digital television is already available to around 8 million viewers and is currently dominated by Sky TV, which distributes its digital TV package through satellite dishes. ITV is the next major player in the market, but even that company is dwarfed by Sky.
Sky is largely responsible for creating the market. The massive amounts of money going to football and the influx of quality foreign stars and managers into the Premiership are a direct result of the money that Sky has paid for the broadcasting rights. Providing access to sports makes business sense for Sky, which uses them as an incentive to encourage new viewers to take up subscription to Sky on satellite. Sky is doing a good job: it has more than 50 per cent. of pay-TV homes, recoups more than 70 per cent. of pay-TV revenue and is without doubt the dominant player. However, Sky sometimes uses its strength to muscle other opponents off the ball, and its style of play in Europe has required some intervention from European Governments.
Sky has four times the number of subscribers of ITV, its nearest rival, which has only 1.2 million customers. The two companies do not have a good relationship; it is not merely a fierce rivalry between two channels but a more significant battle between two platforms. Sky broadcasts use digital satellite while ITV uses digital terrestrial television—or DTT. Over the past few months, supporters of football clubs such as Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal have suffered: having paid for a sporting package on Sky Digital, they find that they cannot receive the ITV sports package that allows them rights to the Champions League. The process works in the opposite direction, however: viewers can have an ITV digital package and watch Premiership football on it. So consumers are sometimes required to buy two packages rather than one, or they may choose between them and have to get rid of the package at the relevant moment.

117WH
The communications White Paper, published in December 2000, proposed the imposition of a "must offer" obligation on public service broadcasters without a matching "must carry" obligation on satellite networks such as Sky. Under current arrangements, cable operators carry the public service broadcasters free on their networks and, in return, cable operators are not charged for copyright. "Must carry" also effectively applies to digital terrestrial television because of the capacity on the multiplex gifted by public service broadcasters and the requirements set out in the multiplex licences.
The White Paper envisages the situation continuing for both cable and DTT but does not extend that to satellite. We should consider that matter more closely. The guidelines specifically preclude satellite providers, which are the largest providers of much of the exclusive sport on television. We should look for a way in which to provide greater clarity, vision and leadership in that debate. This week, it has emerged that ITV Digital is suffering under the weight of heavy competition. It is right for the digital action plan to focus on the long-term plan, but there is also a need for immediate action in this volatile market. I would like us to set a date for the end of analogue television.
I am sure that I have given hon. Members a taste of the complexity of some of the issues involved in broadcasting sport on television. Given that complexity and the potentially massive influence of how sport is shown on television, there is a need for a body to monitor and work as a mediator in this highly competitive market. Perhaps it is even time for us to consider an Of-football regulator for football, which is so huge and of such value to us. Such a regulator could not only resolve disputes between players and the industry but deal with arguments over football in the media, such as that between ITV and Sky. If we do not act now, we are in danger not only of taking away from the nation the joy of a successful and beautiful David Beckham free kick but of depriving the nation of its position at the forefront of the digital age.
12.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on securing the debate. I am aware of the strength of feeling that exists in his constituency, in mine and in the House on this matter. The accessibility of sport on television is an important subject. It is also at the centre of our economy in this—to use a cliché—post-industrial age. Television and communications are huge drivers of jobs, entrepreneurial ventures and new inventions. We need those sectors. The countries that will do best in the 21st century are those that have recognised that their economies must be talent-driven, and television is a classic example of a talent-driven industry.
My hon. Friend has represented Gloucester very well. I suffered badly at the hands of rugby players in Gloucester—they were a rough lot, I remember. Cherry and white shirts used to become blood red very quickly. That is where the art of coarse rugby was invented and is still played.
I enjoyed my hon. Friend's call for a single regulator or mediator. My hon. Friend will know that recently, in another place, we introduced what is known in the
118WH
jargon of the House as a paving Bill to set up Ofcom, the single regulator. At the moment, there are a large number of regulators. There is also the BBC, which regulates itself through its board of governors, and a small but important broadcasting organisation in Wales called S4C—the Welsh Channel 4—to which my hon. Friend referred earlier.
We are concerned at the great confusion of regulators. I would not criticise any of them, because they have done a good job, but the world has moved on and technology is moving on quickly. We must ensure that the regulation that is in place— especially for the brave new world of digital services—can keep pace with technological advance and that it can accommodate it. We must not institute a new regulatory regime that is already redundant. It is important that we do it.
I disagreed with little of my hon. Friend's argument, but the idea of another regulator—a football regulator—will wake me up at 2 am tomorrow in a cold sweat. There are enough regulators already, without appointing more. However, I can see his point and I hope that when we publish the full communications Bill, which we hope to do in February, my hon. Friend will contribute to the debate. We will publish it in February for consultation, and we want everyone in the industry to read it. The question of sport and regulation is most important.
Mr. Dhanda: On that point about regulation and current legislation, does my hon. Friend believe that Ofcom will be a more effective regulator in bringing together the entire communications field—satellite, digital and terrestrial television with the interactive studies that go with it—than the current more disparate layer of regulation?
Dr. Howells: Yes, I hope that the single regulator, instead of the collection that exists currently, will be a step forward and will accommodate the various platforms. My hon. Friend concentrated on the question of different platforms, and I will do so, too. We are at a vulnerable point in the digital programme. Two ITV companies, Carlton and Granada, have put a lot of money—as much as £800 million—into what is now known as ITV Digital, but used to be called ONdigital. So far, it has about 1.2 million subscribers, but the companies are concerned about the investment, which has been written off—far too often—by the press and the broadcasting anoraks. I am an eternal optimist and I hope that it is safe, because it is important that we have at least three competing platforms.
The digital revolution will be pushed forward by competition, and it is not the business of the state to underwrite those technological and commercial advances. It must be content driven, and people will want to buy digital only because they see it as better than what they have, whether through increased access to programmes on sport or those on any other subject. Competition must drive that forward, not the pronouncements of a Whitehall Minister or official.
Mr. John McWilliam: I hope that the Minister was not referring to me as a broadcasting anorak because I am a former member of the BBC's General Advisory Council.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: I want to point out some statistics about current access to

119WH
pay television. Some 41.5 per cent. of people have access to pay television of some kind. Of those, 36 per cent. have access from satellite and 11 per cent. via digital. Being a former rugby player, I enjoy the six nations tournament and the good record of the British Lions. People in Birmingham, especially in my constituency wards of Perry Barr and Oscott, are tremendous supporters of both football and rugby. Enthusiasm for sport is high, and Birmingham has a parks cricket league with 58 teams, which is the largest set of teams in any part of the country.
However, pay and satellite channels are not affordable for most of those people, who are in the lower end of the pay scale but still want to watch sport. Sport should be a family event. It should enable people to get together. When there are pay sports, people generally go to their local pubs and so they cannot sit with their children and wider family. Over the weekend, the ITV network decided to reschedule its Premier League matches, but that is different. International and national games should belong to everyone and should be more widely available on terrestrial channels.
Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend. That is a great advert for Birmingham rugby. It was the most concentrated speech I have heard in this place in a long time, although it was really an intervention.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Had the hon. Gentleman made a speech, I would have called him to order.
Dr. Howells: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam. I love the relaxed atmosphere here.
On the specific question of rugby being a listed sport, it might be a good idea if I reminded hon. Members of the lists of sporting events protected under part IV of the Broadcasting Act. Group A, for which full live coverage is protected, comprises the Olympic games, the FIFA World Cup finals tournament, the European football championship finals tournament, the FA cup final, the Scottish FA cup final, the Grand National, the Derby, the Wimbledon tennis finals, the rugby league challenge cup final and the rugby world cup final. Group B, which protects secondary coverage, comprises cricket test matches played in England, non-finals matches in the Wimbledon tournament, all other matches in the rugby world cup finals tournament, six nations rugby tournament matches involving the home countries—which now include Italy, an idea that I love—the Commonwealth games, the world athletics championships, the finals and semi-finals of the cricket world cup involving home nation teams, the Ryder cup and the Open golf championship.
My hon. Friends are calling for an event like the British Lions tour to be included. BSkyB has purchased exclusive live rights to the British Lions rugby union tours for 10 years. British Lions matches are not listed events because they do not meet the necessary criteria, or they certainly did not meet them until my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) made his case. BSkyB must therefore decide to whom, if anyone, to sell the highlights. Secondary coverage of this year's three test matches against
120WH
Australia was sub-licensed, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned, to S4C and was available to viewers in Wales.
The time to make the case is when the next review of the listed events occurs. That time probably starts now, although we do not envisage an early review of the list because there has only just been one. I take my hon. Friend's point about rugby union, which is certainly an enormously popular sport. In some parts of the country, it borders on a religion. A great many people would love to have seen the games in the southern hemisphere. There is a problem, however. I am not making excuses for the broadcasters, Mr. McWilliam, and you are well aware of the problems. If one takes the British Lions tour to New Zealand or to Australia, the time differences are so huge that broadcasters would have to run them through the night. That is not a bad thing, given some of the dross on television during the night, but it is a decision for the broadcasters.
The case for running an entire series as a listed event with that time difference in mind is no easier to sustain in terms of projected viewer figures than is running a cricket test match through the night. At least as many people would appreciate watching cricket. Those who are passionate about rugby would not mind that, though I have to admit that it is a long time since I have been able to stay awake after 10.30 on any night.
The World Cup final tournament is important to millions of UK sports fans. In 1998 the tournament included 64 matches. It has been listed in its entirety since 1985. It is a huge tranche of games. Interest in cup matches goes well beyond those involving the home nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned that matches between what might have been thought of in this country as obscure nations gained audiences larger than "News at Ten" and many other popular programmes.
FIFA requires that the opening game, the semi-finals, the final and games involving a national team should be shown on free-to-air television. One expects such matches to attract large audiences in this country and elsewhere but, as my hon. Friend said, it is much more surprising that 9.3 million people tuned in for Morocco v. Norway. I was amazed when I saw that figure. Furthermore, 9.8 million people watched Germany v. Iran and no fewer than 10.2 million watched Jamaica v. Croatia.
Mr. Peter Luff: Hear, hear.
Dr. Howells: Clearly one of them is sitting opposite and I have no doubt that it was a cracking game. I was nevertheless surprised at that level of interest.
Mr. Dhanda: I agree with virtually all that my hon. Friend said. However, does he agree that, although we should let the markets decide in most respects, when people have already forked out to watch Premiership football on Sky Digital, they should not have to fork out again for another platform to have the widest choice? That is why they paid in the first place.
Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes one of the key arguments that I hope will be debated when the draft Bill is published in February. It is an important point.

121WH
The manner in which the digital project is carried forward will depend on people feeling comfortable with the system and platform that they have bought into. We know that ITV is having problems with Premier League football on Saturday evenings: it may be shifted to another time and there is talk about selling to another platform, which will remain nameless, for wider distribution. We shall have to examine that carefully.
I hope that my hon. Friend does not believe that politicians should decide the matter. Parliament should certainly debate it, but God forbid the clay when politicians such as myself, others in the House or officials tell broadcasters what they can and cannot broadcast. The great achievements of the British television industry—terrestrial, satellite or cable—have been gained not as a result of political decisions but because of the creativity and talent of the people who work in it.
Many curious decisions are made about what sport should be on television and when it should be shown. The market research carried out by ITV revealed that buying the Premiership rights cost £185 million—£25 million more than the deal that ITV and the BBC did with Kirch to buy two lots of World Cup coverage. It looks like a lot of money now, and people wonder about those decisions, but they are commercial, artistic and creative decisions taken by broadcasting companies. We should not be in the business of telling them how to conduct their business.
I am a little confused about the time. Perhaps you can tell me when I should finish, Mr. McWilliam.
Mr. John McWilliam: Time is up now.

Education Funding (Worcestershire)
1 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I am delighted to see so many hon. Members from Worcestershire. I think that they want to intervene later, and others may turn up. I am not surprised that they are here in such large numbers, because the debate is about fairness, to which we are all committed.
In this Chamber on 24 January, the largest lobby of head teachers that the Commons has ever seen gave all the county's then MPs a grilling of which Jeremy Paxman would have been proud. A few weeks later, it was the turn of the governors, who were equally angry about unfairness in the distribution of education expenditure across the United Kingdom.
Successive Conservative and Labour Governments have not been fair to Worcestershire in a range of sectors: health, social services, policing, fire, regional development and, above all, education. The Government inherited an unfair situation, but far from seeking to address it urgently, they allowed it to get worse. As a result, schools in my constituency have fewer books, teachers and resources than those in neighbouring areas. Now, probably for the first time, we are experiencing difficulty in recruiting teachers to our schools. Appointments are being made because the successful applicant was not the best but the only applicant.
I should like the Minister to address three basic themes: the problems caused by diverse funding streams; the unfairness of the standard spending assessment formula; and the impact of the transfer of post-16 budgets to learning and skills councils. I will not labour the point about diverse funding streams, but I want to knock on the head the common argument that shortfalls in basic funding can be made good through standards fund money. Many of my local head teachers are worried about the complexity of applying for such funds, and I worry about the power that they give Ministers to centralise education policy even more.
Gerry Burgess, the head teacher of Simon de Montfort middle school, told me that the school's basic budget allocation is £900,000, but £840,000 goes on staffing. He needs the flexibility to use every penny that he gets in the school's best interests, not the prescription that inevitably flows from the increasing use of standards fund money.
Some 29 separate funding streams are available to schools. I sought the exact number in a parliamentary question, but Monday's answer avoided the issue. Schools need one cheque, as it were, that enables them to decide how to spend the money available—of course, there is not enough of that.
The current arrangements—the formula at the heart of the debate—were introduced, I believe, for the 1990–91 financial year as part of the background to the council tax or poll tax, as it was unpopularly known. If I have understood correctly—I am sure that the Minister will say so if I have not—what really happened was a freezing of historic patterns of expenditure. In crude terms, across-the-board increases were then applied to those historical levels for future years.
As any mathematician will tell us, if we apply a common percentage increase to a large sum and a small sum, the gap between them will grow over time. That

123WH
growth does not become apparent for a few years, but as the compound interest rate rules have their ruthless way, the rich get richer and the poor get relatively poorer. That has been happening in Worcestershire for 10 years.
The last Conservative Government should have addressed the formula's rough justice before the 1997 election, but did not. This Government have had four and a half years to do something, but have done nothing. The consequences are now becoming desperate for Worcestershire's schools.
The average shire county SSA in the secondary sector is £3,156.83 per pupil; in Worcestershire, it is £3,011.43. I say "shire county" because it is a strictly comparable unit. In the primary sector, the average shire county gets £2,456.41 per pupil; in Worcestershire, we get £2,346.48.
I am not comparing Worcestershire with national averages, but with shire county averages. I am trying to be fair. I accept that deprived inner-city areas are likely to need more than most shire counties. However, we are doing exceptionally badly compared even with shire counties. We are 31st out of 34 in the secondary sector and 32nd out of 34 in the primary sector. In 1998–99, the first year for which the Government must accept responsibility, the gap between Worcestershire and the shire average was £86 per primary school pupil; this year, it has risen to £110. In 1998–99, the gap in the secondary sector was £118; it is now £145. That means that my county gets £4.3 million less than the average shire for its primary and first schools, and £4.6 million less for its middle and secondary schools—nearly £9 million overall.
It is against that background, and in the face of an unprecedented campaign—a campaign so intense that it broke my fax machine—that the Government coughed up a one-off payment of an extra £1.35 million for the current year. That sum is welcome, but it still leaves us approximately £8 million below the shire average, and we have no way of knowing whether that extra million or so will be available again in the new financial year beginning in April.
My parliamentary question on the subject, due for answer on Monday, got a dusty answer from the Minister, saying that he would reply as soon as possible." As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) said in a letter apologising for his absence owing to a very long-standing engagement,
"There is, I know, cross-party agreement that the expenditure formula works unfairly for Worcestershire when the grants it receives are compared with those of similar counties. Governments of all persuasions have acknowledged this for some time but have been reluctant to do anything about it. The time has come for a change to be made in the formula. Piecemeal, temporary 'solutions' are not the answer."
The current funding arrangements make Prince Henry's high school in Evesham £358,172 worse off than the national average. Just a few miles up the road in Birmingham, the figures are very different. David Braham, head teacher of Bengeworth first school told me:
"Heads have to continue to come up with creative ideas to fund essential resources. In our school, leasing, fundraising and seeking outside funding is becoming routine to keep the wolf from the door and make our budget balance."
124WH
The acting head teacher of Chawson first school in Droitwich Spa, Eleanor Sinton, told me:
"If our school were up-rooted and re-sited in say, Surrey, our budget would be greater and we should be able to provide our children with more facilities and opportunities."
Roger Davies, chairman of governors at Cropthorne with Charlton Church of England first school, said in a letter asking seven questions that I will be sending to the Minister:
"Should Worcestershire County Council increase local taxes in order to help the education budget, it is totally unfair that central government should penalise us by effectively rate capping the county."
The funding formula leaves Droitwich Spa high school £460,000 a year worse off than an equivalent school in Hertfordshire, but its costs are roughly the same. The real-terms budget increase for Evesham high school was about 2.9 per cent., not the 5.6 per cent. that the Government claim. I understand that there have been redundancies at that school, as other unavoidable costs squeezed its staff budget.
I wish to be bipartisan and emphasise that both major parties bear a share of responsibility. However, the attempt by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to involve parents in his constituency in the campaign was, to put it kindly, mistaken. He sent thousands of letters to schools in his constituency—I believe that the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) may have done the same—inviting schools to distribute the letters to parents, who would then return them to him. I wrote to the Minister to tell him that I would mention that today. Those letters wrongly put all the blame on the last Conservative Government. They do not explain that the problem is not only the formula but its extended life. It should have been put out of its misery years ago.
The letter also claims that all the credit for the extra funding should go to the county's Labour MPs. That ignores the huge efforts made by local head teachers in the lobby, the thousands of letters from governors and parents and the tidal wave of general opinion expressed throughout the county, including in the local media. People power, not Labour MPs, won the useful but modest concession for the current year.
The letter may have been too party political, but I was fascinated. A Minister, the hon. Member for Redditch, and a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Worcester, were prepared to stoke up such anticipation of an extra sum for the coming year, assuring us that the money was already earmarked. I received from the Secretary of State this morning a letter that assured me that that was not the case, but I remain unconvinced. I cannot believe that people in their position would risk having to criticise their own Government for failing to deliver, so I have high hopes.
Jacqui Smith: We are also constituency Members of Parliament.
Mr. Luff: That may be so. The hon. Lady is a good constituency Member of Parliament but I do not think she would want to criticise her Government for failing to deliver or that she would encourage thousands of her constituents to write in that way unless she had reasonably confident expectations.
I understand that the Government will change the formula in the 2003–04 financial year. I have pressed for a long time for a commitment to change the formula and

125WH
to make a commitment to a time scale. The information was available at the beginning of the summer and I am pleased about that. I hope that the Minister will restate the commitment today.
I want to know, too, how long the transitional arrangements will take, and to have a clear indication of the basis on which the new formula will work, although I appreciate that the details cannot be revealed today. A new formula is all very well, but it must be much fairer than the one it replaces. Put simply, schools have a national curriculum, national targets and standards and national pay scales. It is difficult to see any justification for significant discrepancies in funding, especially between shire counties.
There is speculation that the implementation could be delayed beyond 2003, and that the transitional arrangements will be lengthy. I hope that is not the case and I look to the Minister for some words of comfort when he replies to the debate. If it is the case, another generation of schoolchildren could go through Worcestershire's schools before any benefit is felt from the changes. I know that education spending is rising overall and I am glad about that, but the 1997–2001 Labour Government spent a lower share of the nation's wealth on education than the Conservative Government they replaced. Their achievements are a good deal more modest than they are sometimes fond of claiming.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the issue. It will not go away; it was the subject of much attention before the last election. I hope that the cynical attempt by Labour Members in the county to raise the letter will be the harbinger of good news for our schools later in the financial year.
My hon. Friend knows that I have to dash away and I will not therefore hear the Minister's reply, but I shall read it later. We will return to the matter if the Minister does not give us what we want. The issue is important for our schools, especially as it concerns learning and skills councils, which my hon. Friend will mention in a moment, as Bromsgrove schools, including high schools and sixth forms, will be equally affected in the most bizarre ways. We want to know more about that.
Mr. Luff: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), whom I am happy to call my hon. Friend.
Dr. Richard Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene to support him in raising awareness of the unfairness of the funding arrangements for shire counties. As I have the rare privilege of being an independent, I do not have to attack either party for past events. I am looking only for an improvement.
I was concerned to hear from a head teacher in my constituency that at the recent Ofsted inspection, an inspector had told her, mistakenly, that her school was well funded. She could not move him from that misapprehension, even though the school passed the Ofsted inspection well. It is disturbing that Ofsted inspectors are given incorrect information before an
126WH
inspection and that an inaccurate perception of Worcestershire schools' funding seems to be widely held.
Mr. Luff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will reply, either now or subsequently, to the important point, which has not been made before, about what Ofsted thinks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) mentioned learning and skills councils. I am not happy about those undemocratic organisations; their indicative budgets for post-16 education are very worrying and came as a big shock to schools in my constituency. The head teacher of Droitwich Spa high school, Mr. Cledwyn-Davies, wrote to the Department for Education and Skills, asking to see the formula used to calculate these budgets. He was told that it was not available.
There are bizarre results, as my hon. Friend said. Mr. Cledwyn-Davies's school, with 280 pupils in the sixth form, will receive £675,289, while Haybridge high school, with only 219 students will receive £728,000; it has 61 fewer pupils and £53,000 more cash. We need to know what is behind the formula. At Prince Henry's high school in Evesham, the shortfall is estimated at £40,000—and that is on the back of promises that real-term funding for school sixth forms would be maintained. That is manifestly not happening. Something has gone wrong and if it is not addressed, Droitwich Spa high school will have to make three teachers redundant. The Department is making soothing noises, but the final figures will not be known until December. That adds a new dimension to the unfairness of the SSA formula. There is also the uncertainty and cost caused by the new exam arrangements for AS and A2 levels and the problems of the basic need formula for increasing sixth form accommodation—which has meant that Prince Henry's sixth form has increased from 110 to 340 with no additional accommodation.
The issue is largely, but not solely, to do with the SSA, as I hope the Minister understands. The Government enjoy their image of seeking fairness and justice but while they rightly fight injustice internationally, they ignore a real injustice at home. Indeed, the local government Minister has refused even to receive a delegation of local head teachers for a 15-minute meeting for them to explain the consequences of Government policy in Worcestershire. Are not the 70,000 Worcestershire schoolchildren worth even 15 minutes of the Minister's time? It is not good enough to say, as the Minister will when he replies, that Worcestershire has had real increases in its education funding. Under successive Governments, it usually has had. The problem is that other shire counties, never mind inner-city authorities, have always got even more. Our relative poverty has got worse, year after year. Successive Governments—Conservative and Labour—have valued Worcestershire's schoolchildren less highly than those from other parts of the country. Worcestershire needs to hear from the Minister that that scandal will end, and end quickly.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire

127WH
(Mr. Luff) on securing the debate. It is an important issue and all hon. Members who represent areas with those difficulties and uneven funding acknowledge such problems and the need to do something about them. I, more than anybody, relate to the concerns that he expressed. My own area of Bury has those problems and has been involved in the same campaign, as I shall detail in a moment.
I shall first address the hon. Gentleman's reference to sixth-form funding and the concerns about the transfer of responsibility and resources to the learning and skills councils. I reassure him that the Government have made it clear, through their real-terms guarantee, that the funding will be distributed and allocated fairly. There has been negotiation and discussion about reaching a fair definition of pupil numbers in school sixth forms for the purpose of calculating the real-terms guarantee for the year 2000–01. There has been a significant consultation process with all local education authorities to reach agreement on the baseline—the starting point for making that calculation—which will feed into funding allocations in the future.
I am pleased to say that Worcester was one of the authorities that raised concern about the baseline pupil number figure and that the LEA has now reached agreement with the Department on that figure, which will be reflected in an appropriate guarantee that is consistent with the real-terms guarantee and with the numbers that have been agreed between the LEA and the Department.
Mr. Luff: I want to express my gratitude for what the Minister is saying. Does he mean that each individual school will get a real-terms protection for funding?
Mr. Lewis: It depends on pupil numbers and the relationship between the numbers for the year 2000–01. It has been agreed in consultation with local authorities, the Local Government Association and others that that is the appropriate year to look at in calculating the baseline assessment. It is a transparent and fair formula for calculating the figure. The process that we intend to adopt in terms of your local authority—I mean the hon. Gentleman's local authority—has now been agreed between that LEA and the Department.
Mr. John McWilliam: I do not mind if the Minister refers to my local authority as well.
Mr. Lewis: We all have similar views on those issues.
There is a genuine worry about the inequality of funding in respect of the standard spending assessment formula. The hon. Gentleman said that he accepts that the Government have acknowledged the problem and are doing something about it, yet he suggested that somehow, in their first four years in office, they should have put right the in-built structural unfairness that has been in place for many years. Such a view is unreasonable. If the Conservative Government were unable and unwilling to change that formula during a 15 or 20-year period, it is extremely disingenuous to suggest
128WH
not only to hon. Members but to people in Worcestershire that, in only four years, that problem should have been resolved.
Mr. Luff: We had six years in which to rectify the matter and the hon. Gentleman's Government have had four-and-a-half years to do so, so the blame is pretty evenly shared. We did not have 15 years in which to take such action.
Mr. Lewis: The unfairness of the formula pre-dates the poll tax. The problems were crystallised by the local government finance structure that was adopted to introduce that disastrous local taxation policy. The Government acknowledged in the Green Paper that the system is unfair and that they must make it fairer. Subsequent to that, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has now clearly committed itself to introducing a fairer formula on 1 April 2003. That is not a possibility or an aspiration but an unequivocal commitment that there will be a new, fairer and more even SSA formula not only for education, but for local government generally. It will make a significant difference to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to mine.
It was amazingly bizarre that the hon. Gentleman attacked my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)—the Minister of State at the Department of Health—and for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for campaigning on probably the most important issue to local people among all the issues with which Members of Parliament are asked to deal. During the past few years, the standard spending assessment has been the major campaigning issue within my community and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). As we move towards the change in the SSA system, we are currently launching a further push to ensure that Ministers are fully aware of the need to change the formula so that it is fair and transparent.
Whatever their ministerial responsibilities, the colleagues to whom I referred would have been failing in their duty to their constituents if they had not made the matter a priority and campaigned locally about it. Accusations that there is control freakery in the parliamentary Labour party are unfounded and undermined by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and Parliamentary Private Secretaries insist on campaigning vigorously because the formula matters to their constituents, even when such campaigning may cause short-term embarrassment to the Government. I commend them for their campaign and for working in partnership with parents, head teachers and governors in their constituencies.
I must advise the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire that. I have been involved in the campaign and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch knows details of the local government settlement that is about to be announced, I should be delighted to have a cup of tea with her in the Tea Room after the debate and to be reassured that all the activity and correspondence in which I am involved is futile. That she may have access to information that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are not even aware of when considering

129WH
the financial situation facing the country, particularly now, and knows details of next year's local government settlement is a most spurious accusation.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman may be embarrassed by my hon. Friends who led such a campaign in those communities on a matter of concern. He was seen to follow on the tail end of that campaign. Parents, head teachers and governors will be delighted that my hon. Friends led the campaign on a matter of such importance—fair funding for education in their schools. They demonstrated that they are good constituency Members of Parliament. That is the first priority for all Members, be they Minister, Parliamentary Private Secretary or Back Bencher.
It is misleading to suggest that the SSA formula in itself is the whole story. We know, as does every school in Worcestershire, that education funding has significantly increased since this Government came to power. The hon. Gentleman is disingenuous to dismiss that and suggest that that occurs every year and did so under the Conservatives, because it did not. Funding for primary and secondary schools went down under the last Conservative Government. That is a reason why they were turfed out of office in 1997. Extra resources for schools and for education are a primary reason why we had such an outstanding election result in June 2001.
We should examine Worcestershire's funding. Since 1998, Worcestershire's SSA has increased by nearly £30 million—almost 16 per cent. over three years. The amount that it receives from the standards fund increased from £4.3 million in 1998 to £17.9 million this year. The school standards direct grant, introduced last year, is worth £7.76 million to Worcestershire's schools this year.
The hon. Gentleman implies that there has not been a massive and significant investment in education since this Government came to power. When the figures for Hereford and Worcester were calculated jointly, capital expenditure on education in 1996–97—the last year for
130WH
which the Conservative Government can be held to account—was £6.02 million. This year, Worcestershire will receive £16.5 million for capital investment.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the standards fund and ring-fenced resources. One of the ways in which the Government have tried to address the unfairness and unevenness of standard spending assessments—while coming up with a long-term structural solution to achieve a fairer SSA regime—is to distribute significant amounts to local education authorities and schools outside that unfair formula, which filters in such a disproportionate way and leads to disadvantage and inequality. Hon. Members who represent constituencies where the SSA is low should, as an interim measure, welcome the ring-fencing and the standards funds.
The Government are not willing to apologise for the fact that some of the ring-fencing has been to ensure that our objective of raising standards in schools is achieved. The money should not be spent for purposes outside our priorities, such as literacy and numeracy, class sizes, special needs provision, textbooks and computers. We do not apologise for spending additional money on those vital elements of education. We celebrate the additional money given to education budgets from the school standards fund, and we are proud of it. We accept that the formula must change, and we will change it. We are the first Government willing to tackle that difficult problem. We will do that, and we are proud of the additional funds that we have put into schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and others. There is no question about it: education has received tangible additional investment.
Every poll taken of what is most popular about this Government has found that it is their achievements in education. People in schools throughout the country have experienced for themselves the difference between those barren Tory years and the growth in investment, revenue and capital during the first term of a Labour Government. We were not able to do everything. We were not able to make up for all those dreadful cuts in the latter years of the Tory Government, but we are proud of what we achieved.

Fishing Communities Regeneration Initiative
1.30 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: The cumulative effects of reduced fishing quotas, limits on days at sea, the closure of fishing grounds and high fuel prices, even though there is no tax on marine diesel, have all been crippling for this country's fishing industry over many years. That has serious consequences for fishing communities around our coasts, and has been graphically documented in a new report from the World Wide Fund for Nature, which states:
"Our fishing industry is disintegrating before our eyes. The UK fleet declined by 55 per cent. and the value of these catches has been reduced by 77 per cent. As a result of such changes, the number of full-time UK fishermen, after remaining relatively stable between 1970 and 1990, has fallen by 29 per cent. between 1990 and 2000."
That does not take account of many more onshore jobs in fishing communities that depend on the catching and have also disappeared.
We know that the Government cannot suddenly conjure up more fish in the sea, but people expect help in coping with these problems, and they also expect the Government to have a clear plan for the future of fishing. I do not think that the Government have such a plan. In the same circumstances, fishing industries in nearly all other European Union countries are in a much stronger position than ours, especially those in Holland and Spain. The WWF report shows that financial assistance for fishing in this country is the lowest in the European Union.
The report also asked whether the funds that are available are being used wisely, and I want to focus on that question in this debate. The view of fishermen is clear: they feel that they were the forgotten part of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when billions were heaped on farmers but little came to them. Matters came to a head earlier this year when the Scottish Executive announced £25 million of new money for fishing. That embarrassed our Government. The response was £6 million from MAFF for decommissioning, and £5.5 million from the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to be delivered through the regional development agencies, recognising their role and responsibility for regional economies.
I want to focus on that £5.5 million today. It was heralded on 2 April in a Government news release:
"Elliot Morley launches aid for English fishing industry",
including £5.5 million for
"retraining and rejuvenation at fishing ports."
What is happening to that money, and how wisely is it being spent in relation to the reason for which it was made available—problems in the fishing industry, and the effects on the people caught up in it? Immediately, I was mindful of a previous scheme run by the European Union called PESCA, which spent millions of pounds, sometimes on cobbles and Victorian lampposts, but did not relate at all to the problems caused by fisheries decline. It was entirely accidental if anyone in fishing, or displaced from it, benefited at all. I was determined to ensure, at least in my area, that that did not happen again.
132WH
I spent the summer pursuing the matter. I found a travesty of mismanagement, confusion and rushed bids. I am sorry to say that the target is being missed again, because this is anything but wise spending. There should be two key principles behind the initiative. First, the £5.5 million must be shared out fairly between the regions in proportion to the size of the fishing industry in each one. The bigger the industry in a community, the bigger the dent in the local economy. Secondly, the money should help the right people. Community is not an abstract term: it is about people. The guidance given to the RDAs on this matter by the DETR said that the
"divvy-up between the regions is intended to reflect the relative size of the demersal fishing industry within each region."
I have the official MAFF figures, and there is no correlation between the figures for size or value of catch and the shareout of the £5.5 million. The Yorkshire region accounts for 46 per cent. of the catch by weight, and 33 per cent. of the catch by value, but it is receiving only 24 per cent. of the £5.5 million.
I represent the port of Lowestoft: it accounts for 9.5 per cent. of the fish by weight and value, and yet the entire eastern region is receiving merely 7 per cent. of the £5.5 million. The south-east provides the worst example: that region accounts for only 2.5 per cent. by weight, and 3.6 per cent. by value, but it is receiving 22 per cent. of the total pot.
I asked a parliamentary question to determine the methodology that was employed. I was told that the regional development agencies were awarded £120,000 for each port that is located in their region, and that that accounted for 70 per cent. of the total, with the rest to be distributed in proportion to the weight of the catch. However, that methodology is fundamentally flawed and unfair, because the resources are not being sufficiently allocated to the places where the fishing industry is largest. I learned from another parliamentary question that that allocation was based on a list of 32 ports. I want to know where that list came from, because I have all the MAFF figures for demersal landings and I can find only the 21 MAFF-designated ports.
That matter raises another question: what is a fishing port? How can ports such as Lowestoft, Grimsby, Newlyn, Scarborough or Whitby, which have trawler industries that account for a significant part of the local economy, be compared with some of the other ports on the list, which merely have a small harbour with a small fleet of fishing boats, most of which are operated only part-time? Such smaller ports make an insignificant contribution to their local economies, yet their RDAs are receiving £120,000 for them. Some of those smaller ports, such as Southwold, which is located on the Suffolk coast a few miles south of my constituency, are not poor communities. Southwold is one of the wealthiest communities in the country, yet its regional development agency is receiving £120,000.
Worse still, I believe that the lists were not communicated to the regional development agencies. I visited the East of England Development Agency, which covers my region. Its staff had no idea about which fishing ports it was supposed to help, or the relative sizes of the ports within the region. It had picked six coastal towns, and it planned to divide evenly between them the eastern region's £390,000. It appears to have done that. However, five of the six ports that it chose are not on the

133WH
list of 32 ports, and I cannot find any records of landings; moreover, one of the two ports in the eastern region that are on that list is not on the list that the East of England Development Agency was using.
As a result, Lowestoft, which is in my constituency, and which is the third largest fishing community in England in terms of weight of catch—its catch amounts to nearly 10 per cent. of the national catch—has been offered merely £65,000 out of a total of £5.5 million. That cannot be right.
The Minister informed me in a letter that I received in September 2001 that Southwold was on the list of 32 ports. I think that that piece of information was supposed to make me feel better, but Southwold is not in my constituency—although it is in the Waveney district council area. As Lowestoft and Southwold are the only two ports on the list that are located in the eastern region, they should, logically, get all of the £390,000, even taking into account the way in which the Department has made its calculations.
I have established that the money has been wrongly divided up, but is it being spent on the right things? To repeat a point that I made earlier, the initiative under discussion was introduced because of the problems associated with the decline of the fishing industry, which is causing dents in many local economies.
A fishing community is a collection of people, and we must ensure that we help the right people. Help must be provided for the people who have already been displaced from fishing, and for those who are still either voluntarily of compulsorily losing their jobs in the industry. There are many unemployed fishermen in the area that I represent, or former fishermen who are unhappy with the job that they have had to take up, or who want to be retrained or to change their qualifications so that they can work on ships that they are not currently entitled to work on. The people who are struggling to survive in the fishing industry must also be helped. The Government are having to take draconian measures to try to conserve and, we hope, rebuild stocks, but it is important to ensure that, when that job is completed, there is still an industry to catch the fish—otherwise the fish will be caught by fishermen from other nations.
If we do not deal with those who are trying to struggle on in fishing, the inference is that we envisage no future for fishing and are just letting it fall to pieces and using the money to pick up those pieces, which, as the WWF says, is more expensive in the long term. Restructuring is the best and fairest way to help people affected in fishing communities.
Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a point on behalf of the fishing communities in Scarborough and Whitby. Does my hon. Friend recognise that many key fishing communities in England are on their knees in terms of economic decline? The port of Whitby and many of the wards in Scarborough are some of the worst affected areas in terms of economic decline, with objective 2 status. That is another criterion that should have been taken into account when, as my hon. Friend puts it, the money was divvied up. It is an outrage that certain
134WH
wealthy communities in the south of England seem to have benefited from a scheme that was designed to help my constituents and his.
Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend is right. It is a pity that the people who drew up the scheme did not take note of those points.
I was heartened to read in guidance note 6, which was given to RDAs, that
"Ministers do not wish to be prescriptive on the sort of project that RDAs may wish to fund."
That encouraged me, but I have a sad tale to tell about my constituency. When I returned from holiday towards the end of September, I found that my council had submitted a bid that had already been agreed with EEDA to spend the £65,000 on free child care places for people in two wards in central Lowestoft, and a community development officer. The council's report told me that the development followed detailed discussions with EEDA about the nature of potential bids. Sadly, no discussions were held with the fishing industry or anyone else. That is unacceptable.
The council tells me that the criteria of the scheme direct what can and cannot be submitted and that the rules feel prohibitive, especially to small authorities. The question is where do the rules come from if Ministers do not want the scheme to be prescriptive? What started out as millions of pounds of aid for the English fishing industry ends up with the country's third largest fishing port receiving £65,000 for child care and a community development officer. That is a travesty.
To be fair, following intervention by the council leader, another bid has now been made in consultation with the fishing industry. I hope that it will succeed, but if it does not I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate why.
Where is the accountability? I pursued the matter all summer, and various Departments seemed to be in disarray. On 19 July, the Leader of the House told me that the Department of Trade and Industry was responsible for the matter. Indeed, a DTI Minister answered my first parliamentary question. In midsummer, I was told that the matter fell within the remit of DTLR. Eventually, on 5 September, I received a letter from the Minister's colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), and on 6 September an identical letter from the Minister telling me that there was no case for reviewing the allocation.
I hope that the Minister now appreciates that there is a case for reviewing the allocation. I invite her to sit down with me and other hon. Members present to go through it in detail and unpick the tangled mess. The money is not yet spent; there is still time. Sadly, if it is not possible to do that, the only other course open to me in order properly to represent my constituents is to refer the matter to the National Audit Office to find out whether it is satisfied that the money that was made available is being properly shared out and spent in the right way.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's peroration. He has done an enormous service to the industry, and to Members of

135WH
Parliament who represent fishing constituencies, in highlighting the problem and showing what has happened. Does he agree that the real problem now facing fishing is how to prise more money from the Treasury so that we can invest in fishing as an industry to help, as the WWF suggests, to bridge it from its present decline to the sustainable catches that lie ahead, ensuring proper conservation?
Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear that the country and the Government need a plan for the future of fishing, which we can ask the Treasury to fund.
I have presented a picture of how the delivery process simply did not work and how policy objectives set in Westminster went amiss. We are left with a fishing industry that feels neglected and unwanted yet again. Worst of all, the £5.5 million which the Government made available because of the crisis in fisheries and which was welcomed by all hon. Members representing fishing areas, is in danger of being dissipated in ways unrelated to fishing.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on obtaining this debate on the Government's fishing initiative. I should make the point that that initiative is a specific part of the package of help for the fishing industry and does not represent the whole story.
My hon. Friend dealt with two main points: the make-up of the package and the accountability and monitoring of the programme. However, I start by dealing with his suggestion that we should sit down and have a meeting. My letter to him, dated 6 September, states clearly:
"If it helps, I would be quite willing to meet you to discuss this matter further."
Since that date, he has not approached me for a meeting. I think that it would have helped and that he should have taken up the offer and tried to find a constructive way forward.
Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend has already said that she saw no case for review. I am afraid that I took that as a rebuff. I went on holiday, and since then things have moved on. It is too late now.
Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend may have gone on holiday, but the offer was there. It was clearly set out and could and should have been taken up. If he wants to have a meeting, I am still more than willing to do so.
The sea fishing industry has been a traditional and important sector of the United Kingdom's economy, especially in my hon. Friend's constituency, where many people's livelihood depends on the industry's success. However, as he rightly says, like some other of our traditional industries, fishing has been in decline. Colleagues here would no doubt agree that the Government have a duty to consider what extra help they should offer beyond what is already available to the industry and the affected communities.
136WH
As I am sure my hon. Friend would acknowledge, the Government's response has been positive. We share with the fish catching and processing organisations the goal of a sustainable, viable future for the industry and are taking firm action to address long-term needs. At the same time, we must address the future direction for priorities. We all seek a sustainable industry that is economically profitable and uses environmentally sustainable practices.
On 2 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), then a MAFF Minister, announced various measures to address a range of problems faced by the industry, including the launch of the European Union fisheries structural fund grants scheme for England, with the aim of helping the industry's adjustment. That package relates specifically to the industry and includes £11 million in grants over the next three years. The scheme seeks to improve the quality and value of fish caught and to promote the use of environmentally friendly equipment. My hon. Friend also made available £6 million for extra support in England to assist restructuring in the fishing industry by decommissioning fishing vessels.
The Government recognised that there was a strong case for helping coastal communities that might be affected by the restructuring of the industry. I would argue that that represents a wider remit, which comes under my Department. On 4 April, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), then a DETR Minister, announced a £5.5 million fishing communities regeneration initiative. That is being made available through the regional development agencies during the current year, to provide help for communities in regions with fishing ports, including working up local regeneration strategies and getting help from existing regeneration programmes more easily. That is clearly a wider remit, relating to helping and regenerating communities, as opposed to concentrating on the industry.
My hon. Friend might want to consider whether arguments about the north-south divide are unjust: if a particular industry is in decline, there is likely to be an impact on a particular community, or a pocket of a town. There are pockets of disadvantage even in some of the more affluent areas of the south-east.
Mr. Mitchell: I want to point out that, first, the £11 million was not new money, but was being recycled, and secondly the package was provided because European Governments were giving far greater aid—as was the Scottish Executive—directly to their industries. As it was being put through the regional development agencies, which is a policy that I support, it was surely incumbent on my hon. Friend's Department to impress on the agencies the importance of fishing to the local economy and the fishing communities. The extent to which agencies have realised that—and brought aid, development and support to the fishing industry in their areas—has been variable.
Ms Keeble: The £11 million mentioned by my hon. Friend was announced by MAFF. I have been talking about the £5.5 million that is going through the regional development agencies, and which is relevant to the issues of the wider community. It is a specific scheme for which my Department is responsible and about which we have been in correspondence.

137WH
The North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humber, East of England, South East and South West regional development agencies each received an allocation to take into account two factors. The allocation was to provide £120,000 for each port with the largest demersal fishing catches recorded in the then most recent MAFF table. That accounted for £3.84 million of the £5.5 million. The rest was distributed in proportion to the weight of the catches at the relevant ports.
The exact list of the ports included has been a matter of some dispute, because when the scheme was announced and proposals began to be made—in consultation with the local authorities—the most recent MAFF figures were from 1999. The list that has been constantly quoted in this debate is the 2000 list.
Lawrie Quinn: The Minister mentions the allocation that was made for ports, but does she recognise that there are nine to 12 shore-based jobs based on the fishing activity out of ports like Whitby and Scarborough? That is not true of some of the other ports. On my reckoning, the Yorkshire and Humber regional development agency should, on the basis of catch alone, have been provided with about £2 million to allocate. In fact it received about £1 million. It is incumbent on my hon. Friend to take account of such matters. Perhaps my community feels, quite rightly, that it has been significantly shortchanged by the allocations calculated by her Department.
Ms Keeble: The allocation of money between different areas was always going to be the subject of great dispute. What was perfectly fair about the decisions that were taken was the recognition that when a sector of industry is affected in a community, the community or area will encounter a problem, great or small. A certain allocation was made with reference to the town, and a proportion was added to reflect the size of the catch. That approach tries to achieve a fair weighting by taking into account a number of issues.
In addition, to ensure that the allocation of the money reflects the needs, priorities and pressures in the different communities, it was made clear to the RDAs that they will have substantial flexibility in spending the money. The weighting tries fairly to reflect the fact that there are several different communities, and there are also different weightings for different catches. There is also a high level of flexibility. To those who think that there is not enough accountability, I should say that the schemes have been worked out with the various partners and that local councils have had an input into the design of the plans and the priorities that have been put to the RDAs.
Mr. Blizzard: The figures that I used were the 1999 figures from the Minister's Department.
Ms Keeble: Fine. My hon. Friend will accept that much of his argument was about the towns and ports
138WH
that should be included and about the amounts involved. It is important to put on record that the figures were from 1999.
Shona McIsaac: The Minister cannot deny that Hull, Whitby, Scarborough, Bridlington and Grimsby are some of the top ports in the UK and account for about £25 million worth of the UK catch. Ports such as Poole, Shoreham and Portsmouth account for only £2 million, but the percentage split in the funding to support those communities is 23 per cent. for ports such as Grimsby, Hull, Bridlington and Scarborough and 21 per cent. for ports in the south. That is simply unfair, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) tried to demonstrate. Hon. Members present who represent ports feel that the Minister has not dealt with the issue.
Ms Keeble: We must make an allocation that recognises the fact that there are several different areas. One might say—although this would depend on a detailed knowledge of the industry—that large ports could modernise their industry and retain more of it. However, the important point is that the allocation weights for two issues and gives the RDAs discretion. It is also strictly time limited because it is a one-year fund, although I am concerned that we shall spend three quarters of the year arguing about the allocation of the money rather than discussing how it will be spent.
Management of the initiative will follow the same arrangements as the successor schemes to the single regeneration budget during 2001 and 2002. The RDAs will monitor how the money is spent in accordance with existing SRB programme requirements.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) probably knows, two of the five schemes that the East of England RDA is considering come from Waveney. I am not sure whether he is aware of the details of the bids that have been made for his area, but if he is not, I will be happy to write to him. The same goes for my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn). I have some details, although they might not be complete.
Lawrie Quinn: I am aware of them.
Ms Keeble: Good. I am happy to deal with the issue in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney asked about the types of scheme. They have been introduced in consultation with local agencies and, in particular, local councils. Retraining needs will go wider than the immediate needs of the industry.
My hon. Friends clearly have concerns, and I am more than happy to go through the finer details with them. However, I urge them also to deal with the councils and the RDAs to ensure that progress is made on the scheme, which is intended to help not only hard-pressed industries but hard-pressed communities to recover from some of the damage that has been inflicted on them as a result of structural difficulties in the fishing industries.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Business (E-mail)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Council if he will propose that the House should accept motions relating to parliamentary business by e-mail; and if he will make a statement. [8466]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have no immediate plans to make such a proposal, but it is worthy of consideration. Any switch to a new system would need to take account of its wider impact and ensure that any security implications are properly addressed.
  The Hon. Member may wish to ask the Procedure Committee to consider the proposal.

  New Members (Induction)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the activities for the induction of new hon. Members in this Parliament. [9068]

  Mrs. Roe
  After the 2001 general election, House departments provided a fuller and more co-ordinated induction process for newly elected Members than at any previous election. It is known that virtually all newly elected Members attended the Reception Area and associated activities. There is a good deal of anecdotal evidence that these activities were well received, but in addition the Board of Management has agreed that there should be a small survey of newly elected Members in order to seek their opinions in a more systematic way. The group of House officials who oversaw the process has made its own assessment, including points for consideration when preparations are being made for the induction process after the next general election.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ensure that existing investment and maintenance programmes planned by Railtrack will take place. [8391]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Administrator has been funded so as to permit him to continue work on Railtrack's projects. Contractors have been asked to continue normal working; and Railtrack in administration will continue to place orders and let contracts.
  222W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has held with financial institutions about the future investment needs of the rail industry since the decision to put Railtrack into administration. [8994]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's advisers have held regular meetings with financial creditors and others.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has discussed future funding of rail investment with Railtrack bondholders. [9003]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Future funding of the proposed company limited by guarantee has been discussed between my officials, my Department's advisers and the financial markets and we intend to continue to consult widely before detailed proposals are put to the Administrator.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of Railtrack's shareholders hold less than(a) 5,000 and (b) 1,000 shares. [8780]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has on the number of railway employees who hold shares in Railtrack. [8945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not hold such information.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has held with the Credit Rating Agency in relation to Railtrack. [9001]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend has held no such discussions.

  Planning
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will create a right of appeal against the grant of planning consent in respect of large-scale schemes of local concern; and if he will make a statement. [8666]

  Ms Keeble
  Local people already have the opportunity to comment on proposals for large-scale and other schemes before the local planning authority decides whether or not to grant planning permission. Our forthcoming Planning Green Paper will look at ways of improving community engagement in the planning process.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of Thameslink 2000. [8665]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are keen to ensure that the Thameslink 2000 project should not be put at risk by Railtrack being taken into administration. We are discussing with the administrators and the Strategic Rail Authority the best way of ensuring that the project can be carried forward if the enabling powers are granted under the Transport and Works Act 1992. A public inquiry into Railtrack's application for an order under the 1992 Act
  223W
  finished earlier this year and the inspector's report is expected next spring. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot pre-judge the outcome of the inquiry.

  Housing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was(a) the number of homeless priority acceptances, (b) the number of those living in temporary accommodation, (c) the number of those living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and (d) the number of children living in homeless households, by region, in each year since 1997. [8956]

  Mr. Byers
  Summary information on activity under statutory homelessness provisions is reported to the Department by local authorities in England. This includes the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and the number of those households resident in various types of temporary accommodation at the end of each quarter.
  National and some regional information on local authorities' activity is provided in a quarterly Statistical Release published by the Department. Copies are available in the Library, and also via the Department's website. The latest edition, published on 12 September, presents statistics up to the end of June 2001.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish figures for the level of empty council housing, by local authority in England, in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001 to date; and if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to reduce the level of empty council housing. [8959]

  Mr. Byers
  I have placed the information requested in the Library. It presents data showing the level of empty council housing by local authority as at 1 April 1997 and 1 April 2000 (the latest available) respectively.
  We expect those housing authorities with high levels of vacant properties to set challenging targets for reductions through improved management performance or action to improve or dispose of unpopular stock in the Business Plans they are now required to produce.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to reduce the(a) number and (b) scope of executive agencies affiliated to his Department. [9126]

  Mr. Byers
  We have no current plans to reduce the number or scope of this Department's executive agencies. All agencies are subject to review, including five yearly reviews in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, which examine their status and work. The outcome of such reviews are announced to Parliament.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to decentralise non-departmental public bodies and devolve their responsibilities to local authorities. [8958]
  224W
  Mr. Byers
  We have no current plans to reduce the number or scope of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Department. All such bodies are subject to review, including to five yearly reviews in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, which examine their status and work. The outcome of such reviews are announced to Parliament.

  Thames Riverboats
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to increase safety on riverboats travelling on the River Thames; and if he will make a statement. [8961]

  Mr. Byers
  Inquiries chaired by Lord Justice Clarke have produced 74 wide-ranging recommendations for improving safety on the tidal Thames. The recommendations are being pursued through a mixture of primary and secondary legislation, administrative action and voluntary agreement. I shall shortly be placing in the Libraries of both Houses an updated summary of the action taken on each recommendation.

  Railways (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the change in administration at Railtrack on the future of rail investment in Wales. [8779]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Administrator has been funded so as to permit him to continue work on Railtrack's projects. Contractors have been asked to continue normal working; and Railtrack in administration will continue to place orders and let contracts.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which organisations will be included to represent Welsh interests in the company which is being considered as a replacement for Railtrack. [8778]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is too early to be precise about representation in the proposed company limited by guarantee. The Government have indicated their desire that the membership of the proposed company should be predominantly private sector and that it should also reflect stakeholder interests as far as possible. We will consult on our proposals.

  Press Notices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the press notices issued by his Department on each day between 10 September and 10 October. [8950]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Thirty eight press releases were issued by Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions between 10 September and 10 October 2001.
  225W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the press notices issued by his predecessors on each day between 10 September and 10 October 2000 on subjects which are the responsibility of his Department. [8951]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Libraries of the House.
  Thirty two press releases on subjects for which DTLR is currently responsible were issued by Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions between 10 September and 10 October 2000.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to list the press releases authorised by each Minister in his Department. [9141]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Libraries of the House.
  Fifty nine press releases were issued by Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions since 11 September 2001.

  Railways (Capital Projects)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the capital projects which will be inherited from Railtrack plc by its successor company, stating when each will be completed. [8953]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Administrator has been funded so as to permit him to continue work on Railtrack's projects. Contractors have been asked to continue normal working; and Railtrack in administration will continue to place orders and let contracts.

  Jo Moore
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he authorised the publication of the DTLR press release on(a) councillor allowances and (b) councillor pensions and the regional planning internal advice guidance for the south-west on 12 September; and what conversations he had with his special adviser, Jo Moore, concerning the publication of those press notices. [9192]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 October 2001, Official Report, column 98W, and to the answer I have given today.

  Air Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ensure that if any UK carrier in receipt of state aid following 11 September has withdrawn services to a UK regional airport from either Heathrow or Gatwick, the slots used for such services will be given to an operator that is prepared to operate the route; and if he will make a statement. [9354]

  Mr. Spellar
  No UK airline has received direct Government subsidies. Short-term assistance was provided to UK airlines only when the insurance market 226W
  summarily limited third party war risks insurance. Without the temporary Government cover all airlines would have effectively been grounded. Slot allocation is the responsibility of an independent co-ordinator, Airport Co-ordination Ltd. (ACL) and is subject to EU Regulation 95/93.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will meet the cost of security charges at UK airports; if the Government will continue to provide UK airlines with war risk insurance cover beyond the original 30 day period; and if he will make a statement. [9347]

  Mr. Spellar
  The question of meeting the cost of security charges is under consideration. The Government will provide UK airlines with war risk insurance cover for a further 30 day period and will review the position towards the end of that period. This was announced in a press release by HM Treasury on 22 October.

  Planning Guidance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when the Government office for the south-west completed the final draft of the final Regional Planning Guidance for the south-west; [9139]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timing of the publication of the final Regional Planning Guidance for the south-west. [9138]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: I agreed the final text of the Regional Planning Guidance for the south-west on 1 August and at the same time agreed the proposed publication date of 5 September. As a result of production delays in the Stationery Office it became clear before the end of August that printed copies would not be ready in time. As a consequence it was agreed at that point to delay publication until 12 September. Copies were finally received in the Government office for the south-west on 10 September; these were posted to all participants in the Public Examination and other key regional stakeholders on the morning of 11 September in advance of the formal publication on the next day.

  Transport Assistance and Subsidies
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in each year since 1995 what the total value of Government assistance and subsidy was for(a) London Underground running costs, (b) London Underground capital costs, (c) London Transport, (d) each of the rail operators and (e) Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [6950]

  Mr. Jamieson
  With regard to(a), (b) and (c), I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 8 May 2001, Official Report, column 24W.

  With regard to (d), I refer my hon. Friend to pages 102–103 of the Strategic Rail Authority Report 2000–01.

  With regard to (e), I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 9 October 2001, Official Report, column 1315W.

  Departmental Staff
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate total staff costs for his Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6799]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I should like to refer to the existing publication "Civil Service Statistics 2000", published on 31 August 2001, specifically to Table G (page 46). This gives an overall figure of staff, by salary band as at 1 April 2000, for the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR(C)) and its agencies before the machinery of Government changes. A copy of this already resides in the House of Commons Library. I am unable to give a more detailed breakdown by region as the information is not held in this form. Following the machinery of Government changes we are budgeting for approximately £336.2m expenditure on staff costs for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR(C)) and its Agencies.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has for changing the area cost adjustment formula for local authorities. [8164]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are looking at a range of options for the area cost adjustment as part of our current review of the grant distribution formulae. We are actively involving local government in this process. We have not yet reached conclusions on the best way forward, and the Government will consult widely before taking final decisions. Any change to the area cost adjustment would be implemented in the 2003–04 local government finance settlement.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2001,Official Report, column 19W, on PFI, what the average saving is under PFI contracts awarded; and in which projects his Department has identified mistakes in the calculation of the public sector comparator after a PFI contract has been signed. [8141]

  Mr. Jamieson
  PPP/PFI deals go ahead only where they demonstrate clear value for money against a public sector comparator. The last survey, which was carried out by Arthur Andersen and the LSE, identified 17 per cent. savings by PPPs against a conventional public sector procurement. However, specific information about savings in PFI contracts can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects all London Underground trains to have air conditioning. [9115]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground Ltd. Installing air conditioning on the Underground would be highly challenging, as most of the network is over 228W
  100 years old and was not designed to accommodate the bulky equipment necessary. As well as work on trains, air conditioning would require equipping many stations. However, new technology is being explored and the case for air conditioning, or for other means to provide a better travelling environment, is being reviewed by London Underground. Until this work is completed it is not possible to announce a time scale for equipping trains with air conditioning. In the meantime, the modernisation contracts require all new and refurbished trains to have improved airflow and ventilation.

  Best Value
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the number of building and maintenance departments of local authorities which have been externalised since the introduction of best value; if he will list the local authorities concerned and indicate(a) how many employees are involved (i) in each case and (ii) overall and (b) the name of the contractor who has taken over the delivery of those services in each case; and if he will make a statement. [9113]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held centrally. Local authorities have to report the outcome of best value reviews in their Best Value Performance Plans, but no co-ordination of these references has taken place, either on building maintenance or on any other work. The Best Value Inspectorate of the Audit Commission will consider whether the outcome of any particular review is likely to represent best value.

  Rail Projects
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects(a) Crossrail, (b) Thameslink 2000 and (c) the west coast main line to be completed. [8993]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government, with the Mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority, have commissioned project definition work on an east-west London rail link, often known as Crossrail. This is looking into possible routes and service patterns. At this stage it is too early to say when such a scheme, if it were to receive the necessary approvals, could be completed; the earliest date is late 2010.

  The Thameslink 2000 proposal is dependent on powers being granted under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The public inquiry into the scheme finished earlier this year, and the Inspector's report is expected next spring. If the scheme is approved, the earliest date that it could be operational is late 2007.

  At present, phase 1 of the west coast main line project is expected to be completed in 2002–3. Some elements of phase 2 of the project are dependent on powers being granted under the Transport and Works Act and are the subject of public inquiries. If powers are given for these elements of the project, the principal outputs of phase 2 could be completed in 2005, and the work could be fully completed by 2007. However, in recent discussions with Railtrack about its financial position, the company indicated that these dates are subject to some uncertainty.

  Rail Modernisation
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recommendations he has received from the Strategic Rail Authority about the level of investment needed to modernise the rail network. [8995]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority are due to publish their Strategic Plan by the end of November. The Strategic Plan will set out their priorities for enhancement to the network.

  Working Time Directive (Bus Drivers)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he has issued to transport authorities regarding the safe number of hours for urban bus drivers to work without a break. [8671]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Most urban bus drivers are subject to the UK drivers' hours rules. These rules, including the break requirements, are explained in a guide book issued by my Department entitled "Drivers' Hours and Tachograph Rules for Road Passenger Vehicles in the UK and Europe (PSV375)" which can be obtained free of charge from the Area Offices of the Vehicle Inspectorate or downloaded from the Departmental website.

  Central Trains
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the reliability and punctuality of train services between Worcester and Birmingham via Droitwich Spa; and if he will make a statement. [8985]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Performance statistics published by the Strategic Rail Authority show that 76.3 per cent. of Central Trains services arrived on time during the period 24 June to 21 July. This is a combined punctuality and reliability assessment. Services are deemed punctual if they arrived at their destination within five minutes of the timetable.

  Greater London Authority
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with the Greater London Authority in the last six months regarding(a) the financial settlement for London and (b) the GLA precept on council tax; and if he will make a statement. [8954]

  Mr. Byers
  I and my ministerial colleagues have regular meetings with the Mayor to discuss many issues about London, including the financial settlement for the capital. The level of precept levied by the Greater London Authority is a matter for the Mayor and Assembly to discuss in their budget setting process.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation to license houses in multiple occupation. [8717]
  230W
  Ms Keeble
  The Government have a long-established commitment to legislate for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. Our plans for legislation are well in hand following consultations on HMO licensing and a new Housing Health and Safety Rating System to replace the current fitness regime. We envisage that the proposed legislation will extend to the Selective Licensing of Landlords in areas of low housing demand—on which we have just issued a consultation document.

  Local Government (Graduate Recruitment)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to encourage graduate recruitment in local government. [8637]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local government plays a key role in delivering our public services, and the quality of its staff is critical to successful outcomes.

  The DTLR provides funding and support for the Local Government Employers' Organisation (EO) and the Local Government National Training Organisation (LGNTO). These organisations provide a number of products aimed at recruiting graduates, including:
  LG careers—a website which profiles many career areas, including those open to graduates;
  LG jobs—a website advertising vacancies at over 60 per cent. of councils in the UK. The site has a dedicated graduate section;
  LG graduates—a service generally promoting local government employment to students, and includes a popular TOP scheme which provides short summer term placements to undergraduates.
  We will continue to work with local government to identify key skill shortages and ways of addressing them. The Government's forthcoming White Paper on local government will reflect our conclusions.

  Public Drinking
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have byelaws which prohibit public drinking; how many interventions there have been by the police; and how many successful prosecutions arising from these interventions have been recorded in each of these local authority areas in each year since the introduction of the byelaw. [9108]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The local authorities that have bye-laws to regulate the consumption of intoxicating liquor in designated places are listed. Information as to police interventions or prosecutions is not held centrally.

  Byelaws—consumption of intoxicating liquor in designated places (118 authorities have adopted the alcohol byelaw as at 8 August 2001)

  Local authority

  Operative date of bye-law

  Alnwick district council

  27 June 1998

  Amber Valley borough council

  11 May 2000

  Barrow-in-Furness borough council

  8 July 1998

  Basingstoke and Deane borough council

  1 October 1996

  Bath city council

  15 March 1991

  Bedford borough council

  15 July 1994

  Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council

  10 June 2000

  Bodmin town council

  5 May 1999

  Bolton metropolitan borough council

  2 August 1993

  Bournemouth borough council

  23 November 1995

  231W

  Byelaws—consumption of intoxicating liquor in designated places (118 authorities have adopted the alcohol byelaw as at 8 August 2001)

  Local authority

  Operative date of bye-law

  Blackpool borough council

  1 June 1998

  Blaenau Gwent county borough

  6 June 1997

  Breckland district council

  14 January 2000

  Brighton and Hove council

  23 August 2001

  Calderdale borough council

  22 June 2001

  Canterbury city council

  1 February 1998

  Caradon district council

  4 August 1995

  Caerphilly county borough council

  9 November 1998

  Carrick district council

  30 December 1995

  Cheltenham borough council

  1 August 1994

  Chester city council

  26 April 1991

  Conwy county borough council

  28 June 1999

  Corby district council

  20 July 1992

  Coventry city council

  1 November 1990

  Derby city council

  7 August 1995

  Devizes town council

  14 February 1998

  Dover district council

  26 September 1999

  Dunstable town council

  20 October 1997

  Easington district council

  27 January 1998

  10 August 2001

  East Devon district council

  9 March 2000

  22 June 2001

  Eden district council

  31 August 2000

  Edmundsbury borough council

  22 December 1997

  Exeter city council

  1 April 1995

  Falmouth town council

  30 December 1995

  Farringdon town council

  6 March 2000

  Gloucester city council

  4 August 2000

  Guildford borough council

  9 April 2000

  Halton borough council

  1 March 2001

  Hastings borough council

  25 August 2000

  Harlow district council

  6 March 2000

  Hart district council

  2 March 1998

  Hartlepool borough council

  14 August 1995

  Hereford city council

  22 June 1992

  Kennet district council

  1 November 1996

  Kerrier district council

  30 October 2000

  Kettering borough council

  13 August 1999

  Lancaster city council

  12 May 2000

  Leeds city council

  18 May 2001

  Liverpool city council

  27 March 2000

  14 July 2000

  London borough of Lambeth

  1 February 1999

  Ludlow town council

  1 August 1994

  Luton borough council

  21 January 1999

  Malvern Hills district council

  26 March 1998

  Manchester city council

  4 August 2000

  Market Lavington parish council

  20 April 2000

  Market Raisen town council

  30 September 1996

  Maulden parish council

  19 June 1997

  Melbourne parish council

  8 July 1998

  Mendip district council

  24 August 1992

  Newbury district council

  5 February 1997

  Newcastle city council

  9 August 2001

  Newport county borough council

  3 November 1997

  Nottingham city council

  8 January 2000

  North Cornwall district council

  5 May 1999

  North Devon district council

  19 May 1997

  North East Lincolnshire district council

  6 October 1997

  North Somerset council

  29 October 1998

  North Tyneside borough council

  24 May 1993

  North West Leicestershire district council

  2 January 1998

  North Yorkshire county council

  7 August 1995

  Norwich city council

  16 December 1996

  Pembury parish council

  26 February 1998

  Penwith district council

  1 February 1994

  Peterborough city council

  15 January 1997

  Plymouth, City of

  1 December 1997

  13 June 2001

  Pulloxhill parish council

  18 November 2000

  232W

  Byelaws—consumption of intoxicating liquor in designated places (118 authorities have adopted the alcohol byelaw as at 8 August 2001)

  Local authority

  Operative date of bye-law

  Redcar and Cleveland borough council

  18 December 1996

  Redditch borough council

  23 April 1997

  Restormel borough council

  18 March 1991

  Rhondda Cynon Taf county borough council

  21 January 1997

  Rushmoor borough council

  14 November 1991

  Salisbury district council

  1 July 1993

  Scarborough borough council

  12 March 1991

  Sevenoaks town council

  25 October 1993

  Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council

  16 February 2001

  Somerton parish council

  14 May 1999

  South Bedfordshire district council

  20 October 1997

  South Derbyshire district council

  1 August 1997

  South Shropshire district council

  29 July 1998

  South Tyneside metropolitan borough council

  29 July 1998

  Southend-on-Sea borough council

  26 June 1997

  South Hams district council

  24 August 1996

  South Herefordshire district council

  1 January 1998

  South Shropshire district council

  1 August 1994

  South Lakeland district council

  1 December 1996

  Slough borough council

  16 October 1999

  Stockton-on-Tees borough council

  30 May 1991

  Stotfold town council

  15 January 1998

  St. Albans city council

  30 May 1998

  Suffolk coastal district

  1 October 1997

  Sunderland, City of

  24 March 1997

  Tameside metropolitan borough council

  16 April 1999

  Tamworth borough council

  10 July 1998

  Taunton Dean borough council

  4 January 2000

  Teignbridge district council

  7 September 1992

  Torbay district council

  10 April 1995

  Truro city council

  30 December 1995

  Tynedale district council

  5 August 1999

  Vale of White Horse district council

  4 February 2000

  Warwick district council

  1 June 1995

  West Wiltshire district council

  17 December 1999

  Weymouth and Portland borough council

  5 June 2000

  Windsor and Maidenhead, Royal Borough of

  20 March 2001

  Wirral, metropolitan borough of

  3 December 1999

  Woking borough council

  29 May 1998

  Worcester city council

  17 May 1998

  Wychavon district council

  1 February 1997

  Yarm town council

  1 December 1995

  Where two dates are shown against an authority's name, two separate alcohol byelaws are in operation in that authority's area.

  Construction Industry Safety
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the impact on safety in the construction industry of the Safety Summit; if she will make a statement on progress and plans in this area; what priority the Government accords to improving construction safety; and if she will make a statement. [9114]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government remain committed to ensuring that the construction industry achieves a step change in its health and safety performance. At the Summit in February the industry adopted challenging targets to achieve this improvement, and through its various representative organisations published action plans to deliver those targets. At the Revitalising Heath and Safety in Construction Conference in London on 18 October the industry reviewed progress, and debated how to maintain the momentum of turning concern into
  233W
  positive action. The Summit was always recognised as the start of a long process and this recent conference was one step along the way. It is too early to judge whether the undoubted activity taking place with action plans will achieve results in terms of the targets industry has set itself, but Ministers maintain an active interest and have asked to be kept informed of developments.

  Antisocial Tenants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions officials have had with Nottingham city council to discuss the speeding up of the process for eviction of antisocial tenants; and if he will make a statement. [9473]

  Ms Keeble
  My officials met Nottingham city council on 11 October to discuss possible approaches for speeding up the process of eviction of antisocial tenants. As part of taking this area of work forward they are setting up similar discussions with other local authorities.

  Heathrow
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department will publish the decision on the planning inquiry for Terminal 5 at Heathrow; and if he will make a statement. [9359]

  Ms Keeble
  The decision on the planning inquiry for Terminal 5 at Heathrow will be published as soon as possible, consistent with full and careful consideration of the Inquiry Inspector's Report, the results of the recent consultation on BAA's revised proposals for the diversion of two rivers around the proposed Terminal 5 site and other post-inquiry representations.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will extend the remit of the Local Government Ombudsman to cover parish and town councils. [9251]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no plans to bring parish councils within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman. In the case of parish councils there is a direct line of accountability provided by the right of local electors to raise any concerns about the business or conduct of their parish council at the annual public meeting.

  Cotswold Line
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the re-franchising of railway services operating on the Cotswold line between Oxford and Worcester. [9503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Oxford-Worcester services are predominantly provided by Thames Trains. The current franchise is not due to expire until April 2004. On 16 July the Secretary of State asked the Strategic Rail Authority to consider how improvements for passengers could be secured within existing franchises, or by negotiating short extensions. The Strategic Rail Authority has reviewed 234W
  its franchise replacement programme in light of that statement and will announce its plans as agreed with Ministers in due course.

  Private Sector Housing Stock
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what initiatives he has taken to(a) renovate and (b) clear decaying private sector housing stock in (i) England and (ii) east Lancashire since 1997. [9388]

  Ms Keeble
  The responsibility for renovating or clearing decaying private sector housing lies primarily with local housing authorities. But in our Housing Policy Statement "The Way Forward for Housing", published last April, we set out a number of ways in which local housing authorities may make better use of their powers.

  "The Way Forward for Housing" announced relaxations to the rules governing the declaration of renewal areas and group repair schemes. These came into force immediately. The Housing Policy Statement also set out major new changes to allow authorities far greater freedom in renovating or clearing private sector stock. Subject to parliamentary approval of an order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, local authorities will be given a new general power replacing the present detailed grant regimes. These reforms, planned to come into force in 2002, will broaden authorities' present loan-giving powers, enable payments to be made to third parties to lever in private finance, and enable help to be offered to people to move to a new home as an option to renovating their existing one.

  These reforms are in addition to a wide range of regeneration programmes pursued by this Government, including the Single Regeneration Budget, the New Deal for Communities and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund which can be used for decaying private sector housing.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many ministerial decisions were made where authority for the same derived from the royal prerogative for the most recent calendar month for which information is available. [9372]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised nor could it be practicable to do so.

  South Central Rail Franchise
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects GoVia to take over the South Central rail franchise. [9066]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority announced the transfer of the South Central franchise to GoVia on 24 August. Negotiations are continuing between the two parties to put in place a new 20 year franchise as soon as possible.

  GoVia
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  235W
  assessment he made of the impact on the timetable and content of GoVia's recently awarded franchise and the timetable and content of GoVia's proposed new franchise of his decision on Railtrack before the announcements on its future. [9895]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current condition of the rail network and the need for investment are clearly relevant to the future of the South Central franchise, and my right hon. Friend's announcement was intended to pave the way for those issues to be better addressed.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) the promotional material relating to airport security prepared by his Department, its predecessors or agencies offered for potential broadcast on TV, radio or in cinemas since 11 September, indicating which have been broadcast by whom and when and (b) programmes, companies and organisations which have refused to broadcast such material; and if he will make a statement. [9467]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: No such material has been offered for potential broadcast on TV, radio or in cinemas.

  Area-based Initiatives
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the report he commissioned on the impact of the Government's area-based initiatives. [9856]

  Ms Keeble
  I anticipate the report on "Collaboration and co-ordination in area-based initiatives" will be published in mid to late December 2001.

  Flight Paths (London)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the decision made after the events of 11 September to re-route flights away from central London. [8306]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: Following the tragic events in USA on 11 September, the Government took immediate steps to restrict flying over the United Kingdom as a precautionary measure while the new terrorist threat was evaluated. Two Restriction of Flying Orders were put in place. These measures were kept under constant review and as a consequence there was a gradual relaxation of restrictions. The first order banning all general aviation flying was lifted at midnight on Wednesday 12 September. The second order banning flights over central London was amended at midnight on 13 September to reduce the amount of London airspace restricted and enable London City airport to reopen (while still protecting central London including Canary wharf). Although this order lapsed at midnight on Saturday 16 September the Government continue to monitor the situation and stand ready to impose further restrictions should they become necessary.

  Housing Capital Resources
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the responses to the consultation paper on development of the needs indices, used in the allocation of housing capital resources to local authorities and registered social landlords, will be published. [9903]

  Mr. Byers
  The responses received, which total around 80, are currently being analysed. They will be available for MPs and others to see when the announcement is made on how the proposals for changes to the needs indices will be taken forward. This announcement will be made shortly.

  West Quay Road, Southampton
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many sets of traffic lights there were on West Quay road, Southampton, between Mountbatten way and Weston Esplanade in(a) October 2001 and (b) 1997 for (i) westbound and (ii)) eastbound traffic; [9783]

  (2) what the average journey time was for (a) westbound and (b) eastbound traffic on West Quay road, Southampton, between the Westen Docks entrance and Town Quay in (a) October 2001 and (b) October 1997; [9785]

  (3) what assessment has been made of how the additional traffic lights in West Quay road, Southampton have contributed to improve traffic flows to and from destinations (a) in Southampton and (b) on the Isle of Wight; [9786]

  (4) what volume of traffic was carried by West Quay road, Southampton (a) westbound and (b) eastbound in (i) October 2001 and in (ii) October 1997; [9784]

  (5) what consultations took place with the Isle of Wight council before the (a) improvements to West Quay road, Southampton, and (b) approval by his predecessors of the most recent local plan for Southampton. [9907]

  Ms Keeble
  These are issues for Southampton city council to answer, as local planning authority and local transport authority. I have asked the council to write to the hon. Member. The Secretary of State does not approve local plans. They are adopted by the local planning authority, following a public inquiry. It is for local authorities preparing development plans to ensure they consult all those with an interest in the plan.

DEFENCE

  RAF Personnel Management Agency
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive, RAF Personnel Management Agency for financial year 2001–02. [10240]

  Mr. Ingram
  Key Targets have been set for the RAF Personnel Management Agency for the financial year 2001–02 and are as follows.
  237W

  Percentage

  Performance indicator

  Target

  Key Target 1: Peacetime Manning

  The percentage of available trained personnel either filling established posts or on diversions for which there is an approved Manning and Training Margin

  93.0

  Key Target 2: War, Crisis and MOD Authorised Unestablished Commitments

  The Percentage manning level of war, crisis and MOD authorised unestablished tasks

  more than or equal to 98

  Key Target 3: Career Management

  The percentage of PMA's customers who are either satisfied or not dissatisfied with the service provided by the PMA

  80

  Key Target 4: Manpower Planning

  Percentage variation between actual trained strength and the authorised trained strength taken as an average over the financial year

  No greater than ±1

  Key Target 5: Finance, Efficiency and Business Practice

  Containment of operating costs within resources allocated

  Resource allocation not exceeded

  Training Group Defence Agency
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the chief executive, Training Group Defence Agency for financial year 2001–02. [10241]

  Target

  Key Target 1: Training Output1

  KT1a: Quantity of Output (ab initio flying training)

  Fast Jet Pilots

  65

  Multi-Engine Pilots

  57

  Rotary Wing Pilots

  33

  Fast Jet Navigators

  28

  Multi-Engine Navigators

  9

  Rotary Wing Navigators

  10

  Airman Aircrew

  104

  KT1b: Quantity of Output (ab initio ground training)

  Officer Initial Specialist Training

  273

  RAF Tradesman Training

  2,167

  RAF Regiment Gunner Training

  282

  Key Target 2: Training Places2

  KT2a: Training Places (Flying)

  Flying Training Courses—RN

  202

  Flying Training Courses—Army

  374

  RAF Flying Instructor Courses

  150

  RAF Refresher and Orientation Courses

  170

  RAF Specialist and Operational Courses

  240

  Flying Training (F&C)

  92

  KT2b: Training Places (Ground)

  Pre-Employment Training

  18,791

  Career Development Training

  7,106

  Key Target 3: Quality of Output

  Satisfaction with the quality of graduate trainees as measured by the Agency's customer satisfaction matrix:

  Reports from the Aircrew Training Standards Sub-Committees Quantitative reports from the Owners' Customer Advisory Committee Quantitative reports on the satisfaction level of graduate trainees

  Satisfactory rating

  Key Target 4: Cost Management

  Output based management

  Deliver an Agency wide prototype of the planned financial management and accounting system

  Key Target 5: Efficiency

  KT5a—Efficiency Index

  Deliver an Agency wide prototype of the planned financial management and accounting system to include efficiency

  KT5b—Efficiency Savings

  Deliver the savings (£4.399 million) that accrue from planned efficiencies

  1 The number of RAF trainees who graduate

  2 The number of training course places provided

  238W
  Mr. Ingram
  Key Targets have been set for the chief executive of the Training Group Defence Agency for the financial year 2001–02 and are as follows.

  Nuclear Waste
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of intermediate and low level nuclear waste are stored at(a) HMNB Clyde Faslane, (b) the Rosyth Royal Naval Base, (c) Dounreay and (d) the Chapelcross Tritium Processing Plant. [9199]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: Quantities of intermediate and low level radioactive waste currently stored at HMNB Clyde; Rosyth Dockyard (a nuclear licensed site operated by Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd.); the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment, Dounreay; and the Chapel Cross Tritium Processing Plant are as follows:

  Quantity

  Intermediate level waste

  HMNB Clyde

  nil

  Rosyth Dockyard

  38.86m3

  Vulcan NRTE, Dounreay

  5.06m3

  Chapel Cross Tritium Process Plant

  11.14m3

  Low level waste

  HMNB Clyde

  16m3

  Rosyth Dockyard

  74m3

  Vulcan NRTE, Dounreay

  nil

  Chapel Cross Tritium Processing Plant

  32.26m3

  Full details of MOD radioactive waste are published in the NIREX United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory which is available through their website www.nirex.co.uk. The 2001 inventory is currently being compiled and is expected to be published in spring next year.

  Chemical and Biological Attacks (Contingency Plans)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the availability and adequacy of assistance being afforded to the NHS by his Department in respect of preparations to deal with a chemical or biological attack; [9539]

  (2) what recent assistance has been sought by the NHS from his Department in order to prepare for a chemical or biological attack; [9542]

  (3) what assistance and expertise is being afforded to the NHS concerning preparations to treat victims of chemical and biological attack. [9540]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: I am not aware of any representations specifically on the issue of availability and adequacy of assistance being afforded to the NHS by my Department regarding preparations to deal with a chemical or biological attack.

  To date, there have been no chemical or biological attacks on the UK although a number of suspect packages have been identified. The Department of Health (DoH) has responsibility for the effect on public health of any attack, should it occur. The Ministry of Defence continues to work closely with the DoH and other Government Departments and agencies, all of whom would contribute advice and expertise to any response to a chemical or biological attack or the consequent management of such an attack.
  240W
  The DoH is fully aware of the capabilities and resources on which it could draw, from within the MOD and other Government Departments, should it be necessary. The exact nature of the Ministry of Defence contribution in response to a chemical or biological attack would be dependent upon the particular situation at the time.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength is of each Territorial Infantry Battalion; and if he will make a statement. [R][9673]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest available official figures as at 1 July show the establishment and strength of each Territorial Army Infantry Battalion as follows:

  Territorial Army Infantry Battalion

  Establishment

  Strength

  51 Highland Regiment

  637

  724

  52 Lowland Regiment

  454

  436

  3 Prince of Wales Royal Regiment

  358

  345

  Royal Rifle Volunteers

  455

  462

  London Regiment

  612

  606

  Lancastrian and Cumbrian Volunteers

  422

  421

  Tyne Tees Regiment

  553

  632

  West Midlands Regiment

  550

  499

  Kings and Cheshire Regiment

  454

  464

  East of England Regiment

  549

  649

  Rifle Volunteers

  550

  548

  East and West Riding Regiment

  519

  538

  Royal Welsh Regiment

  457

  413

  Rangers

  240

  230

  4 Parachute Regiment

  324

  454

  The hon. Member will note that the strength figures are healthy—matching or exceeding the establishment in more than half of the battalions.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if soldiers in the Territorial Army are designated casual workers in respect of pension entitlement. [R][9391]

  Dr. Moonie
  The term "casual workers" is not used by the armed forces, and soldiers in the Territorial Army (TA) have not been formally designated as such. However, members of the TA are not eligible for membership of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme because of the terms of their employment. In the part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 service in the TA (as set out under sections 22 and 27 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996) is specifically excluded.

  None the less, since 8 October 2001 members of the TA have had the option of joining the Armed Forces Stakeholder Pension Plan. The Ministry of Defence has designated. Scottish Widows plc to provide this facility to all eligible members of the armed forces. MOD and Scottish Widows are involved in an exercise to inform all members of the armed forces of this new facility.

  Armed Forces (Overstretch)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support he will provide to the armed forces so that they do not suffer from overstretch. [8423]
  241W
  Mr. Ingram
  We remain determined to balance operational commitments. We will commit personnel to operations for no longer than is necessary to achieve the military aim. Recent operations in Macedonia demonstrated this well. We are introducing systems to monitor the amount of separated service undertaken by each individual in the armed forces which will help us to target our efforts on the most hard-pressed branches and trades. For operations overseas, a new and comprehensive package of welfare support was introduced worldwide in April 2001.

  Biological Warfare
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the threat from the use of genetically modified organisms for biological warfare purposes. [8623]

  Mr. Hoon
  We continuously monitor all threats to the UK and our armed forces. We judge there is currently no specific threat from biological warfare using genetically modified organisms. We are, of course, aware that biological warfare agents can be modified by methods such as genetic manipulation; such factors are taken into account in formulating our approach to biological defence.

  Otterburn
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Otterburn public inquiry report; and when the approvals for the future development of the training area will be given. [9269]

  Mr. Ingram
  I welcome the announcement of 4 October 2001 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) that he is minded to agree the development of Otterburn Training Area.

  We have now examined the detail of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's letter and the report and are content with them. We have therefore responded accordingly to the Government Office for the North East.

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the outcome of the review of his Department's retirement age policy. [9648]

  Dr. Moonie
  We expect to conclude our review and make an announcement about its outcome before Christmas.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the possible uses of depleted uranium in respect of British Forces' engagements in the conflict in Afghanistan. [8238]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: No British forces currently engaged in operations around Afghanistan are armed with depleted uranium ammunition. However, we do not rule out the use of depleted uranium ammunition in Afghanistan, should its penetrative capability be judged necessary in the future.

  US Domestic Preparedness Programme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with US counterparts regarding the implementation and capability of the US Domestic Preparedness Programme. [R][9670]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has, for a number of years, actively engaged with the US Administration on all aspects of homeland security. Following the events of September 11, we have continued our regular dialogue and have made clear that we stand ready to assist should the US require our help.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Integrated Inquiry Service
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for the future of the integrated inquiry service; how much has been spent on the system; and if he will make a statement. [7475]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The integrated inquiry service project was established to examine the feasibility of providing local authorities which administer housing benefit with wider access to the Department's benefit data. This would build on the existing data available through remote access terminals linking local authorities to the Department systems. Our aim is to speed up the processing of claims and improve customer service by reducing authorities' dependence on clerical processes.

  A software application was developed by the project and tested in seven local authorities at an estimated cost of £800,000. An evaluation of these trials showed that there remained substantial technical problems to overcome before the tested application could satisfy the Department's and local authorities' business requirements. No assured solutions to these problems could be identified and we have therefore closed the project.

  We have commissioned a study to explore the feasibility of an alternative solution.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the relative sales of(a) stakeholder pensions and (b) personal pensions in the first quarter of this financial year; and if he will make a statement. [8965]

  Mr. McCartney
  Figures from the Association of British Insurers show that 535,000 single premium and regular premium pensions were sold in the April-June quarter of 2001, of which over 200,000 were stakeholder pensions. The volume of regular premium pensions sold represented an increase of 55 per cent. over the same period last year, and the volume of single premium pensions sold represented an increase of 192 per cent. over the same period last year.

  Initial indications are that stakeholder pensions have made an encouraging start and that they are also helping to increase the overall coverage of private pensions provision, but it will be some time before the impact becomes clear.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many ministerial decisions were made where authority for the same derived from the royal prerogative for the most recent calendar month for which information is available. [9365]

  Mr. Darling
  Records are not kept of individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised nor could it be practicable to do so.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the comparative values of pension funds of typical 60-year-old males each year since 1997, in cash and real terms. [9950]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are no available data on comparative values of pension funds of 'typical' 60-year-old males.

  Benefit Fraud
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Blyth Valley district council. [10553]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Blyth Valley district council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The BFI first inspected Blyth Valley district council in October 1999 and found significant weaknesses in the administration of Housing and Council Tax Benefit and counter fraud work. At its follow-up inspection, in April 2001, inspectors confirmed substantial improvements, with progress and developments in the vast majority of areas.

  The report notes that through the commitment and enthusiasm of members, managers and staff, the council has achieved a significant improvement in performance in combating fraud and error. This is highlighted by the fact that 42 of the 44 recommendations from the first report have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.

  Inspectors consider that benefits administration and overpayment recovery now has the necessary resources and management information in place to enable the council to deliver an effective service, while the implementation of a comprehensive checking regime has enabled the council to identify and focus on priority issues and proactively manage its operations.

  The council has addressed the main issues identified in BFI's first report concerning its counter fraud activities. However, BFI considers it has focused too heavily on claiming Weekly Benefit Savings. It is now moving to a more sanction and deterrence based operation. As its Weekly Benefit Savings claims are fairly accurate, inspectors conclude there is a sound basis for this move, which will ensure the council provides a value-for-money deterrent to fraud.
  244W
  Blyth Valley is an excellent example of an authority responding positively and effectively to weaknesses identified by the BFI and thus providing a more secure and accurate benefits service to its community

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Kerrier district council. [10552]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Kerrier district council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  During the inspection the council was implementing a new management structure and inspectors found a positive improvement in performance as a result. At the time of inspection, BFI found the longstanding backlog of work was significantly reduced.

  The report notes the standard of evidence in support of claims was variable. The council has now introduced the Verification Framework, which should address some of the previous weaknesses but inspectors consider management checking needs to be improved to underpin this.

  Inspectors report that the council failed to make payments of benefit on account where this was required and consider that improvements need to be made in the risk management of Housing Benefit claims, including the use of shorter benefit periods.

  BFI found evidence of improved performance in the work being carried out by fraud staff including tighter systems and management controls of investigation work. Inspectors found the council had implemented new procedures and set up a dedicated team resulting in high levels of overpayment recovery.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. [10554]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea was published on 21 August 2001 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  BFI inspectors consider the standard of customer service provided by the council to those claiming benefit to be very good. Efforts are made to ensure that those

  245W
  who may be able to claim are identified and the council deals quickly with benefit callers. A customer satisfaction survey in July 2000 revealed an overall level of satisfaction of 82 per cent.

  Inspectors found no backlogs of work with 95 per cent. of claims paid within the timescale required by legislation. The BFI report notes that there is a high level of payment accuracy. The council is introducing the Verification Framework in stages to avoid a negative impact on performance.

  The report notes that the effectiveness of the management checks could be further improved if extended to cover all aspects of benefit processing.

  A number of weaknesses in the management and investigation of fraud work were identified by inspectors, but the report notes the council has recently taken steps to address these and has a good record of applying sanctions to those committing fraud.

  The BFI's report includes recommendations to help the council further improve its administration and counter fraud activity for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the borough of Broxbourne. [10555]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of the borough of Broxbourne was published on 26 July 2001 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  BFI's first inspection of the borough of Broxbourne in March 1998 found significant weaknesses in the administration of Housing and Council Tax Benefit and counter fraud work. The follow-up inspection, in October 2000, confirmed substantial progress and developments in many areas of work, although inspectors also found scope for further improvement.

  Inspectors consider the council's implementation of the Verification Framework has been comprehensive. BFI found the council improved public access to benefits information and assistance, and now has effective joint working with BA. The report notes, however, that the previous problems of backlogs of work and slow processing were still in evidence.

  Inspectors found that the council's IT system did not provide adequate information on the management of overpayments; however, the report does note that the council has made substantial progress in its administration of overpayments since the first BFI inspection.

  The report makes particular mention of the council's strong focus of counter fraud work on the quality of investigation and sanctions.

  Inspectors consider that the council has sufficient systems in place to ensure the effectiveness and quality of the housing benefit and council tax benefit administration and counter fraud work. The previous lack
  246W
  of monitoring of the contractor has improved and inspectors conclude the council now has effective monitoring mechanisms in place.

  The report notes that since the BFI's last inspection, Members have been taking a close interest in the progress of the Housing Benefit section.

  The BFI's report includes recommendations to help the council further improve its administration and counter fraud activity for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Three Rivers district council. [10551]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of Three Rivers district council was published on 23 August 2001 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The BFI report notes the council has been working towards meeting the standards of the Verification Framework since February 2000. BFI found that some areas of verification of claims were good, although inspectors identified other areas that needed improvement.

  The BFI report notes the council's counter fraud activity is effective, with a well-resourced fraud team. As a result, it is able to produce high quality investigations. In contrast, the housing benefit team does not have enough staff to meet customer expectations.

  Inspectors consider that the introduction of the Customer Services Centre did not help the performance of the Housing Benefit team as anticipated. The team is also hindered by poor management information.

  The council has taken steps to improve overpayments collection by utilising the debtors' module of its benefits system.

  Overall BFI concludes that the council have done much to eradicate fraud, but needs to improve the verification of claims and recovery of Housing Benefit overpayments. The council is planning to address a number of the weaknesses identified in the report and demonstrated its commitment to improve the administration of HB and CTB in Three Rivers district council.

  The BFI's report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration and counter fraud activity of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of East Lothian council. [10549]
  247W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of the East Lothian council was published on 18 September 2001 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. This is the second report on East Lothian council by BFI.

  The BFI expressed major concern with the lack of demonstrable commitment at senior manager level to address issues highlighted by the first BFI inspection. Relatively few of the major recommendations from the first inspection had been fully implemented in areas such as the provision of management information, system security and overpayment recovery where long standing weaknesses were identified.

  The report finds the council had made little or no attempt to tackle serious shortcomings in benefit administration. Inspectors found that it was extremely difficult to assess performance in benefit administration and overpayment management because the council was unable to provide any reliable data for the previous two financial years. Additionally, the BFI was particularly concerned that a number of matters which had been reported to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (formerly Department of Social Security) as having been addressed were still found to be problematical. In particular, the report finds little evidence of sustained improvement in the council's strategic and operational management.

  The report recognises that some definite improvements have been made in areas such as day-to-day claims processing and fraud investigation. Also there is praise for the commitment of front line staff.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London borough of Haringey. [10548]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of the London borough of Haringey was published on 18 September 2001 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Inspectors report that the council has made considerable improvements in many areas, particularly in re-designing processes to improve performance. Quality improvements have been less dramatic and the report recommends that the council should now focus on these areas to make further gains in the effectiveness and security of its service.

  The speed of processing new claims was found to be very good but weaknesses in verifying evidence were identified and a similar pattern was found with renewal claims.

  The council's counter-fraud efforts are meeting with some success but inspectors consider further work is needed in controlling and recovering over-payments. The
  248W
  council had over £15 million in benefit over-payment debt which, at the time of the inspectors' visit, was continuing to rise. The report notes that there was evidence that serious efforts were being made to recover this. The Report makes recommendations that, when implemented, will strengthen these.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London borough of Bromley. [10547]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of the London borough of Bromley was published on 12 September 2001 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Inspectors report variable standards of claim verification and identify improvements needed in this area and on the speed of processing claims. The report recommends more rigorous management and controls to improve the quality and consistency of checking and to ensure that guidance is followed.

  The report notes that the council has a strong culture of probity at officer and Member level and that it recognises the need to draw together existing policies on probity into a single fraud and corruption policy. The BFI's findings show that Bromley's performance in tackling fraud was found to be ineffective in its organisation and investigation quality. A number of recommendations to tackle this are contained within the report.

  The report notes the council welcomed the inspection as an opportunity to review and improve its benefit operations. The council has expressed its commitment to improving the security and integrity of the benefits system and modernising all its services using e-govenment.

  Since the inspection, Bromley has begun to implement recommended changes, such as increasing staffing in the client unit. Full implementation of the recommendations contained in the report should enable it to build a more secure and efficient benefits system.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate into the Benefits Agency's closer working arrangements with local authorities. [10550]
  249W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report in respect of the Benefits Agency (BA) was published on 28 September 2001 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Inspectors report that their investigation took place at a time when significant changes were taking place in the organisation with the start of a major project to focus substantial resources on supporting the frontline delivery of services to customers. There was also a great deal of work underway to develop and improve the relationship with local authorities.

  BFI found areas where the BA needed to make improvements in order to ensure benefit payments were free from fraud and error. These include training BA staff in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit issues, improving the recovery of Housing Benefit overpayments, and better checking of identities and more effective exchange of information with local authority counter fraud staff.

  Inspectors consider there needs to be a higher profile on closer working with local authorities within BA.

  The report notes that changes made in BA should have a positive impact on counter fraud activity, especially the appointment of a Chief Investigation Officer and Head of Profession for counter fraud activity. The appointments should lead to a clearer strategic direction and raise the profile of closer working on counter fraud.

  Inspectors also consider the introduction of BA's Performance Improvement Action Teams to support equalisation of performance amongst BA offices should also have a positive impact on several of the areas of weakness identified in the report.

  We are determined that we take every measure to bear down on fraud and error and we want to ensure that the work of the best is duplicated right through the organisation.

  The report makes 49 recommendations to help the Benefits Agency address weaknesses and to improve its closer working arrangements with local authorities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the Agency for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to enhance the role of regional development agencies. [9619]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is continuing the process of enhancement of the RDAs started last year with the announcement of additional funding, more spending flexibility and a stronger economic focus. Implementation culminates on 1 April 2002 when the RDAs' existing programmes are brought together into a single, broader and more flexible programme managed through testing outcome and output targets.
  250W
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions she has made about the future membership of the boards of the regional development agencies outside London. [10239]

  Alan Johnson
  I have decided to implement a rolling programme of appointments to avoid a situation in future where all board appointments end on a common date. In order to achieve this I have re-appointed around two thirds of the membership of each board for periods of one, two or three years and asked one third of board members to stand down. I have also taken steps to ensure that business representation is strengthened on the boards. I have placed details of re-appointments in the Library of both Houses. Interviews are now being held in each region to find new members who will be appointed for a period of three years.

  Decisions on re-appointments have been made following consultations with RDA chairmen and key national and regional players. A similar consultation exercise will be undertaken before new appointments are made.

  Broadband Networks
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on which areas of the United Kingdom do not have access to broadband technologies. [9277]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: Broadband services via leased line or satellite are widely available around the country. Around 66 per cent. of the population are able to access cable, ADSL or wireless technologies. A geographical breakdown can be found in "UK Online: the broadband future", published in February 2001.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans have been put forward by(a) the Scottish Executive, (b) the Welsh Assembly and (c) regional development agencies for the fund designed to develop innovative schemes to extend broadband networks. [9278]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The devolved Administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus the English regional development agencies, are all in the process of developing action plans for the £30 million fund, consulting with the Government and local stakeholders. The plans will be announced in due course.

  Marconi Transmission Centenary
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has made to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first successful wireless transmission across the Atlantic ocean to the Americas. [8714]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: There are a number of celebratory events planned to commemorate the sending of the first transatlantic wireless transmission that was made on 12 December 1901 from Poldhu in Cornwall to St. John's in Newfoundland, by Guglielmo Marconi. The Government fully back these events, and have been in regular contact with those involved to assist with the arrangements. We have been instrumental in securing agreement from Her

  251W
  Majesty The Queen that she will send a commemorative message, which will be transmitted by amateur radio between Poldhu and St. John's on 12 December using equipment donated by the Radiocommunications Agency. The Radiocommunications Agency has also produced a booklet, "100 Years of Radio 1901–2001", commemorating the achievement, highlighting developments in radio during the subsequent 100 years, including the agency's contribution to those developments.

  Post Office Closures (Sussex)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Crown post offices and (b) sub-post offices have closed in Sussex in each of the last 10 years. [9769]

  Mr. Alexander
  I understand from Consignia that data on the post office network are not held on a county basis.

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to make a decision on the Ilisu Dam project. [8309]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: No date has been set for a decision regarding ECGD support for the Ilisu Dam project.

  ECGD has commissioned consultants' reports on the environmental impact assessment report on the Ilisu Dam project and also on the resettlement action plan. These reports are being studied, together with the comments received from non-governmental organisations and the public. The reports and the comments received will be the subject of discussion with other interested Government Departments, in particular the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport prior to any decision being taken regarding ECGD support.

  Business Recovery Fund
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance is available to businesses eligible for grants from the business recovery fund once the regional development agencies have utilised the initial funding made available. [7802]

  Alun Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £24 million extension to the business recovery fund on 18 October 2001. This will enable RDAs to help hard hit but viable rural businesses in the worst affected areas survive the difficult autumn and winter period by helping eligible small businesses to adapt, restructure, access new markets and invest as part of a business recovery plan.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Financial Reporting
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she has for 252W
  introducing consistent financial reporting in the light of responses to the consultation issued by her Department on 30 March. [10238]

  Mr. Timms
  A consistent financial reporting framework for schools shall be introduced from April 2002, as proposed in the consultation document. The consistent financial reporting framework, and guidance on the headings in the framework, is available on the Department's value for money website. A summary of consultation responses has been placed in the Library.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students were(a) entered and (b) completed higher education courses in each year since 1996. [6107]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: The information requested is given in the following table. It is not possible to calculate completion rates from these figures because of the inclusion of part-time courses, which have variable course lengths. The latest figures published by HEFCE estimate that only 17 per cent. of students who started full-time first degree courses in the UK in 1997–98 will not obtain a qualification.

  In 2000, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published a table comparing estimates of non-completion rates in member countries. They showed an average of around a third of university students failing to complete their courses in OECD countries. The UK had the second lowest non-completion rate among the 30 OECD countries.

  Higher Education Students1 in the UK

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–012

  Entrants3

  Postgraduate

  172.7

  180.9

  189.4

  197.9

  198.6

  Undergraduate

  541.9

  553.7

  549.5

  564.8

  597.0

  Completers4

  Postgraduate

  105.5

  110.5

  115.0

  116.7

  122.7

  Undergraduate

  312.7

  321.4

  322.6

  331.9

  337.8

  1 Includes UK domiciled and overseas students, full-time and part-time, including the Open University.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Based on a census count as at 1 December.

  4 Those gaining a qualification during the academic year.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students were participating in higher education in each year since 1990, broken down by social class. [9589]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on the social class of higher education students, as given in the following table, covers only those who apply to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and its predecessor organisations, the Universities Central Council for Admissions (UCCA) and the Polytechnic and Colleges Admissions Service (PCAS); data on the family background of students on postgraduate or part-time courses are not held centrally. Comparable figures for students entering in autumn 2001 will be released by UCAS in December.
  253W

  UK domiciled accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK

  Thousand

  Year of entry

  Social class

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  I Professional

  26.5

  35.5

  37.0

  37.6

  38.7

  39.3

  39.6

  38.5

  38.9

  38.8

  II Intermediate

  78.9

  90.1

  96.7

  101.1

  103.4

  105.0

  117.4

  115.6

  115.7

  117.7

  IIIN Skilled non-manual

  19.7

  25.7

  28.1

  29.7

  30.3

  31.3

  37.3

  35.6

  36.3

  37.8

  IIIM Skilled manual

  23.3

  33.9

  39.3

  40.4

  42.5

  40.9

  44.8

  44.2

  44.5

  44.4

  IV Partly skilled

  12.7

  15.8

  17.4

  18.6

  19.8

  19.9

  23.5

  22.7

  23.1

  24.2

  V Unskilled

  2.1

  3.6

  4.3

  4.5

  5.0

  4.9

  5.6

  5.3

  5.5

  5.5

  Unknown

  37.9

  39.0

  35.2

  19.4

  25.8

  27.1

  35.0

  36.3

  39.1

  40.3

  Total

  201.2

  243.6

  258.1

  251.3

  265.5

  268.3

  303.3

  298.2

  303.1

  308.7

  Source:

  UCAS for the years 1994 to 2000, UCCA and PCAS for previous years. 1991 was the first year in which both UCCA and PCAS collected social class data

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have dropped out of(a) part-time and (b) full-time higher education course in each year since 1990. [9590]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on non-completion rates are taken from the latest "Performance Indicators in Higher Education" published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency for England, which gives overall non-completion rates for students starting full-time first degree courses in the UK as follows:

  Percentage

  Students starting courses in

  Non-completion rate

  1997–98

  17

  1996–97

  18

  Non-completion rates for earlier years were calculated and published by the Department and are shown in the following table. These figures also cover students on full-time first degree courses but the methodology and institutional coverage used by the Department was different to that used by HEFCE, so the two sets of figures are not directly comparable. Neither HEFCE nor the Department have calculated non-completion rates for students on part-time courses. Non-completion rates for part-time courses are intrinsically more difficult to calculate because part-time students can take many years to complete their course.

  Percentage

  Students starting courses in

  Non-completion rate

  1995–961

  18–19

  1994–951

  17–18

  1993–941

  17–18

  1992–93

  17

  1991–92

  17

  1990–91

  15

  1 A range is given for these years because the introduction of a new data source in 1994–95 made it difficult to measure non-completion, as it was then calculated, accurately

  In 2000, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published a table comparing estimates of non-completion rates in member countries. They showed an average of around a third of university
  254W
  students did not complete their course in OECD countries. The UK had the second lowest non-completion rate among the 30 OECD countries.

  Post-16 Education
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the relationship is between the Learning and Skills Council and local authorities in the provision of post-16 education, with particular reference to(a) North Yorkshire county council and (b) City of York council. [8152]

  Margaret Hodge
  Local authorities are key partners of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). A local LSC must prepare a plan for each of its financial years, and, in so doing, must consult the local authorities (including local education authorities) within its area. The local LSC must also have regard to the local authorities' strategies for the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being. Local LSCs must also have members who understand the needs of local communities through local authority experience, either as elected members or in an official capacity. In most cases both local authority members and officials already sit on local LSC boards.

  Each local LSC is responsible for approving the Adult Learning Plans provided by each local authority. These are then subject to national moderation. These Plans outline what each local authority will do with the funding provided by the local LSC in the provision of vocational and non-vocational education and training in the local area.

  Local LSCs will, from April 2002, be responsible for funding local education authorities for their sixth-form provision, including new LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institutions. Those funds must be passed on to the relevant schools in full.

  I can confirm that these arrangements apply to the North Yorkshire Learning and Skills Council in its relationships with the North Yorkshire county council and the York city council.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the mechanism by which Learning and Skills Councils are accountable to the local community. [8628]
  255W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council has been established to provide effective planning and funding of post-16 learning, focusing on individual, employer and community needs at national and local level. Local LSCs are accountable for delivery to their boards, whose members represent a broad cross-section of local interests. Local LSCs must have members who understand the needs of local communities through local authority experience, either as elected members or in an official capacity. In most cases both local authority members and officials already sit on local LSC boards. And when developing their strategic plans, local LSCs are required to consult with a wide range of local partners.

  Tuition Fees
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she intends to respond to the recommendations of the Rees report to abolish student tuition fees; and if she will make a statement; [8645]

  (2) what plans she has to take the conclusions of the Rees report on student finance into consideration in the Government's review of student finance; and if she will make a statement. [8646]

  Margaret Hodge
  I discussed the recommendations of the report with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning at the National Assembly for Wales during the summer. We have since announced a review of student funding arrangements in England and Wales, which will consider specifically the balance between state funding and the contributions made by students and their families.

  It is for the National Assembly for Wales to respond to the recommendations in the report addressed to them.

  Summer Recess (Departmental Publications)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation documents were issued by her Department during the summer recess. [9234]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: During the summer recess the Department issued the following:

  (a) 42 press notices;

  (b) 16 consultation documents.

  Copies of the press notices and consultation documents can be found on the DfES website www.dfes.gov.uk.

  Failing LEAs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the value was, for each local education authority found to be failing by OFSTED, of additional payments from her Department to assist improvement of local education authority management in the last 12 months. [9908]

  Mr. Timms
  Between October 2000 and September 2001, the Department for Education and Skills has paid the following authorities the amounts shown as part of its response to an adverse report by OFSTED which resulted in formal DfES intervention.256W

  £

  1Amount

  Bradford

  680,419

  Bristol

  117,886

  Calderdale

  528

  Derby

  48,997

  Dudley

  66,390

  Hackney

  115,398

  Haringey

  721,773

  Islington

  202,021

  Leeds

  1,509,584

  Leicester City

  372,728

  Liverpool

  12,805

  Redbridge

  67,360

  Rochdale

  187,144

  Rotherham

  388,075

  Sheffield

  -22,222

  South Tyneside

  184,475

  Southwark

  744,804

  Walsall

  310,653

  Waltham Forest

  561,444

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest pound

  The payments relate to work such as specialist advice and interim managers sought to support the authorities during the intervention process. The cost of individual contracts for intervention work is commercial in confidence.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Properties
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number, value and location of properties newly leased in each of the last five years by his Department, including and distinguishing between the Department itself, its next step agencies and its non-departmental public bodies, differentiating between purchases made as a result of the creation of new bodies and those purchases made by established bodies. [7814]

  Mr. MacShane
  The only property newly leased by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the last five years is one floor of 89 Albert Embankment, London. The lease started in June 2000 and the annual rent is £274,069.

  For NDPBs, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy leased new offices at 125 Pall Mall in June 1999, rent £40,000 per year; the Britain-Russia Centre leased new offices at 9 Elms Lane, Vauxhall in July 1998, rent £64,000 per year; and the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe leased new offices at 10 Westminster Palace Gardens in September 2000, rent £24,700 per year.

  Security Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary-General of the UN concerning the timetable for reconfiguring the Security Council to allow for regional representation. [9387]

  Peter Hain
  The timetable for reform has not featured in recent discussions between Ministers and the UN Secretary-General and in any case is not the responsibility of the Secretary-General, but that of the UN General Assembly. In the General Assembly, we have continued
  257W
  to press for expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, including new permanent seats for Japan, Germany and each of the regions of Asia, Latin America and Africa.

  While we believe the Security Council should be made more representative of the diversity of UN membership, it already contains members drawn from all of the UN's regional/electoral groups. Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations lists equitable geographical distribution among the factors to be considered in the election of non-permanent members.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what departmental guidance is issued relating to maximum times for responding to hon. Members' correspondence by Ministers. [9250]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office follows the Cabinet Office good practice guide for handling correspondence for Members. The current target time for the FCO to reply to Members is 20 working days, as agreed with the Cabinet Office.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to President Mugabe to dissuade him from calling a state of emergency. [9435]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no indication at present that President Mugabe intends to call a state of emergency. We continue to urge the Government of Zimbabwe to take the necessary steps to restore political and economic stability, to respect human rights and the rule of law, and to create an environment conducive to free and fair elections.

  Afghanistan
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact on relations with(a) Saudi Arabia and (b) Pakistan of the bombing of Afghanistan. [9260]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Saudi Arabia was quick to condemn the 11 September terrorist attacks in the US. It fully supports the international campaign against terrorism. Crown Prince Abdullah most recently reiterated this to the Prime Minister on 9 October. Saudi Arabia remains a close ally in the region and a long-standing friend of the UK.

  We also applaud Pakistan's decision to back international action against terrorism. We have underlined that the campaign in Afghanistan is against terror and not against Islam or the Afghan people. We recognise that this reassurance is important to Pakistan. Pakistan is a valuable ally. Its decision to support the coalition has served to strengthen our bilateral relationship.

  Pakistan
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the internal stability of Pakistan. [9261]
  258W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are aware that there have been demonstrations in Pakistan against coalition action in Afghanistan. However, when seen in the context of Pakistan's total (largely peaceful) population, we do not believe the recent disturbances pose a serious threat to Pakistan's internal stability.

  Burma
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes there have been to the EU Common Position on Burma. [10371]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Changes in Burma in the past nine months give grounds for cautious optimism, but the rapprochement between the regime and the domestic opposition remains fragile and reversible. Until Burma is firmly embarked on a return to constitutional, democratic rule it would not be appropriate to suspend or remove the core elements of the EU Common Position. The General Affairs Council of 8 October therefore decided to renew the Common Position for a further six months. The core elements of the Common Position are to remain unchanged, with the addition of required legal clarification that enables EU member states to fulfil their UN obligations by allowing Burmese Ministers to attend UN conferences in the EU.

  However, in recognition of the progress achieved to date and in expectation of further positive developments, the EU Council Conclusions on 8 October set out a modest first package of positive measures. We stand ready to consider what further measures might be appropriate if change in Burma accelerates significantly. Conversely, if progress were to stall or fail, UK/EU policy would need to be tightened again.

TREASURY

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to mitigate the impact of inheritance tax on those estates which are predominantly comprised of the value of the deceased's family home. [8681]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Even where property represents a high proportion of the total value, most estates also have sufficient liquid assets to satisfy all the inheritance tax which may be due. Executors can nevertheless defer payment of tax when a former home has not been sold by the time the tax on it would otherwise be due, if necessary by making instalments over as long as 10 years. Most eligible estates start in this way, but the overwhelming majority settle their tax before the 10 years is up, usually because the home is no longer in family use and has been sold.

  Summer Recess (Departmental Publications)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation documents were issued by his Department during the summer recess. [9223]
  259W
  Ruth Kelly
  From 23 July until 12 October 2001, 25 press notices and a statement by the Chancellor were released by HM Treasury, or by the Treasury in conjunction with another Government Department. During the same time period the Treasury released three consultation documents on its public website.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional cost has been factored into the 10 year transport plan to take account of the aggregates tax. [8854]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any additional costs for transport infrastructure projects due to the Aggregates Levy were not identified in 10 Year Plan for Transport. However in appraising individual projects that are taken forward as part of the Plan, any such additional costs could be identified.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the ability of British Waterways to have some flexibility to borrow from the private sector. [8591]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: Borrowing from the private sector is normally more expensive than finance raised directly by Government. Therefore, on value for money grounds, all borrowing by British Waterways should normally be transacted through the National Loans Fund. The exception is PPPs in which value for money is achieved by transferring risk to the private sector.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the abolition of the married couples allowance will affect families whose joint taxable income falls short of the personal allowance figure, but just over the point where tax is levied. [8201]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: If a family's joint income is less than £4,535 (the personal allowance), the couple will pay no tax.

  Fiscal Variations
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how long discussions have been continuing with the National Assembly for Wales on fiscal variations; what recent discussions have been held on the subject; and when he will announce conclusions. [9846]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor has discussions from time to time on a number of issues relating to the National Assembly for Wales. The Government announced in the 2000 spending review additional Objective 1 funding for Wales.

  North-East (Expenditure)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of spending per head in the north-east for the year 1999–2000 on(a) education, (b) health and social services, (c) roads and transport,
  260W
  (d) housing, (e) law and order, (f) trade, industry, energy and employment, (g) agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry and (h) culture, media and sport. [9646]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information requested is available in chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02 (Cm 5101), which shows total managed expenditure on services in 1999–2000, by Government office region and function of spending, on a per head basis.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the north-east's percentage share of(a) UK public expenditure, (b) UK population and (c) UK gross domestic product in each of the years from 1995 to 1999. [9647]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Treasury publishes analyses of UK public expenditure by Government office region in chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses on an annual basis, the latest of which is PESA 2001–02 (Cm 5101).

  (b) The Office for National Statistics publishes UK population estimates by Government office region in their annual publication Regional Trends. UK population estimates by Government office regions for 1999 are published at www.statistics.gov.uk.

  (c) The Office for National Statistics published estimates of UK gross domestic product by Government office region in the First News Release dated 27 February 2001.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 16 October; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including their voting record; and if he will make a statement. [9364]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  The main theme of the meeting was the fight against terrorist financing. The council welcomed progress towards achieving agreement with the European Parliament on adopting the second money laundering directive. The directive has subsequently been agreed at conciliation.

  The council welcomed an EU presidency report on the fight against the financing of terrorism. I stressed the need for concerted international action and co-operation. We also noted a report from the European Commission on the air transport industry.

  The council approved terms of reference for a European Commission study on globalisation and development, which will report in February 2002 ahead of the UN Financing for Development Conference. The commission introduced its second report on the introduction of euro notes and coins and the council adopted a statement for reporting to the Ghent European Council.

  Finance Ministers noted the commission's draft employment package for 2001–02, which will be approved at the Laeken European Council. The package reviews member states' employment policies and proposes guidelines and recommendations for taking these policies forward. The presidency report on progress on the draft

  261W
  directive on occupational pension schemes was noted by the council. There was also a preliminary discussion of the joint report on pensions, which is being prepared for approval at the European Council in Barcelona, with a progress report to be considered at the European Council in Laeken.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Following the ECOFIN Council, I also attended the joint ECOFIN/JHA Council, with the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs. The joint council agreed to take forward a further range of measures to combat terrorism, money laundering, economic crime and counterfeiting of the euro. In particular, the Protocol to the 2000 Mutual Legal Assistance Convention was adopted and signed. A copy of the joint council conclusions are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Service Delivery
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2001,Official Report, column 22W, on public service delivery, how he has identified that targeted efficiency improvements cover more than half of non-transfers spending. [8142]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The assessment was made on the basis of Departments' performance against their efficiency targets, published in the spring 2001 departmental reports.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised in corporation tax in the past financial year at the(a) starting rate, (b) small companies rate and (c) main rate; and if he will list his prediction for the same figures in the current financial year. [7783]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Provisional estimates of corporation tax receipts in 2000–01 are given in the ONS publication "Financial Statistics". A forecast for the current year will be published in the pre-Budget report. Estimates of the amounts of taxable profits at the various rates of tax (and the rates of tax) are given on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats../s11corporatetaxation2.pdf.

  Pensioners (Tax)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to reduce the tax burden on old age pensioners. [9655]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Following our personal tax and benefit changes, pensioner households will be £600 a year better off on average compared to 1997. As a result of our policies, seven out of 10 pensioners pay either no tax, or pay tax only at the 10p rate. We have pledged to extend tax allowances further so that by 2003 no pensioner pays tax until their income reaches £127 per week.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) special advisers
  262W
  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. [6885]

  Tessa Jowell
  Details for my Department (previously the Department of National Heritage) are shown.

  Special Advisers

  A total of 18 special advisers have been employed under contract over different periods since 1992 (15 full-time and three part-time) to maintain a maximum complement of one post in the years 1992 to 1995 and two posts from 1996 onwards.

  Press Officers

  A total of 82 press officers have been employed under contract over different periods since 1992 (81 full-time and one part-time) to maintain a maximum complement of seven posts during the years 1992 to 1998 and eight posts from 1999 onwards.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding is available to local authorities with cases of foot and mouth disease in their district for the promotion of tourism. [8436]

  Dr. Howells
  Over £90 million each year is available to local authorities to promote tourism. Funding is allowed 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.

  The regional development agency business recovery fund was established in April to provide targeted help for rural businesses, including funding for local and regional promotion and incentive schemes to encourage visitors to return.

  The English Tourism Council received £3.8 million in additional funding to run an advertising and promotion campaign and provide other support to help offset the effects of foot and mouth disease on the domestic tourism industry; £2 million of this funding went directly to regional tourist boards.

  In addition the British Tourist Authority received an extra £14.2 million to support a tactical marketing campaign to promote Britain as a great place for a holiday.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants are available to encourage tourism in areas affected by foot and mouth disease. [8437]

  Dr. Howells
  The regional development agency business recovery fund, established in April, was designed to provide targeted help for rural businesses, focused primarily on measures to enable them to develop in the medium term. The fund is one element in a package of recovery assistance for tourism that includes additional funding for marketing, business rate relief and deferral of tax payments. These measures and existing programmes will help to encourage tourism.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to help the tourist industry recover from the effects of foot and mouth disease and the events of 11 September. [9714]
  263W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: Since 1 March, my Department has provided an additional £3.8 million to the English Tourism Council and £14.2 million to the British Tourist Authority. The regional development agency business recovery fund, established in April, is designed to provide targeted help for rural businesses, including tourism businesses, affected by the consequent implications of foot and mouth disease. On 18 October, the Government allocated a further £24 million to the fund, taking the total to £74 million. The fund is one element in a package of recovery assistance for tourism that includes business rate relief and deferral of tax payments.

  In-bound international tourism data for the month of September will not be available until November 2001. When these statistics are available, an assessment of the initial impact of the events of 11 September on tourism can be made.

  Tourism (Lake District)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the state of the tourism industry in the Lake District following the foot and mouth outbreak and the events of 11 September; and if she will review the case for further Government assistance. [7516]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: Lord Haskins, appointed by the Prime Minister as rural recovery co-ordinator for Cumbria, has published his report on the effects of foot and mouth on Cumbria and we will be considering the need for further assistance in the light of this report.

  It is not yet possible to provide an estimate of the impact of the events of 11 September on tourism at this point in time. Official in-bound international tourism data for the month of September 2001 will not be available until November 2001. When these statistics are available, a more thorough assessment of the initial impact can be made.

  Football World Cup
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to meet representatives of the BBC and ITV to discuss the televising of the football world cup in 2002. [8760]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no such plans, but welcome the announcement made by the BBC and ITV on 18 October that they have signed an exclusive deal to broadcast the world cup finals tournament in 2002 and 2006.

  Communications White Paper
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department will publish its response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report on the Communications White Paper. [8672]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government will shortly be publishing their response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's report on the Communications White Paper.

  S4C
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent meetings she has had with S4C to discuss the company's financial arrangements. [8751]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such meetings, but financial issues were raised during my visit to S4C in Cardiff on 10 July and I am due to meet the Chair of S4C again on 6 December.

  Regional Broadcasting
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what meetings she(a) has had and (b) plans to have with the Independent Television Commission to discuss regional broadcasting. [9437]

  Dr. Howells
  None, but the Communications White Paper made clear our commitment to retain and strengthen the regional dimension to public service broadcasting, and ensure that it continues to meet the needs of different communities and cultural interests.

  Late-night Licences
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her response to the recent judgment on late-night flights into Heathrow; what impact this decision has had on her Department's policy on bar licence hours; and what her policy is on late-night noise disturbance in city centres. [9196]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: The Government are carefully studying the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom, and its possible implications for a range of issues including our policy on alcohol licensing hours. If appropriate, it will be carefully taken into account before a Bill to reform the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws is presented in Parliament.

  Permitted licensing hours for licensed premises in England and Wales are set out in the Licensing Act 1964. Our current policy on the reform of these laws provides that opening hours would be attached as a condition of individual premises licences. It also provides that local residents will have the right to object to the grant of a licence, or to apply for the hours of opening to be restricted, or to seek a review of an existing licence on grounds of public nuisance, including noise disturbance. Where the local authority denies such an objection, the objector would be entitled to appeal to the magistrates courts. In addition, on 1 December this year, we shall be bringing into force section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which provides new powers in England and Wales for the police to close instantly for up to 24 hours licensed premises which are causing disturbance to the general public as a result of excessive noise emitted from the premises.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library the guidelines issued by her Department regarding noise abatement best practice in relation to conditions set by councils on late-night licence applications; and if she will make a statement. [9195]
  265W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: Guidance on conditions which might be attached to public entertainment or late-night refreshment house or night café licences in England and Wales concerning noise abatement has not been issued by the Department or by the Home Office when it was responsible for this policy area. In the case of public entertainment licences, local authorities have a broad discretion to impose such conditions, terms and restrictions as they see fit. In the case of late-night refreshment houses and night cafés, conditions may be imposed to prevent unreasonable disturbance to local residents, and "closing orders" may be imposed to the same end. Some local authorities have sought agreements with parts of the licensed trade on standardised conditions which might be adopted in connection with public entertainment licences. From time to time local authorities publish advice on associated matters in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive. The majority of local authorities in making licensing decisions generally adopt similar standards to those which they adopt in enforcing the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Noise Act 1996.

  Alcohol licensing in England and Wales is the responsibility of licensing justices and not the local authority, and they have a broad discretion to refuse various extensions beyond normal permitted licensing hours to prevent unreasonable disturbance to people living in the neighbourhood.

  Summer Recess (Departmental Publications)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation documents were issued by her Department during the summer recess. [9236]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: During the summer recess my Department released: (a) 43 press notices, and (b) two consultation papers; Review of the Museum on London/Geffrye Museum/Horniman Museum; Review of the National Museum of Science and Industry. These are available on the DCMS website www.culture.gov.uk

  English Tourism Council
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to change the role of the English Tourism Council. [9715]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The role of the English Tourism Council is set out in its three-year funding agreement with this Department, as signed on 4 June 2001 and deposited in the Library of this House. The impact of foot and mouth disease and the terrorist attacks of 11 September have necessitated a review of short-term tourism policy and, in the light of recent discussions with key players in the industry, efforts will be concentrated on data collection, improving quality and skills and domestic marketing. The English Tourism Council, other tourism bodies and the industry all have important roles to play in this strategy.

  Culture, Media and Sport Committee Report
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will implement the recommendations of the Fourth report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, HC 2000–01, 430. [9713]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The Government response to the Fourth report was sent to the Committee as a Memorandum in August and presented to Parliament on 17 October as Command Paper 5279.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if her Department will respond to the Rural Task Force report, "Tackling the Impact of the Foot and Mouth Disease on the Rural Economy"; [10068]

  (2) if her Department will respond to Lord Haskins' report, "Rural Recovery after Foot and Mouth Disease". [10069]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 18 October 2001,Official Report, column 1301.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has put in place to cut the risk of foot and mouth being re-imported. [9430]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government take very seriously the need to have effective controls on imports of animal products, be they in personal baggage or commercial consignments. We in DEFRA are co-ordinating action across Government to ensure that the rules are enforced as effectively as possible at ports and airports.

  New arrangements have been introduced across all enforcement agencies involved to improve the sharing and analysis of information about known or suspected illegal imports. This is being used to target enforcement action and to make best use of available resources. Our national regulations have also been amended to assist local authorities in seizing suspected illegal imports when they are found at point of sale. The Food Standards Agency is also encouraging local authorities to ensure that checking for illegal imports is part of their routine inspection of food premises.

  Alongside this we have introduced improved publicity to ensure that travellers are aware of the restrictions on what may be imported. Posters have been placed at main airports and information is being provided to travellers by the travel industry and by British embassies abroad.

  We are keeping these measures under review and will make improvements as necessary. In addition, we will be looking at further options to ensure the rules on imports are enforced effectively and efficiently.

  On commercial consignments, all meat imported from third countries must be accompanied by veterinary certification. This must confirm that the meat is derived

  267W
  from animals which have been subjected to an ante-mortem inspection during the 24 hours prior to slaughter at which the animal showed no signs of foot and mouth disease.

  If there is an outbreak of disease likely to present a risk to human or animal health such as foot and mouth disease, Community legislation allows us to take appropriate safeguard action, which may include a ban on imports of meat from all, or parts, of that country. Recent examples include Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay and Zimbabwe, and within the EU, France, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much meat was imported into the United Kingdom from countries(a) in which foot and mouth disease is endemic and (b) where there has been an outbreak in the preceding 12 months in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001 to date. [8342]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the amounts of meat from foot and mouth disease susceptible animals imported into the UK in 1999, 2000 and January to July 2001.

  Community legislation permits the importation of meat from certain countries where foot and mouth disease is present but only where the disease is restricted to specific areas. Imports are permitted only from parts of the country that are free of disease or under strict conditions that ensure the meat does not come from any animal that may have come in contact with foot and mouth disease before, during and after slaughter. These provisions are in line with the guidelines set out in the Office International des Epizooties International Animal Health Code 2001.

  If there is an outbreak of disease likely to present a risk to human or animal health such as foot and mouth disease, Community legislation allows us to take appropriate safeguard action, which may include a ban on imports of meat from all, or parts, of that country. In the last 12 months this includes Argentina. Brazil, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay and Zimbabwe, and within the EU, France, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland.

  UK imports of meat from FMD susceptible species1 from countries where FMD is endemic and which have had outbreaks in 1999, 2000 and 2001 (January to July)

  Country

  Total tonnes

  1999

  Argentina

  2,083

  Botswana2

  5,538

  Brazil2,3

  11,158

  France

  31,767

  Greece

  113

  Irish Republic

  114,232

  Namibia2

  6,635

  Netherlands

  64,002

  South Africa2

  224

  Swaziland2

  320

  Uruguay

  5,757

  Zimbabwe2,3

  5,055

  Total

  246,883

  2000

  Argentina3

  2,317

  Botswana2

  5,511

  Brazil2,3

  18,427

  France

  30,217

  Greece3

  261

  268W

  UK imports of meat from FMD susceptible species1 from countries where FMD is endemic and which have had outbreaks in 1999, 2000 and 2001 (January to July)

  Country

  Total tonnes

  Irish Republic

  125,122

  Namibia2,3

  5,727

  Netherlands

  59,320

  South Africa2,3

  133

  Swaziland2,3

  582

  Uruguay2

  5,601

  Zimbabwe2

  5,436

  Total

  258,654

  2001

  Argentina3

  1,116

  Botswana2

  6,908

  Brazil2,3

  10,315

  France3

  18,300

  Greece

  0

  Irish Republic3

  62,614

  Namibia2

  4,027

  Netherlands3

  29,241

  South Africa2,3

  29

  Uruguay3

  2,942

  Zimbabwe2,3

  4,004

  Total (January-July)

  139,497

  1 Cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and reindeer. There were no imports of reindeer meat in 2000–01.

  2 Countries where FMD is endemic.

  3 Countries where there have been outbreaks.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on farm incomes of restrictions on the movement of animals. [8157]

  Mr. Morley
  We are aware that movement restrictions increase the costs of many livestock producers and others in the food chain. However, the restrictions were imposed to prevent the spread of disease and to speed its eradication. We have commissioned research to consider the costs to the agricultural industry of maintaining movement restrictions as a means of preventing disease spread in the future.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next plans to visit Westmorland and Lonsdale to discuss the foot and mouth outbreak. [9625]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans for the Secretary of State to visit Westmorland and Lonsdale in the near future.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the value of financial assistance from Government to the farming industry in England has been since the start of the foot and mouth crisis. [6068]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Since the first case of foot and mouth disease was confirmed on 20 February 2001, the Government have announced financial assistance worth £164.4 million to the farming industry (see table for cost breakdown). This supplements payments to date of £1,016 million1 in compensation for compulsory slaughter of stock, £26.2 million1 in compensation for seized or destroyed items, and a further £185 million2 paid to date to farmers in respect of the

  269W
  livestock welfare disposal scheme. UK farmers are also expected to receive around £3 billion in support under the Common Agricultural Policy in 2000–01.

  In addition, some farmers will be benefiting from the range of other measures we have put in place to help enterprises affected by foot and mouth, such as targeted trade development and marketing activities and the Countryside Agency's scheme to provide matched funding to voluntary organisations for the relief of distress. The hon. Member will also be aware that the revenue departments have been asked to take a sympathetic view, on a case-by-case basis, of businesses affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. They have so far helped over 18,000 businesses by agreeing to defer tax, national insurance contributions and VAT for periods of mainly between three and 12 months.

  £ million

  Initiative

  Coverage3

  Funding

  Rural stress action plan

  England

  0.4

  Farm business advisory service

  England

  46

  Agriculture development scheme

  England

  2

  Agrimonetary compensation

  UK

  156

  Total

  164.4

  1 As at 9 October 2001.

  2 As at 3 October 2001.

  3 Information is not held on a regional basis for all schemes, so it is not possible to provide figures for England alone.

  4 Supplemented by £4.4 million in unspent provision from 2000–01, carried forward.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total amount of compensation that will be paid as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. [7667]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Our current estimate of the cost of compensation that will be paid because of the foot and mouth disease outbreak is £1.216 billion. This figure includes £1.152 billion compensation for compulsory slaughter of affected livestock and £0.064 billion compensation for items seized and destroyed such as hay, feed, fodder and semen straws.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria the Government used to decide the method used for lifting the D notice restrictions in Herefordshire. [6664]

  Mr. Morley
  The criteria for lifting Form D notices are governed by EU rules for the control of foot and mouth disease (FMD). This requires a clinical inspection of all stock on premises within three kilometres of an infected premise, commencing at least 21 days after preliminary cleansing and disinfection of the premise.

  There is also a requirement for serological testing of all premises with sheep and goats for evidence of FMD infection. This may commence 21 days after slaughter of the animals and preliminary disinfection. If all the inspections and blood tests prove negative for FMD and more than 30 days have elapsed since slaughter and preliminary disinfection, the Infected Area restrictions may be lifted.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans are in place for tackling foot and mouth disease in the late autumn period. [6499]
  270W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: Contingency plans are held and regularly reviewed by the Regional Operations Directors who have been put in place to deal with the current foot and mouth disease outbreak. The plans are kept under review and updated as necessary in the light of the latest disease situation. They are based on the continued adherence to and rigorous enforcement of the existing control strategies, including tight biosecurity, and take the form of working documents that have to be refined in the light of any new developments including up to date epidemiological advice.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the independent veterinary risk assessment commissioned by her Department into the resumption of fox hunting following the foot and mouth outbreaks. [9468]

  Alun Michael
  The veterinary risk assessment on the possible resumption of hunting with dogs in England and Wales is currently being considered by Ministers. The assessment will be published on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/ and copies will be made available in the Libraries of the House.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to make a decision on whether she will be drawing down agrimonetary compensation for this year. [9529]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: The Government are considering the case for payment of the agrimonetary compensation that is currently available for the arable sector, and have until 31 October to notify the European Commission of any intention to make these payments.

  Flooding
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to provide further assistance to protect existing homes from flooding; and if she will make a statement. [9012]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: I plan to reduce the 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. Further increases are planned in funding delivered through local authorities.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to ensure that the shortfall in North Yorkshire's flood defence levy for the period 2002–03 is made up to at least the amount allocated for 2001–02. [8143]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's flood defence programme is funded mainly by levies paid by county councils, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities. These levies, and other flood defence expenditure, are taken into account in determining each council's flood defence standard spending assessment (SSA) for the following year.
  271W
  North Yorkshire county council's flood defence SSA for 2001–02 was £2,423,000; the council paid a levy to the Environment Agency of £2,469,192 and I understand that they have no other flood defence expenditure. However, this has to be seen against an historic failure of some local authorities, including those in Yorkshire, to invest adequate sums to maintain and renew defences over many years.

  The Government can compensate authorities collectively for expenditure up to the aggregate 4.2 per cent. increase provided for in Spending Review 2000 but to do otherwise would mean unfairly limiting the increase in other parts of the Environment, Cultural and Protective Services SSA block. Of course a local authority is able to utilise the funds provided for those services it judges a priority.

  The Government have recently made additional funds available to the Environment Agency to meet flood defence expenditure in the current year. Alongside funds made available during the previous year, Government have now met almost all the emergency response and repair costs that the Agency incurred in the autumn/winter 2000 floods. In addition for both years it has met the design and feasibility costs of river flood defence schemes in order to accelerate their implementation. This represents a substantial contribution to the exceptional costs arising from those floods and the Yorkshire region is a major beneficiary. These additional funds have the effect of reducing the levy increase necessary to deliver the appropriate flood defence service in the region; we now expect the local authorities to make a proportionate contribution.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to prevent individuals importing meat into the United Kingdom. [9431]

  Mr. Morley
  Personal imports into the UK of meat from countries outside the EU are restricted to one kilogram per person of meat in a hermetically sealed container. People travelling from other EU countries can bring with them up to 10 kg of meat products per person, for their own consumption. However, if there is an outbreak of disease likely to present a risk to human or animal health such as foot and mouth disease (FMD), appropriate safeguard action is taken, which may include a ban on imports of meat from all, or parts, of that country. In those circumstances, personal imports may effectively be prohibited.

  We have introduced improved publicity to ensure that travellers are aware of the restrictions on what may be imported. Posters have been placed at main airports and information is being provided to travellers by the travel industry and by British embassies abroad.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of controls to limit the import of meat and meat products into the UK that could carry contamination with(a) foot and mouth disease and (b) other animal diseases. [8988]
  272W
  Mr. Morley
  If any third country experiences an outbreak of disease likely to present a risk to human or animal health (such as foot and mouth disease) European Community legislation allows us to take appropriate safeguard action. This may include a ban on imports of meat from all, or parts, of that country. We have recently taken such action in respect of Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay and Zimbabwe. EU law lays down the protection measures to be implemented by a member state if they experience such a disease outbreak. These include a ban on the movement of susceptible animals, export restrictions on their products and the slaughter of infected animals.

  All meat and meat products imported from third countries, must be accompanied by veterinary certification. This must confirm that the meat is derived from animals which have been subjected to an ante-mortem inspection during the 24 hours prior to slaughter at which the animal showed no signs of foot and mouth disease or any notifiable disease.

  All meat and meat products imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) where they are subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition during transport.

  No matter what level of import controls are in place, it will never be possible to guarantee that no exotic disease could be imported into this country. It remains vital that farmers take effective precautions to minimise the possibility of spread of any disease that may occur, whatever its source.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on proposals announced recently by the Countryside Agency to build more social housing in rural areas. [8541]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: I launched the Housing Corporation's Rural Policy Statement this month which builds upon the commitment in the Rural White Paper to achieve a higher proportion of affordable homes in both market towns and small villages. It illustrates the close co-operation between DEFRA Ministers and the Ministers at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who also strongly support the statement. It also demonstrates the close co-operation between the corporation and the Countryside Agency which has also welcomed the announcement of the new policy. The agency has confirmed its intention to work closely with the Housing Corporation to assist in 'rural proofing' its policies.

  Throckmorton Mass Burial Site
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress in meeting claims for compensation for(a) nuisance and (b) loss of property value by individuals with homes adjacent to the Throckmorton mass burial site in Worcestershire. [8982]
  273W
  Mr. Morley
  The main nuisance complained of by the residents of Throckmorton was that of smell that was being created by Government activity in containing and eradicating foot and mouth disease. As this activity was being carried out lawfully, there is no liability on the Government to pay compensation.

  I am aware of the hon. Member's interest in the issue and will be writing to him very shortly.

  Farmers (Tourism)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding is available to assist farmers to diversify into tourism. [8438]

  Alun Michael
  The main source of funding to assist farmers to diversify into tourism is the Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES), which is a part of the England Rural Development Programme, measures are available in Objective 1 areas. The total RES scheme budget is £152 million for the period 2001–06. Another fund which

  Year

  Introduction of milk quotas.

  1984

  Introduction of binding agricultural budgetary guidelines limiting the growth of CAP expenditure to 74 per cent. of the growth of the budget.

  1988

  Structural funds reformed. Quotas extended. Set-aside measures designed to encourage the use of less intensive production techniques and to diversify away from products already in surplus introduced.

  1989–91

  Introduction of the MacSharry reforms, which cut some support prices, introduced direct income compensation, and made set-aside and other production control measures a central feature of the CAP.

  1992

  Completion of the Uruguay Round Agricultural Agreement brought agriculture for the first time fully within the multilateral trade mechanism: in that framework, the EU accepted the principle of tariffication (the conversion of all forms of tariff and non-tariff barriers into fixed tariff equivalents, the progressive reduction of tariffs and certain types of domestic farm support, and limits on the volume of subsided exports and the value of export subsidies.

  1995

  Agenda 2000 package of CAP reforms agreed in Berlin. The package included cereal and beef price reductions, milk prices to be cut and quotas increased and creation of the "2nd pillar", the Rural Development Regulation. When reforms fully implemented (2008), price reductions will reduce annual food bill for family of four of around 2 per cent.

  1999

  Review of sugar, olive oil, hops and cotton regimes recently completed. Review of rice and sheepmeat regimes on-going.

  2001

  (b) Responsibility for presenting proposals to reform the CAP rests with the European Commission. We expect proposals to issue next year for a number of key CAP commodity regimes. We will continue to work closely with the Commission and other member states to drive forward the reform agenda to achieve a more economically rational CAP which contributes to the economic, environmental and social sustainability of the industry and rural economy.

  Food (Terrorist Biological Attacks)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consideration she has given to the possibility of terrorist biological attacks being made on the UK through food supplies; and if she will make a statement on foot import controls in the UK. [7770]

  Mr. Morley
  Her Majesty's Government are alert to the potential threat to the UK from terrorist activities. The most effective defence against a terrorist threat is good
  274W
  can be used to assist farm-based tourism is the regional development agencies' Redundant Buildings Grant scheme.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the reforms to the CAP(a) made since May 1977 and (b) that Her Majesty's Government are proposing. [7297]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) The formal objectives of the CAP have remained as laid down in the treaty of Rome in 1957. However, while the treaty provisions supporting the CAP have remained substantially unchanged, the policy itself has evolved and developed over recent years. This has been particularly so during the period since the mid 1980s—when it was evident that agricultural production in a number of major sectors (cereals, milk, beef, wine) was running well ahead of consumption and export opportunities. This gave rise to structural surpluses and budgetary pressures. The principal adjustments to this policy since 1997 include:

  intelligence, efficient procedures to control the entry of people and materials into the UK, and the means to respond effectively to incidents. Contingency plans are maintained by the Government to minimise the consequences in the event of an attack.

  All food for sale, whether it is produced in the UK or in other countries, must meet the necessarily high standards of hygiene and safety required to protect public health. Imports of food not of animal origin such as fruit and vegetables from countries outside the EU are subject to UK checks by local food authorities based on an assessment of the risk to health at the point of import.

  All products of animal origin imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) where they are subject to veterinary inspections. Consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and may also be subject to physical checks. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition during transport.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the consultation paper on nuclear waste; and if she will make a statement. [7706]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 25W.

  Farm Leavers
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers have left the industry in 2001 to date. [7732]

  Alun Michael
  The latest information available comes from the 2000 Agricultural Census for England. The figures indicate that there were 1,300 fewer farmers, and associated partners, directors and their spouses in June 2000 than in June 1999. This is a net figure and is the balance of farmers, associated partners, directors and spouses joining and leaving the industry. Figures on the number leaving the industry are not separately available. It is not possible to give a separate figure for "farmers". June 2001 figures will be available later this year.

  Correspondence
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter sent to her on 1 August by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. [9711]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: A response to the hon. Member's letter of 1 August was sent on 22 October 2001. I apologise for the time taken to respond to this letter.

  Green Belt
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to publish proposals to modify green belt planning policies. [9167]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are at present no plans.

  Minor Roads
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will increase the amount of Government money available to councils for the improvement of minor roads; and if she will make a statement. [9015]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to halting the deterioration in local road condition and to eliminating the backlogs in carriageway, footway, bridge and street lighting maintenance. We will provide the necessary funding, £30 billion, through our Ten-Year Plan for Transport. This is a real increase of 23 per cent. above funding levels in the previous 10 years. And we are
  276W
  promoting several initiatives to help local authorities to optimise their road maintenance programmes and improve the quality of roads.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Distress for Rent
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will publish the results of her consultation on the Enforcement Review Consultation Paper 5: Distress for Rent; and if she will set out her timetable for the abolition of distress for rent in residential property. [9165]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  LCD are currently analysing responses to this consultation which ended on 3 August 2001. We received approximately 150 responses from a wide range of individuals, private companies and professional enforcement organisations. We expect to publish a summary of responses in due course.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced the publication of the Green Paper, "Towards Effective Enforcement", by way of a written answer on 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 451W. The closing date for responses was 3 October 2001. Because of the strong link between distress for rent and bailiff law in general, the responses to the distress for rent consultation will be taken into account along with the bailiff law issues arising from the Green Paper.

  We hope to take forward distress for rent proposals when parliamentary time allows.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Chorley Police Station
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide resources for the improvement of the police cells at Chorley Police Station in order to meet health and safety requirements. [9100]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for chief constables, in consultation with their police authorities, to decide how best to deploy available resources taking into account operational priorities and objectives.

  I am informed by the chief constable that the cell complex at Chorley was taken out of routine use as part of the rationalisation of the custody facilities within the Division. Improvements were made at the two remaining divisional custody sites at Leyland and Skelmersdale.

  The force has confirmed that the rationalisation has enhanced the quality of the division's custody service, improving the supervision, care and control of offenders.

  The cells at Chorley remain available to the division if necessary.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to return all passports and original documents by recorded delivery or registered post. [8068]
  277W
  Angela Eagle
  The Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) in Croydon deals with the majority of passport and document returns to applicants and their representatives throughout Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). This year they began returning passports and original documents to applicants by recorded delivery.

  However, ICD' s Nationality Group in Liverpool ceased this service five years ago on the basis that the increased cost would add significantly to the cost of applications. Furthermore, the great majority of passports returned by ordinary post would reach their destination safely. However, any applicants who are concerned about the return of their documents can send in recorded delivery or registered post envelopes at their own expense.

  Security Checks
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will monitor the length of time the security services take to complete security checks on those applying for(a) settlement in the UK and (b) naturalisation. [8099]

  Angela Eagle
  The Integrated Casework Directorate's (ICD) Nationality and General Group already monitor the length of time the Security Services take to complete checks on those applying for settlement in the United Kingdom and naturalisation.

  Mr. Alan Bayle
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what correspondence he has received from Mr. Alan Bayle concerning his decision to resign from the Metropolitan Police Service; and what measures he has taken to address professional representations concerning training and supervision of the collection of forensic evidence. [8079]

  Mr. Denham
  My Department has not received any correspondence from Mr. Alan Bayle concerning his decision to resign from the Metropolitan Police Service.

  In England and Wales, the collection of forensic evidence is the responsibility of Crime Scene Examiners and Assistant Crime Scheme Examiners, who are also responsible for forwarding such evidence to other departments or agencies as appropriate.

  Training is provided in-force or at specialist centres such as the National Training Centre for Scientific Support in Durham, or the Metropolitan Police Service Scientific Support College.

  Training and deployment are operational matters for individual chief constables and not ones in which it would be appropriate for Ministers to intervene.

  Police Working Conditions
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his proposals for reform of police working conditions. [9723]

  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 are today presenting the Police Negotiating Board (PNB)278W
  with the outcomes we wish to achieve in respect of relevant police conditions so that it can explore and agree how best to deliver them. I have placed a copy of the outcomes paper presented to PNB in the Library.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the role of special constables. [8566]

  Mr. Denham
  As part of the police reform process the Government are looking at measures to increase the size of the special constabulary. We are also currently looking at means of improving the management of special constables to ensure that they are deployed effectively to provide an increased visible police presence in our communities.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many special constables there were in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; [7716]

  (2) how many special constables there were in Wales in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [7743]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of serving special constables in England and Wales from 30 September 1997 to 30 September 2000 is set out in the table.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total strength1

  19,163

  17,296

  15,727

  13,487

  Strength in Wales

  1,140

  1,047

  940

  811

  1 England and Wales

  Home Office funded research into the premature wastage of special constables, completed last year, found that the primary reasons for leaving were often external to the service. However, the research identified some underlying management factors contributing to the decision to resign.

  Recommendations aimed at reducing the wastage included making improvements to: the flexibility of duties and hours offered; the management structure within which specials operate; the quality of training provided locally; and local efforts to monitor and prevent wastage.

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

  Refugees
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of refugees into the EU from(a) Iran, (b) Iraq and (c) Afghanistan entered the UK in (i) 1990, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 2000. [8241]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to provide information on how many refugees entered the United Kingdom in any given period, because some refugees arrive clandestinely and subsequently claim asylum in-country rather than claiming on arrival at United Kingdom ports. Information on the numbers of application for asylum in the United Kingdom from the specified nationalities as a percentage of European Union (EU) applications is given
  279W
  in the table. However, only a minority of applications results in the granting of refugee status under the 1951 United Nations (UN) Convention.

  Applications for asylum to the EU and UK from nationals of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, 1990, 1995, 20001

  1990

  19952

  20003

  Afghanistan

  EU

  n/a

  10,965

  24,510

  UK

  215

  715

  6,835

  UK (Percentage)

  n/a

  7

  28

  Iran

  EU

  n/a

  8,800

  22,155

  UK

  560

  755

  6,905

  UK (Percentage)

  n/a

  9

  31

  Iraq

  EU

  n/a

  13,405

  33,120

  UK

  1,215

  1,140

  9,205

  UK (Percentage)

  n/a

  9

  28

  1 All data are provisional and rounded to nearest five. Dependants have been estimated where necessary.

  2 EU excludes Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece.

  3EU excludes Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece.

  Source:

  IGC Secretariat

  "Welcome to the Asylum"
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his response is to the recommendations contained in "Welcome to the Asylum" by Harriet Sergeant; and if he will make a statement. [8464]

  Angela Eagle
  We have studied the report "Welcome to the Asylum", and its four recommendations, and we have noted its conclusions and recommendations. The Government have clear immigration and asylum policies which are based on honouring our international obligations, and dealing quickly and firmly with those who have no right to be here. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to make an announcement on asylum policy later this month.

  Fugitives
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases foreign Governments have asked for assistance in returning fugitives resident in the UK(a) generally and (b) for terrorist offences in each of the last five years. [9621]

  Angela Eagle
  Reliable records are available for only the last four years. In those years, the number of extradition requests received by the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Number of requests received

  1997

  107

  1998

  111

  1999

  101

  2000

  78

  It is not possible to say with precision how many of those cases involved charges of terrorism. That is because the fugitive may have been accused of non-terrorist
  280W
  charges committed in furtherance of alleged terrorist acts. Of requests currently outstanding, nine involve suspected terrorist activity.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make funding available to voluntary bodies for the costs of starting up and administering a registered body disclosure service with the Criminal Records Bureau. [9606]

  Mr. Denham
  Having announced that standard and enhanced disclosures will be issued free of charge to volunteers, we are in the process of considering representations which have been received on the case for financial support for bodies involved in administering the disclosure service. We will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Police Officers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining comparisons in the number of police officers on duty in W1 between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. with figures for other UK cities, including if available Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Cardiff; and what are the figures for on duty police officers available per licensed premises for each city as compared with W1. [9137]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: The information sought is not collected centrally.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many graffiti artists have been prosecuted in the last 12 months. [9379]

  Mr. Denham
  The statistics collected centrally do not include the circumstances of the offence so that offences committed by graffiti artists cannot be distinguished from other offences of criminal or malicious damage.

  Corruption
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the response to his Department's consultation on reform of the criminal law of corruption in England and Wales (Cm 4759). [9482]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 47W.

  Extradition
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the responses to his Department's consultation document, "The Law on Extradition: A Review". [9483]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The "Law on Extradition: A Review" was published as a consultation document on 12 March 2001. Copies of the review were sent out to a large number of consultees which included the Houses of Parliament and interested parliamentary groups; the judiciary/magistracy and legal associations; the prosecuting authorities; civil liberties' groups, extradition practitioners, all our extradition partners and interested

  281W
  parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The consultation document was made available on the Home Office website.

  There were 22 written responses to the proposals contained in the document, seven of which requested that their responses should not be published. I am arranging for the 15 responses to be placed in the Library, they will also be made available on the Home Office website. I have also provided a detailed summary of the comments made by respondents in relation to the individual recommendations of the review, which I have also placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those in jail in Britain subject to an extradition request from a foreign Government(a) by name, (b) by country of origin, (c) by date of first request for extradition and (d) by date of any subsequent request for extradition. [7828]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are currently 59 fugitives held in extradition custody. The power of provisional arrest means that in some cases the fugitive will have been remanded into custody before receipt of the formal extradition request. In some cases, the fugitive may be serving a domestic sentence, pending completion of which, no surrender can be ordered or take place. The table therefore provides the date of arrest in respect of each requesting jurisdiction. We are not aware of any case involving a supplementary or subsequent request. It is not policy or practice to list the names of those who are the subject of extradition proceedings.

  Date of request

  Requesting jurisdiction

  1. July 1995

  USA

  2. July 1998

  USA

  3. October 1998

  USA

  4. November 1998

  USA

  5. February 1999

  USA

  6. September 1999

  USA

  7. September 1999

  USA

  8. September 2000

  USA

  9. September 2000

  USA

  10. October 2000

  USA

  11. October 2000

  USA

  12. January 2001

  USA

  13. January 2001

  USA

  14. May 2001

  USA

  15. May 2001

  USA

  16. August 2001

  USA

  17. September 2001

  USA

  18. October 2001

  USA

  19. July 1997

  Italy

  20. July 1998

  Italy

  21. June 1999

  Italy

  22. April 2000

  Italy

  23. June 2001

  Italy

  24. July 2001

  Italy

  25. August 2001

  Italy

  26. July 2001

  Switzerland

  27. September 2001

  Switzerland

  28. September 2001

  Switzerland

  29. September 2001

  Switzerland

  30. September 2001

  Switzerland

  31. September 2001

  Switzerland

  32. August 1998

  Germany

  33. March 2000

  Germany

  34. September 2001

  Germany

  35. September 2001

  Germany

  36. September 1999

  Belgium

  37. July 2001

  Belgium

  282W

  Date of request

  Requesting jurisdiction

  38. September 2001

  Belgium

  39. September 2001

  Belgium

  40. September 2001

  Belgium

  41. February 2001

  Czech Republic

  42. April 2001

  Czech Republic

  43. April 2001

  Czech Republic

  44. August 2001

  Czech Republic

  45. November 1995

  France

  46. June 1998

  France

  47. April 2000

  France

  48. May 2001

  France

  49. September 1996

  South Africa

  50. November 1997

  South Africa

  51. August 1999

  South Africa

  52. October 1998

  Canada

  53. September 2001

  Canada

  54. June 1996

  Turkey

  55. February 1997

  Finland

  56. August 1999

  Greece

  57. June 2000

  Netherlands

  58. April 2001

  Spain

  59. July 2001

  Estonia

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries have sought the extradition of(a) Abu Qatada, (b) Yasser-al-Siri and (c) Abu Hamsa; and if he will make a statement. [8659]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It is long-standing Home Office policy never to confirm or deny whether extradition requests in respect of particular individuals have been made or received.

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the responses to his Department's consultation on the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill (Cm 5066). [9484]

  Mr. Denham
  A copy of the responses has been placed in the Library.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow housing associations and other public bodies to apply for antisocial behaviour orders; and if he will make a statement. [9479]

  Mr. Denham
  I recently announced my intention to look at the possibility of allowing public bodies, such as housing associations, which are or should be part of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, to apply for antisocial behaviour orders. I will consult with interested parties on the feasibility of this option before any moves to legislate in this area.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many antisocial behaviour orders have been imposed to date; and if he will make a statement; [9487]

  (2) how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in respect of (a) juveniles and (b) adults; and if he will make a statement; [9475]

  (3) how many antisocial behaviour orders have been imposed in the south-east region since the beginning of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [9474]
  283W
  Mr. Denham
  There is known to have been some under-recording of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) in a few police force areas. With the co-operation of Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) we are therefore undertaking a one-off reconciliation exercise to establish any differences between the numbers of ASBOs known to the police and the data from court returns. I will write to the hon. Member when the information becomes available.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to require sentences to state, when passing sentence,(a) the existence of and (b) the potential effect on the date of earliest release of the home detention curfew scheme; and if he will make a statement. [9489]

  Beverley Hughes
  In January 1998 the then Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction to the courts requiring them to explain the practical effect of the custodial sentences they imposed. This aimed to ensure transparency in sentencing for the benefit of the defendant, any victim and the public.

  The practice direction does not prescribe a form of words in which the court's explanation should be given. It does, however, provide models to be adapted as necessary. These models do not cover the possibility of home detention curfew (HDC) since they pre-date its introduction, but the direction does make it clear that they are based on the statutory provisions in place on 1 January 1998 and will require modification if those provisions are materially amended. Since HDC can clearly be considered a "material amendment" it is appropriate for inclusion in the court's explanation. However, a sentencing court is not in a position to know whether the offender before it will be eligible for consideration for HDC or, if eligible, whether it will be granted. I am satisfied that this practice direction is adequate to promote transparency in sentencing and that legislation is not necessary.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been imposed since the start of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [9486]

  Mr. Denham
  No applications have been received to impose child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which took effect on 1 August 2001, have recently extended the upper age limit to 15 and allowed the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. Local areas are assessing the implications of these changes.

  Police Resources (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of Lancashire on the deployment of her resources in the Southern Division. [6806]
  284W
  Mr. Denham
  I have had no such discussions. The deployment of available resources to the territorial Divisions and other Headquarters based specialist units are operational matters for the professional judgment of the Chief Constable.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that asylum seekers will he removed from unconverted Prison Service accommodation by 25 December 2001, and if he will make a statement. [9451]

  Angela Eagle
  We are currently using 500 surplus remand spaces for immigration detainees in seven local prisons in England and Wales on a temporary basis until new dedicated immigration detention centres come on stream later this year. We are committed to cease using one of those prisons, Cardiff, by Christmas and to cease using the other six local prisons by the end of January 2002.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if an asylum seeker detained in a prison is considered a prisoner; and if he will make a statement. [9118]

  Angela Eagle
  Persons detained in prison solely while their application for asylum is being considered, or where awaiting removal following a failed asylum application, or deportation by order of a court following the completion of a prison sentence of more than 12 months are immigration detainees. They are held under the same conditions as unconvicted prisoners with the same rights and privileges.

  Asylum seekers who are serving a prison sentence following conviction by a court are treated accordingly.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to(a) prioritise and (b) speed up decisions on asylum seekers' applications where delay would have serious detrimental social or medical consequences for the asylum seekers themselves or members of their families; and if he will make a statement. [9125]

  Angela Eagle
  We are investing substantial resources to speed up the asylum process for all applicants. Where there are genuine and compelling medical or other reasons for prioritising individual applications, we endeavour to do so.

  Metropolitan Police
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support he has provided to help Metropolitan police officers and civil staff purchase homes; and if he will make a statement. [9112]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office has worked closely with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) on the starter homes initiative (SHI), which will assist key public sector workers to buy their first homes. On 6 September my right hon. Friend
  285W
  the Secretary of State announced the first allocations from the SHI. We expect around 550 police officers and civil staff in London to be helped over the next three years.

  Immigration Status
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the immigration status of(a) Abu Qatada and (b) Yasser-al-Siri; and if he will make a statement. [8658]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not Home Office policy to disclose details of a person's immigration status to a third party. Both these men are known to the authorities and statements made by them are being monitored to establish whether any offences are being committed.

  Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for the given offence and by year, England and Wales

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Principal statute

  Offence description

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—Indictable offences

  Sec. 3(1)

  Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person

  259

  121

  434

  239

  449

  262

  Sec. 3(3)

  Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place and injure any person

  22

  5

  28

  13

  34

  19

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—Summary offences

  Sec. 1(2)a

  Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog

  1

  —

  6

  5

  1

  —

  Sec. 1(2)b

  Selling, exchanging, offering advertising or exposing for sale a fighting dog

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sec. 1(2)c

  Giving or offering to give a fighting dog

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sec. 1(2)d

  Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without muzzle or lead

  12

  8

  7

  2

  11

  6

  Sec. 1(2)e

  Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog

  3

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Sec. 1(3)

  Possession without exemption of a Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog

  15

  9

  23

  8

  12

  5

  Sec. 3(1)

  Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, no injury being caused

  175

  88

  248

  125

  254

  126

  Sec. 3(3)

  Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person

  10

  4

  12

  8

  9

  5

  Total of above

  497

  237

  758

  400

  772

  424

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and if he will make a statement. [8660]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for dangerous dog legislation has now passed to me at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We have no plans to review the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Police Pension Rights
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that his Department's

  Dangerous Dogs Act
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were(a) brought and (b) successful under (i) section 1 and (ii) section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [8663]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The available information, taken from the Home Office court proceedings database, is shown in the table.

  It shows, for 1997, 1998 and 1999, the number of defendants proceeded against and those found guilty of offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England and Wales.

  Information for 2000 has not yet been published.

  changes to terms and conditions of service for police officers include the granting of pension rights to cohabiting partners. [8674]

  Mr. Denham
  Police pension arrangements are being reviewed in the coming months in the context of the police reform programme.

  Drugs
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the statutory provisions which allow him to give a direction prohibiting a doctor from prescribing controlled drugs have not been used since November 1997. [8636]
  287W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: The statutory provisions which give rise to such directions (known as the Misuse of Drugs Tribunal) have been seldom used since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was introduced. They are cumbersome, time consuming and inflexible.

  In its response to the report of the independent inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, set up by the Police Foundation, the Government accepted the recommendation that the tribunal system should be abolished with reliance henceforth placed on the revised procedures of the General Medical Council to provide an effective remedy.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of users of(a) all illegal drugs, (b) cannabis, (c) class A drugs and (d) class A drugs excluding heroin are graduates; and if this affects drug education programmes. [8648]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The statistics available at present do not provide information on the percentage of graduates using illegal drugs.

  One of the aims of the Government's anti-drug strategy is to reduce the number of young people reporting the use of Class A drugs. All decisions concerning drug education programmes are taken at a local level, based on guidance provided by the Department for Education and Skills.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the increase in drug use among those of Indian heritage. [8649]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government have been concerned about not only the increase in drug use among ethnic minority groups but also the quality of the delivery of drugs prevention and drug treatment services to them. We have commissioned a study to look at the whole area of drugs and ethnicity which was undertaken by Kamlesh Patel from the University of Central Lancashire and Michael Shinner from Goldsmith's College. A report has been submitted to the Home Office which will be published in January and will help to inform a wider diversity strategy on drugs.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the steps his Department is taking to reduce drug dependency in Worcestershire. [8626]

  Transaction/Project title

  Estimated cost saving1 (£ million)

  Outstanding payments

  2001

  Rainsbrook (Onley) Training Centre Expansion

  10.5

  Heat Energy Services Tranche 2

  3.73

  2—

  2000

  Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Ryehill

  55.0

  HMP Dovegate

  51.0

  Quantum

  128.0

  Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)

  3—

  IT2000 (Sinus Programme)

  50

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP)

  130.0

  1999

  —

  288W
  Mr. Denham
  My Department continues to support and fund the local drug action team in Worcestershire. The drug action team has taken numerous steps in support of the Government's four aims under the drugs strategy relating to young people, treatment, communities and availability. In 2000–01 these have included implementing arrest referral and Drug Treatment and Testing Order schemes in the county, developing 'parenting communication programmes', and developing drug enforcement activity within the West Mercia Policing Plan.

  Mr. Hussain Ahmed
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will postpone the removal of Mr. Hussain Ahmed (Home Office Ref: A570495) until after his wife gives birth to their child. [8728]

  Angela Eagle
  Lord Rooker responded to my hon. Friend by letter on 5 October 2001.

  Fingerprint Evidence
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the standards used in determining fingerprint evidence. [8606]

  Mr. Denham
  I have no plans to review the standards used in determining fingerprint evidence. Following extensive consultation with the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and other criminal justice system stakeholders, the Association of Chief Police Officers introduced the change in fingerprint evidential standard from 16 points to a non-numerical system from Monday 11 June 2001.

  PFI
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many PFI transactions have been overseen by his Department in each of the last 10 years; what his estimate is of the cost savings made in each of these transactions in comparison with the public sector alternative; what the outstanding payments to be made in relation to these transactions are for each of the next 15 years; and if he will make a statement. [5732]

  Beverley Hughes
  From the best information available, I list the PFI transactions overseen in the last 10 years:
  289W

  Transaction/Project title

  Estimated cost saving1 (£ million)

  Outstanding payments

  1998

  Rainsbrook (Onley) Secure Training Centre

  25.2

  Hassockfield (Medomsley) Secure Training Centre

  29.5

  HMP Forest Bank

  30.0

  Her Majesty's Prison Service (HMPS) Heat Energy Services Tranche 1

  3.3

  Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution (HMYOI) Ashfield

  19.0

  Passport Application Support System-Front End

  4—

  Passport Application Support System-Back End

  4—

  1997

  Medway (Cookham Wood) Secure Training Centre

  521.9

  1996

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Casework Programme

  6—

  HMP Parc

  53.0

  HMP Lowdham Grange

  30.0

  1995

  HMP Altcourse

  1.5

  1994

  —

  1993

  —

  1992

  —

  1 Published guidance on Public Sector Comparators notes that: "Accounting Officers should not rely solely on a straight comparison of a Private Finance Initiative (PEI) bid to its Public Sector Comparator (PSC), which should never be regarded as a pass/fail test but instead as a quantitative way of informing judgment". (Treasury Taskforce Technical Note No. 5: How to construct a public sector comparator).

  2 Details of individual payments to Contractors under Private Finance Initiative contracts are usually regarded as commercially confidential. Aggregate figures of estimated payments under all Private Finance Initiative contracts for the years 2001–02 to 2025–26 were published in Table C18 of the Budget 2001 "Red Book".

  3 The value of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) contract and therefore that of outstanding payments, is entirely dependant on demand and so cannot be forecast with any greater accuracy. At this stage, before the Bureau has become fully operational, estimated cost savings cannot be calculated.

  4 It is unlikely that there will be any savings compared with the previous passport production operation. Following the passport problems of 1999, United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) embarked on a large number of initiatives to improve the service. These resulted in major changes to the system and associated hardware and the requirement of the PEI partners to increase all their resources to match capacity. The delay to the implementation of the system at all offices has delayed the income stream for both partners.

  5 A PSC was not calculated on the grounds that this was not necessary for projects which would not have gone ahead otherwise, because public sector capital provision was not available. The reasonableness of the bid was tested by comparing it with the nearest public sector example, ie the cost per place of local authority secure accommodation. The estimated cost saving has been calculated by deducting the Net Present Value (NPV) from the average of the PSCs for Rainsbrook and Hassockfield Secure Training Centres (STCs) (both 40 place STCs, similar to Medway).

  6 No PSC constructed. The directorate decided that it would be unrealistic to construct a conventional PSC. Detailed plans for a conventional solution were not available and the bids received proposed packages of risks, costs and benefits which were different from each other and from the ideas for a conventional solution which had emerged from a 1994 review by SEMA.

  Police Wildlife Liaison Officers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police forces with at least one wildlife liaison officer. [8005]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: There is a widespread network of police wildlife liaison officers across police forces but it is for each force to determine how, and to what extent this work is undertaken. Every force has a wildlife liaison capability of some sort although this varies from force to force.

  Work recently completed by the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime in July 2001 resulted in the publication of a "Directory of Information Sources" which lists police wildlife liaison officer contacts. Details are recorded for more than 500 officers from forces in England and Wales.

  Trenchard House
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make representations to the Metropolitan Police Authority to overturn their decision to sell off Trenchard House in Soho. [7938]

  Mr. Denham
  The decision to sell Trenchard House rests with the Metropolitan Policy Authority. I have no plans to make representations.

  Airline Passengers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken at British airports to examine more closely the documentation of transit passengers into and out of the UK; and what guidance he gives relating to screening luggage of such passengers on arrival and departure. [7431]

  Angela Eagle
  Large numbers of passengers who transit the United Kingdom do not pass through United Kingdom immigration controls if they are proceeding without delay on a flight from the same airport.
  291W
  At times of heightened security airport authorities are required by aviation security directions to route all passengers through immigration controls. This happened for six days after the attacks on the United States of America on 11 September.

  Those passengers who are transiting the United Kingdom but depart from another airport or the next day are presented to the United Kingdom immigration controls where they are examined by an immigration officer before being allowed into the United Kingdom.

  That examination includes checking personal details against the immigration service warnings index. The warnings index computer system is the primary tool for providing information to staff operating the immigration entry control. All immigration service staff at control points have access to the warning index and portable equipment is available for use elsewhere when needed. All arriving non-European economic area (EEA) passengers are checked against the system.

  Aviation security is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and I am advised that the Department does not require screening of incoming baggage on arrival in the United Kingdom. I am, however, advised that all airlines flying from the United Kingdom are directed to screen all departing baggage whether from any passenger transferring through a United Kingdom airport or an originating passenger. In addition, at the request of the Federal Aviation Administration, all passenger baggage on transit flights to the United States of America and Canada is screened at United Kingdom airports.

  The Government are putting forward new legislation to counter the threat from international terrorism, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Monday 15 October 2001, and are looking at the existing legislation on the collection of passenger information and the sharing of that information between the law enforcement agencies.

  Race Relations
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring forward secondary legislation under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. [10242]

  Angela Eagle
  I have today laid two Orders under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000).

  The Orders bring into effect the proposals set out in the consultation document on implementation of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 which was published on 22 February this year.

  The first Order brings some 300 additional bodies (or groups of bodies) within the scope of the general duty to promote race equality. The second imposes specific duties on the policy and service delivery functions of key public bodies to which the general duty applies, to ensure their better performance of the general duty. Separate duties are placed on schools and other educational bodies. It also places duties on the employment functions of bodies to which the general duty applies.

  The Orders will come into force on 3 December 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the personal prerogative powers exercised by the Queen. [8096]

  The Prime Minister
  Most of the prerogative powers under the Crown are exercised on the advice of Ministers. A small proportion are personal powers of the Sovereign where he or she may or must act without ministerial advice, such as, in certain circumstances, the power to refuse a dissolution of Parliament. The exercise of powers under the prerogative has evolved over many years, and a precise list is not possible.

  MOX Plutonium Plant
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what role he played in making the decision to permit British Nuclear Fuels to operate its MOX plutonium fuels plant; and what considerations underlay the decision to announce the decision on 3 October. [8871]

  The Prime Minister
  The decision to permit the manufacture of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel was made by the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Health having considered all relevant information, including the responses to their public consultation. The timing of the announcement was a matter for those Ministers and they made it at the earliest opportunity.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Cabinet Secretary has established an investigation into civil service procedures and relations with special advisers. [9637]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish new guidance to special advisers on their relations with officials and the media. [9638]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The new "Code of Conduct for Special Advisers" already sets out special advisers' responsibilities in relation to the permanent civil service and their contacts with the media. All civil servants, including special advisers, who work on media and publicity-related issues, are also covered by "Guidance on the Work of Government Information Service".

  Minister for Local Government and the Regions
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he last spoke to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions; [9635]

  (2) if he has communicated with the Minister for Local Government and the Regions concerning the latter's 12 September press release on councillors' allowances; [9636]

  (3) on 'what occasions he has spoken to the Secretary of State for Transport since 10 September; and what matters were discussed. [9632]
  293W
  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues and others on a wide range of subjects, and will continue to do so. As with previous Governments it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions.

  News Management
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will issue guidance to Ministers to ensure that the practice of timing the release of information with a view to minimising coverage of that information is discontinued. [8768]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: No. The Ministerial Code already makes it clear that Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public. The published guidance on the work of the Government Information Service and the GICS Handbook sets out clear principles and guidance for all those who support Ministers in this role.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Summer Recess (Departmental Publications)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation documents were issued by his Department during the summer recess. [9237]

  Mr. Leslie
  For the period of the summer recess, 20 July to 15 October inclusive, 18 press notices were issued on behalf of the Department. All press notices are published on the Cabinet Office website and are freely available to the public. The Cabinet Office (including the HMSO) issued eight consultation documents during the same period.

  Cabinet Office consultations issued during recess included:
  The Transport and Social Exclusion Consultation, issued on 25 July:
  The Future of Emergency Planning in England and Wales, issued on 7 August: and
  Licensing of Crown Copyright (HMSO), issued on 12 October.

  The three documents can be accessed via the Department's own website register of consultations or on the central Government UKOnline register.

  The figures also include five 'GovTalk' consultation documents issued during recess. GovTalk.gov.uk is a website which enables the public sector, industry and other interested participants to work together to develop and agree policies and standards for e-government.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total annual running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by his Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by his Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6783]

  Mr. Leslie
  Estimates for the total running costs (in total and on an average cost per metre basis) for the financial year 2000–01 in respect of buildings used, owned or rented by my Department are as follows.294W

  Country/region

  Total running cost (£000)

  Average costs per m2 (£/m2)

  Scotland

  25

  606

  Wales

  14

  92

  London

  26,405

  409

  South West

  95

  238

  South East

  3,298

  237

  North West

  104

  262

  East of England

  75

  221

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  90

  210

  East Midlands

  49

  269

  North East

  41

  162

  West Midlands

  103

  233

  Total England

  30,260

  374

  The figures in the table exclude:

  (a) Running costs totalling some £523,000, mainly in respect of the Emergency Planning College in Yorkshire, where building costs on a square metre basis are not currently available.

  (b) Some £34,000 in respect of running costs incurred by the Central Office of Information on accommodation in Wales, Scotland and the South West where cost on per square metre basis is not known.

  (c) Figures in respect of the Government Offices for the Regions and the Regional Co-ordination Unit, which have been included in the answer supplied by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  (d) Accommodation that the Cabinet Office owns but is occupied by another and those buildings that were vacant during the above period.

  (e) VAT.

  "Government Opportunities"
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of the(a) production and (b) distribution of the publication "Government Opportunities". [8978]

  Mr. Leslie
  "Government Opportunities" is a publication issued by a private publisher at no cost to the Government.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Palestine
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to tackle poverty among Palestinians. [6119]

  Clare Short
  Poverty among the Palestinian people has deepened greatly during the last year when closures of the West Bank and Gaza have become more frequent and severe. The key to tackling poverty is to find a just and lasting solution to peace in the Middle East. The Government are working to try to establish practical steps forward.

  Since 1994 we have provided technical assistance to the Palestinian Authority to help prepare for Palestinian statehood.

  To help cope with the current crises we have increased our contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees. We have recently committed £6 million to support emergency assistance to deal with the current crises.

  Africa
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to prevent violent conflict in Africa. [6121]

  Clare Short
  Violent conflict remains one of the biggest barriers to development in Africa. More than 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa are currently affected by or recovering from violent conflict and 20 per cent. of the continent's population live in countries affected by armed conflicts.

  We are also working jointly with the FCO and MOD to improve the effectiveness of the UK contribution to conflict prevention and resolution in Africa through a new joint funding arrangement. Our joint paper on the causes of conflict in Africa will be published shortly.

  The UK Government are strongly committed to bringing the conflict in Sierra Leone to an end and promoting development for the people of Sierra Leone. It is essential that we do not have another failed UN peacekeeping operation in Africa.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to support Africa's development efforts. [6139]

  Clare Short
  The Government are strongly committed to enhance international effort to promote development in Africa. We have in the past four years built strong programmes on a range of issues from conflict reduction to HIV/AIDS and education, to support for anti-corruption strategies. We are also leading the way in formulating innovative and new ways of disbursing funds, for example, providing direct budgetary support to those African countries with the most development focused policies.

  This is a vitally important moment in the development of Africa. Not only have African countries recently joined together to agree the New African Initiative, but the Prime Minister has also signalled his own personal commitment to Africa in this Parliament, ensuring that it has also become a focus of the G8 for this year as well.

  The New African Initiative is an African led movement to articulate what Africans themselves need to do, and the help they need from donors and the international community, in order to lift themselves out of poverty. DFID have been working closely with the leaders of the NAI to ensure that our response to it is based firmly on the priorities identified by African Governments.

  India
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her development priorities for India. [6122]

  Clare Short
  The UK was providing £60 million in aid to India in 1997. This figure is projected to increase to over £300 million by 2003–04 in acknowledgement of the fact that one third of the poor of the world live in India.

  Our programme in India is aimed at helping government, at both national and state level, to deliver pro-poor policies and services. We are working closely with four partner states committed to poverty reduction, including on their programmes of fiscal and public sector
  296W
  reform. We are also working on increasing access to basic health, education, and water and sanitation services for the poor, on promoting better management of the natural and physical environment, and on promoting greater empowerment of the poor, especially women and the marginalized.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work her Department is undertaking in respect of the aftermath of the Gujarat earthquake. [6130]

  Clare Short
  In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake my Department's priority was to ensure that survivors received humanitarian assistance until normal services could be restored. Subsequently the Indian Government have developed plans for rehabilitation and reconstruction, largely funded by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The UK makes contributions to both of these institutions. We have also offered assistance to the Indian Government to strengthen disaster preparedness arrangements across the country.

  China
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she plans to have with the Chinese Government about human rights in China following the 2008 Olympics decision. [6123]

  Clare Short
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office leads for the British Government on the issue of human rights and raises this regularly and in depth with the Chinese Government. I have no specific plans to discuss human rights with the Chinese Government but would do so if an opportunity arose, as it did during my last visit to China in October 2000. DFID's expanding programme in China is focused on improving economic and social rights, ensuring that poor people benefit from China's economic growth.

  Tibet
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to help the people of Tibet. [6124]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development supports two projects in Tibet that are implemented by Save the Children UK. The goal of these projects is to provide basic services to poor Tibetan communities to improve their access to education, clean water and sanitation facilities. Our funding allocation for these projects is currently £1,227,500.

  Global Health Fund
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the new Global Health Fund to combat malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in developing countries. [6125]

  Clare Short
  The Global Health Fund is being designed to make available more and better drugs and commodities for the prevention and treatment of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS in the poorest countries. It will also provide some associated health systems strengthening to ensure supplies are delivered safely, effectively and equitably.
  297W
  Senior officials from my Department met with other donors, developing countries and multilateral agencies on 11–12 October in order to agree details so that the fund can be launched into operation by 1 January 2002. The UK has pledged US $200 million over five years. Total pledges to date amount to US $1.8 billion.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's activities in Sierra Leone. [6126]

  Clare Short
  In Sierra Leone, my Department is promoting security, by giving substantial support to the police, helping to make the country's Ministry of Defence democratically accountable, and reintegrating ex-combatants from all sides who wish to return to civilian life, providing budgetary support, to help meet the direct costs of running the country and delivering government services, strengthening governance, including by supporting the newly created Anti Corruption Commission, reforming the judiciary, and helping the Government prepare for the elections due next year, and providing substantial support to meet the ongoing humanitarian needs of those displaced by the conflict.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the Government are giving to(a) democracy building and (b) conflict resolution in Sierra Leone. [6132]

  Clare Short
  We are one of the principal donors providing technical and other support to the National Elections Commission, to help ensure that the elections scheduled for next May are conducted freely, fairly and fully in accordance with democratic principles. Much of the rest of our development programme promotes democracy indirectly, by strengthening the processes of governance. Examples include our work to increase the accountability of the agencies responsible for security (police, army, and intelligence services), our support for judicial reform, for reform of governance in the paramount chiefdoms, the anti-corruption commission, and for strengthening the ability of civil society and the media to scrutinise government policy. Conflict resolution is being addressed by our support to the processes of disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration of ex-combatants. Here we are providing logistical assistance and other funding to the implementing agency, as well as funding a reintegration programme in Port Loko with the specific purpose of encouraging local communities to accept returning ex-combatants.

  Indebtedness
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she has made in reducing the debts owed by the poorest countries to G7 countries. [6127]

  Clare Short
  The UK has encouraged other donors, including our G7 partners to provide substantial relief on their bilateral debts. All the G7 countries are now providing 100 per cent. relief on their bilateral debts for countries that have qualified for relief under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative.
  298W
  The UK Government go further than is required under the HIPC and provide 100 per cent. debt relief to countries when they qualify for HIPC relief. The UK Government have also announced that they would hold all debt payments received from HIPC countries in trust, and return those payments to countries when they qualify for HIPC relief. The policy covers all debts owed by Governments in these countries to ECGD and CDC, freeing up more resources for poverty reduction.

  Kosovo
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the welfare of children in Kosovo. [6128]

  Clare Short
  Following the crisis in 1999 we provided £4.5 million to UNICEF for support to schools. Since then we have collaborated with UNMIK and the World Bank in a wide-ranging review of social policy in Kosovo. We are now working jointly with them on social policy reform, which includes the provision of social assistance to families and children in need and social services for the protection of children. We have funded the development by the World bank of a living standards measurement survey for Kosovo, which assesses the situation of families to assist the design and monitoring of social services and benefits. In parallel with this, we are providing support to UNMIK for the strengthening of the Institute of Social Policy which will set standards and quality assurance for children's services across Kosovo. We are also supporting UNMIK with a review of cash benefit systems.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on relieving third-world debt. [6129]

  Clare Short
  Twenty-three countries have now qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, with three countries Bolivia, Mozambique and Uganda having completed the HIPC process. More than $53 billion of debt relief has been agreed for those countries, which together owe $74 billion, so a major part of their debt has been written off. The money released is spent on poverty reduction.

  The impact of that debt reduction means that social expenditure (primarily on health and education) in those countries is projected to rise by $1.7 billion per year. On average, these countries are expected to spend more than three times as much on social sectors in 2001–02 as on debt service. We hope that a further three countries—Ghana, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone—will reach their Decision Point this year. But the prospects of the 11 remaining eligible countries qualifying for relief in the near future are slim, as they are affected by conflict or have yet to demonstrate their commitment to reform. Greater progress on conflict resolution is needed so that these countries can qualify for debt relief.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she has made in working with her counterparts in(a) Europe and (b) other western nations to reduce the burden of debt in less developed countries. [6120]
  299W
  Clare Short
  The international community continues to emphasise its commitment to reducing the debt burden of the poorest indebted countries, so that additional resources could be released for poverty reduction. At Genoa, the G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Also, the Paris Club of Official Bilateral Creditors, which brings together its 19 permanent members from Europe and elsewhere, have agreed to participate fully in the HIPC process, delivering debt relief to countries that have qualified for HIPC.

  Twenty-three countries have now qualified for HIPC relief, with three countries Bolivia, Mozambique and Uganda having completed the HIPC process. More than $53 billion of debt relief has been agreed for those countries, which together owe $74 billion, so a major part of their debt has been written off.

  We hope that a further three countries—Ghana, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone will reach their Decision Point this year. But the prospects of the 11 remaining eligible countries qualifying for relief in the near future are slim, as they are affected by conflict or have yet to demonstrate their commitment to reform. Greater progress on conflict resolution is needed so that these countries can qualify for debt relief.

  The UK is playing a key role in the development of the new Global Health Fund which is designed to make available drugs and commodities for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria in the poorest countries. We have committed £125 million to this initiative which will benefit the poor in Africa and elsewhere.

  In addition, the Government are exploring the potential of a number of options for increasing the long-term affordability and availability of treatment for HIV/AIDS and related infections, while maintaining a focus on the development of sustainable health systems which is needed to deliver them.

  GATS
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to ensure that developing nations benefit from negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services. [6131]

  Clare Short
  The current negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) offer developing countries the potential to gain access to new markets overseas and to benefit from more efficient and competitive services at home. Developing countries are particularly interested in the liberalisation of sectors where they have the greatest export potential. At present these are tourism and the temporary movement of people to work outside their home countries.

  My officials are working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to ensure that UK and EU policy on trade in services takes development considerations into account.

  We are also working with the UN Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on a £350,000 project to strengthen developing country involvement in the services negotiations in Geneva.

  Women's Education
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in what ways her Department contributes to improving the education of women in the poorest countries. [6133]

  Clare Short
  Education is a precondition for development and poverty reduction. Investment in education for girls has been shown consistently to be one of the most important determinants of development, with positive implications for all other measures of progress. We are strongly committed to the international development targets of achieving universal primary education (UPE) by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. My Department's education strategy paper, "The challenge of universal primary education", recognises that achievement of UPE requires unwavering commitment to gender equality. Developing country Governments need to mainstream gender through all their policies and practices and have a real and sustained commitment to change. Since 1997 we have committed over £600 million to support sustainable primary education programmes, all with a strong focus on gender equality. We will do more. Our paper on "Poverty elimination and the empowerment of women" also indicates our commitment to stronger collaboration and co-ordination for the achievement of gender equality among donors, including the European Union, the UN system, the World bank and other international financial institutions.

  AIDS (Africa)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to help southern African countries combat HIV/AIDS. [6135]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is the major development challenge in Southern Africa, and a priority for my Department's funding in that region.

  Building on previous (primarily health) HIV/AIDS initiatives which we have supported in South Africa, I have recently approved the design phase of a £40 million over four years HIV/AIDS Multisectoral Support Programme, the aim of which is to reduce the number of new HIV infections and the impact of HIV/AIDS on individuals, families and communities.

  Also under way is the Regional HIV/AIDS Programme, a commitment of £7.5 million over four years channelled through the SADC Health Sector Co-ordinating Unit, with coverage to Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. The aim of this programme is to develop the capacity within each country, and across the region, to mount an effective response to the HIV epidemic.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further assistance she proposes to deal with AIDS in Africa. [6134]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is the single most important development challenge in Africa. The epidemic is undermining economic growth and fundamentally threatens social and economic development in many countries. We know what needs to be done to tackle the
  301W
  disease, and I strongly believe that commitments by the international community must now be transformed into a world wide effort to contain the spread of the disease.

  My Department continues to give greatest priority to prevention, but we also place great emphasis on reducing the personal, social and economic impact of illness and death caused by the disease.

  As national strategic plans to tackle the epidemic improve, we have begun to place our support within the framework of those plans. For example, we have recently approved significant HIV/AIDS related programmes in support of the national response in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe totalling over £60 million, £25 million for Ghana and a £20 million programme is being designed to support Mozambique. A major new multi sectoral HIV programme for South Africa is also planned for this year. We have also committed £25 million to support the International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa, and £7.5 million to a regional initiative on HIV/AIDS with the Southern Africa Development Community. We are providing £65 million in support of the Nigerian Government's efforts to control the spread of HIV.

  Developing Countries (Governance)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she next plans to meet representatives of the World bank to discuss governance in developing countries. [6136]

  Clare Short
  I have had discussions with the president of the World bank, James Wolfensohn, and his senior officials on a number of occasions throughout the year and, among other topics, have discussed governance.

  My Department considers good governance to be crucial to achievement of the international development targets, and has recently published a Governance Target Strategy Paper. This sets out our agenda for building the capability of the state in developing and transitional countries, to govern in ways that promote poverty eradication. Copies of this document are available in the House of Commons Library and on our website.

  An important priority in our governance strategy is to work in close collaboration with other development agencies, including the World bank, to promote and support a more coherent approach to making government work for poor people. My officials are pursuing this goal with colleagues in the World bank in the context of the Poverty Reduction Strategy framework, on a number of governance-related areas, including public financial management, public sector reform, and judicial reform.

  Turkey
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had regarding the Ilisu Dam project in south-east Turkey. [6137]

  Clare Short
  I have had no discussions on this project.

  Corruption
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to help developing countries fight corruption. [6138]
  302W
  Clare Short
  Our bilateral programmes provide a wide range of assistance depending on the particular needs of each country. This includes support for national anti-corruption strategies (including support for specific anti-corruption agencies); strengthening capacity for public sector budgetary and financial management procurement, accounting and audit; reforming civil service management, enhancing public oversight through strengthened parliamentary committees, developing measures to reduce judicial corruption and supporting civil society to promote transparency and accountability in public life.

  We are also providing support to the UK National Criminal Intelligence Service, as current secretariat to the Egmont Group of national Financial Intelligence Units, to assist developing countries in developing financial intelligence systems to counter money laundering and are working closely with the Home Office to strengthen arrangements for mutual legal assistance, including providing practical guidance to developing country Governments to help them access the UK system.

  The Department is also collaborating with other bilateral development agencies and contributing to multilateral efforts, in particular through supporting the implementation of international conventions against bribery in international trade and strengthening regional anti-money-laundering mechanisms.

  United Nations Agencies
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the United Nations agencies in respect of which her Department acts as the United Kingdom lead Ministry. [6140]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is the lead Ministry for the following United Nations Agencies:

  United Nations Development Programme

  United Nations Children's Fund

  Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

  International Fund for Agricultural Development

  United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

  United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT)

  United Nations Population Fund

  World Food Programme

  UNAIDS—Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS

  United Nations Development Fund for Women

  United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the New East

  United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

  We work closely with the FCO in respect of the following two agencies, where we take the lead on specific issues relating to our work:

  Office of the UN High Commission for Refugees

  Office of the UN High Commission for Human Rights.

  Forced Labour
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress member states have made in ratifying and implementing the provisions
  303W
  of the conventions relating to the elimination of forced and compulsory labour covered by the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. [8072]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  Out of a total of 175 member states, 159 have ratified ILO Convention 29 (Forced Labour), and 155 have ratified ILO Convention 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour). Member states which have ratified the Conventions must report to the ILO on implementation every two years, and member states which have not ratified must report on progress towards ratification every four years.

  Sustainable Development Summit
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultation she(a) has had and (b) will have with (i) the Department for the Environment and (ii) non-governmental organisations regarding the UK's proposals for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. [8312]

  Clare Short
  My Department is closely involved, at both official and ministerial level, in planning and agreeing HMG objectives for the summit. DFID is also in close touch with development NGOs. We will make available a briefing note on the UK position well in advance of the summit. WSSD is one of the three themes for the 2002 series of Development Policy Forums which take place across the UK in the first six months of next year.

  Microcredit Programme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the Government will(a) support the Microcredit programme and (b) propose an increase in the level of UN funding for it; and if she will make a statement. [9029]

  Clare Short
  Microcredit has a very important role to play in achieving the Millennium Development Goal to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.

  Poor people need continuous access to appropriate savings, credit and other financial services. Put together, these services help poor people take advantage of opportunities to increase their incomes and build more secure livelihoods.

  For this reason, DFID has made multi-year investments totalling some £100 million, strengthening micro-finance institutions throughout Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Caribbean. Its bilateral programmes and partnerships with many other agencies support the development and dissemination of best practice in micro-finance. DFID collaborates with many expert institutions in this field. They include the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest, a coalition of donors and micro-finance practitioners developing new tools and approaches to improve delivery of micro-finance services all over the world.

  DFID has also collaborated with the United Nations Development Programme in the Micro-Start programme, and the jointly funded micro Save Programme in East Africa that pilots and replicates new pro-poor savings methodologies. DFID also works with the International
  304W
  Labour Organisation to further the spread of post-conflict micro-finance. We support the allocation of further financial support to this sector, based on the principles of enhancing and replicating best practice, and accessing quality financial services to millions of poor families worldwide.

  Russia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much economic aid has been given to Russia in the last three years; and in what programmes her Department is involved in that country. [9027]

  Clare Short
  In 1999 the international community provided $1.816 billion in net official assistance to Russia. This year, my Department plans to provide approximately £40 million, of which £26 million will be through our direct programme and most of the balance through the EC. The purpose of DFID assistance to Russia is to support the Government's economic and social modernisation programme in order to reduce poverty, as set out in our country Strategy Paper 2001–05 a copy of which is available in the Library. Current priorities include support to WTO accession, public administration reform and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what percentage of the sexually active population in(a) Botswana and (b) Namibia is infected with HIV/AIDS; how many and what percentage are being treated with anti-retroviral drugs; and if she will make a statement. [9064]

  Clare Short
  The best data available are derived from annual surveys of pregnant women seeking ante-natal care. Extrapolations from the 2000 data suggest that up to 306,000 people aged 15 to 49 in Botswana and 190,000 in Namibia are HIV positive. This means that 38.5 per cent. of 15–49 year olds in Botswana and 22.3 per cent. of this group in Namibia are infected. At present, no one in either country receives free anti-retroviral drugs (ARV) from the Government. The Government of Botswana plan to introduce a comprehensive scheme to provide free ARV treatment to all who are HIV positive by the end of the year. Botswana has a national Mother to Child Transmission programme that includes the provision of a single dose of Nevirapine to reduce the risk of peri-natal and ante-natal transmission of HIV.

  Swaziland
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effects on the sugar industry in Swaziland of sugar imports from the EU. [8616]

  Clare Short
  We have not recently made any detailed assessment of the sugar industry in Swaziland.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that more routes for humanitarian aid convoys into Afghanistan are opened up as soon as possible. [8776]
  305W
  Clare Short
  My Department is actively supporting the endeavours of the UN agencies—including the UN World Food Programme, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations to deliver as much food as possible through existing land convoy routes into Afghanistan.

  We are also encouraging the opening of new land convoy routes by backing the representations of international humanitarian agencies to the Governments of neighbouring countries, requesting that they open their borders to allow the transportation of vital relief supplies into Afghanistan. The funds that we are channelling through international aid agencies working in the region are being used to stockpile relief goods in neighbouring countries for assistance to Afghan refugees and for onward transportation into Afghanistan as conditions allow.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been allocated since 11 September for humanitarian relief in Afghanistan; and how it has been distributed. [8781]

  Clare Short
  We have set aside £40 million to respond to the current crisis affecting Afghanistan and neighbouring countries. About £22 million has already been allocated to agencies for their work in the region: approximately £14 million to UN agencies; £3 million to the Red Cross movement; and around £5 million to non-governmental organisations.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment she has made of the impact of the bombing campaign on the delivery of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan; [9074]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the desirability of a temporary cessation in military action in Afghanistan to enable humanitarian aid to be provided. [9075]

  Clare Short
  A temporary cessation in military action would not remove our difficulties in getting supplies into Afghanistan which have been difficult for a long time and were halted after September 11 before the military campaign began.

  The UN has recently increased its delivery of food although this is still short of what is required to lay down sufficient stocks for the winter. The World Food Programme has reported delivery of 6,644 tonnes of food to Afghanistan in the first half of this month. We continue to work with WFP to increase the rate of delivery.

HEALTH

  Spinal Injuries
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to consider the use of methylprednisolone in the emergency treatment of spinal cord injuries; and if he will make a statement; [6746]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent of the use of methylprednisolone in the immediate treatment of spinal cord injuries; and if he will make a statement. [6748]
  306W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: There has been a recent review of the evidence, in the journal Spinal Cord 2000, "High Dose methylprednisolone in the management of acute spinal cord injury—a systematic review from a clinical perspective." Their conclusion was that,
  the evidence produced by this systematic review does not support the use of high dose methylprednisolone in acute spinal cord injury to improve neurological recovery. A deleterious effect on early mortality and morbidity cannot be excluded by this evidence.

  We are committed to keeping all interventions and treatment regimes under scrutiny and will consider commissioning guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence if we believe the treatment will have a significant impact on patient care, National Health Service resources, Government health related policies or the ability to add value, for example by resolving uncertainty over the appropriate use of the technology.

  Pharmacists Remuneration
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid, in 1990 values, to pharmacists for each prescription dispensed in each year since 1990–91. [7268]

  Jacqui Smith
  Remuneration paid to pharmacies is intended to cover the generality of the National Health Service pharmaceutical services they provide. The scope of these services is not restricted just to dispensing prescriptions and has changed over time. The total remuneration to be paid in any given year is distributed through a system of fees and allowances, some of which relate directly to the number (and type) of prescriptions dispensed, some of which do not. However, if the total remuneration paid to pharmacies in each year is divided by the number of dispensing fees paid, the result is as set out in the table.

  Value of payments made to community pharmacies, in England and Wales, per dispensing fee received—1990–91 to 2000–01 (in 1990–91 prices):

  £

  Year

  Value in 1990–91 prices

  1990–91

  1.39

  1991–92

  1.42

  1992–93

  1.33

  1993–94

  1.27

  1994–95

  1.24

  1995–96

  1.21

  1996–97

  1.18

  1997–98

  1.13

  1998–99

  1.09

  1999–2000

  1.08

  2000–01

  1.05

  Trolley Waits (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average waiting time on a trolley before admission to Leicestershire hospitals in the last 12 months. [8523]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the 12 months from the beginning of July 2000 to the end of June 2001, 15,690 patients were
  307W
  admitted as an emergency through the accident and emergency department at University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust.

  Sudden Death Syndrome
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the different methods available for screening young people for the conditions constituting sudden death syndrome. [8860]

  Jacqui Smith
  Sudden adult death syndrome is not one single condition but a group of conditions which result in the sudden and unexpected death of apparently healthy young adults.

  Many of the deaths in this syndrome appear to be caused by cardiomyopathies. Our policy is that the relatives of a family with a known high risk of contracting this disease should receive regular cardiovascular examinations.

  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee (NSC) advises Ministers, the devolved National Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament on all aspects of screening policy. The NSC does not currently recommend screening for cardiomyopathy but is keeping its position under review.

  The Department is working closely with the medical profession and voluntary organisations with a view to producing clear clinical guidance, which will play a key role in raising awareness, and in improving the diagnosis and testing of people at risk.

  Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate of the number of people who have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. [8861]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected, although data can be provided on hospital in-patient care.

  The figures in the table are taken from the hospital episode statistics database, which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in national health service hospitals in England.

  The number of finished consultant episodes for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the 1999–2000 data year are as follows:

  Number

  Obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

  454

  Other hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

  172

  A finished consultant episode is a period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. These figures do not represent the number of patients as a person may have more than one episode within the year.

  National Strategy for Alcohol
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in publishing and consulting on a national strategy for alcohol. [8867]
  308W
  Jacqui Smith
  The broad timetable for the strategy is set out in the NHS Plan, which was published in July 2000. The plan said that the Department would be implementing the strategy by 2004. The Department expects to publish a consultation paper in due course.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the steps his Department is taking to reduce drug abuse in Worcestershire. [8627]

  Mr. Hutton
  Worcestershire health authority has a countywide strategy for substance misuse which has been agreed by all the relevant agencies. The health authority is leading on the following initiatives included in the action plan for March 2001 to April 2002:To set up a community drug team in the south of Worcestershire
  To increase and improve existing needle exchange provision
  To improve access to and provision of services for women, including pregnant women
  To assess the treatment and care needs of ethnic minority groups to improve access to services
  To further promote and encourage general practitioner liaison and shared care
  Working with community pharmacies and the local pharmaceutical committee to pilot supervised methadone consumption schemes in 2–3 local pharmacies, and review the results.

  The multi-agency drug action team is currently working to implement the strategy across the county.

  In addition, the health authority received £1.14 million (for 2001–02) from the Department to reduce drug abuse in Worcestershire.

  Keyworker Accommodation
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that all vacant National Health Service property suitable for use as National Health Service keyworker accommodation will be considered for that use in priority to any other use. [9502]

  Mr. Hutton
  As set out in the Department's estate-code section on priority purchase, it is our policy that surplus National Health Service property will be made available for other healthcare users, and this includes the provision of key-worker accommodation in appropriate locations. The Department is further required to follow Government accounting principles in the disposal of surplus NHS property to ensure value for money.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the findings of the Zito Trust report "The Practice Gap in Schizophrenia"; and if he will make a statement. [9504]

  Jacqui Smith
  The publication of the Zito Trust report "The Practice Gap in Schizophrenia" was welcome, timed as it was to be relevant to the work that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is carrying out for us to advise on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the use of
  309W
  atypical antipsychotic drugs in treatment of schizophrenia relative to conventional antipsychotics. This technology appraisal will contribute to the ongoing development of a guideline on the management of schizophrenia which should be published in 2002.

  Hip Operations
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip operations have been carried out in Leicestershire in each year since 1992 and for the last year for which figures are available. [9084]

  Mr. Hutton
  Finished consultant episodes (FCE) where a hip replacement operation was performed at national health service hospitals in the Leicestershire health authority area from 1992–93 to 1999–2000 are set out in the table. 1999–2000 is the latest year for which official figures are available.

  Year

  Number

  1992–93

  817

  1993–94

  817

  1994–95

  732

  1995–96

  936

  1996–97

  966

  1997–98

  791

  1998–99

  968

  1999–2000

  979

  Notes:

  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. Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  NHS Patients (Europe)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who authorises sending NHS patients for surgery in Europe. [9427]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under the E112 scheme provided by European Community law for referral of individual patients for hospital treatment within the European Economic Area (EEA) authorisations are made by the Department on behalf of England, Wales and Scotland, generally after obtaining the agreement of the patient's national health service consultant and health authority. Northern Ireland operates its authorisation scheme independently.

  Following recent rulings of the European Court of Justice NHS bodies now have the power to commission treatment for their patients in EEA countries, as part of wider efforts to reduce waiting times.

  Kington Hospital (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in building Kington Hospital in Herefordshire. [9043]

  Mr. Hutton
  Herefordshire Primary Care Trust and Herefordshire county council are working in partnership with an independent sector provider, Blanchworth Care, to improve health and social care services in Kington.
  310W
  Blanchworth Care will build a new health facility in Kington, to which all of the services provided in the existing Kington Hospital will be relocated.

  Contract discussions are at a very advanced stage with all parties expecting to be able to conclude an agreement and sign a contract soon. Blanchworth Care has already secured a site for the new facility and will be in a position to commence work as soon as the contract is completed.

  Social and Care Workers
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to recruit and retain social and care workers. [9266]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 19 October 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £1.5 million recruitment campaign, which is designed to increase the number of people interested in careers in social work and social care work in England. As well as this action to tackle recruitment problems, the Department is also working with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services to help employers implement policies to improve recruitment and retention of staff.

  Auxiliary Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pay increases have been awarded to auxiliary nurses each year since April 1997. [10214]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Pay increases awarded to A and B grade nurses since 1997

  Year

  Grades A and B

  1997

  4.1 per cent, from 1 December 1997

  (2.0 per cent, from 1 April 1997)

  1998

  3.8 per cent, from 1 December 1998

  (2.0 per cent, from 1 April 1998)

  1999

  4.7 per cent.

  2000

  3.4 per cent.

  2001

  3.7 per cent.

  Note:

  All staged settlements are shown in full with the date of implementation first, followed by initial payment and date.

  Source:

  Advance letters, report of review body for nursing staff, midwives and health visitors

  NHS Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate has been made of the financial effect on the NHS of delayed discharge problems in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [9716]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS as a result of delayed discharges from hospitals in the last 12 months. [9718]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients who have their discharge from an acute hospital bed delayed may be awaiting transfer to other national health service care (such as intermediate care), transfer to a nursing or residential care home or for a package of care and support to allow them to return
  311W
  to their own home. It is not possible to calculate a meaningful overall monetary cost to the NHS of this delay.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds have been occupied in each health authority area in England and Wales in each of the latest nine months for which figures are available as a result of delayed discharges. [9717]
  312W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Prior to June 2001 only data on delays to patients over 75 were collected centrally. From June 2001 figures have been collected for all adult patients, as well as those over 75, in order to give a more comprehensive picture of the reasons for delayed discharges.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
Kenneth Wiggins Maginnis, Esquire, having been created Baron Maginnis of Drumglass, of Carnteel in the County of Tyrone, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Molyneaux of Killead and the Lord Rogan.
Lord Adebowale
Victor Olufemi Adebowale, CBE, having been created Baron Adebowale, of Thornes in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Listowel and the Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Police Officers: Retirement
2.49 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
By whom the consideration of encouragement to suitable police officers to delay their retirement is being carried out; and when such consideration is expected to be concluded and its results made public.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the consultants Capita were engaged on 11th September to compile a report to review options and make recommendations as to how suitable officers might be encouraged to delay their retirement. Capita has now completed its report. The results will be given full consideration as part of the police reform process and will be published in due course.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that police officers who retire after 30 years' service gain very substantial financial benefits which they lose if they postpone their retirement? Does this not mean that far too many police officers are forced into retirement at just the time they are most experienced, often at the age of 48 which many noble Lords will regard as extremely young? At a time when so many police officers are being transferred to security duties, when other police jobs are not being done properly and when nearly every police force in the country is understaffed and overstretched, does my noble friend agree that, surely, this antique, grotesque and archaic rule should be changed?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend puts it in graphic terms, but that was the central purpose of asking Capita to have a look at the situation. Capita has interviewed the key people involved, stakeholders and the officers concerned, and—I blush when I say it—has held focus groups involving volunteer police constables and sergeants. It has also held discussions with key people on the very issue of human resources. There is a disincentive to police officers to remain. After 30 years they can take their full pension and there is a disincentive in not doing so. We want to encourage more flexibility and value for money. However, I must take issue with one point raised by my noble friend. The police are doing the job correctly, although they are a bit thin on the ground in certain parts of the country at the moment for reasons that we all understand.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the recruitment of police officers across many police forces is below Home Office targets? Does he also accept that it is not only a question of recruitment but also of retention of officers? Will he consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that in these circumstances we should not lose the most valuable officers, particularly when they come to retire? Is this the right policy at the present time, bearing in mind that recruitment is difficult?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I said to my noble friend that the implication of carrying out the review is that the Government accept that there need to be changes in the policy across a wide field, not just the age of retirement but the pension itself, so that they can make the best use of those officers who wish to remain in the police service but who see a disadvantage in doing so. The noble Lord is quite right. Police recruitment last year was up by just over 1,300, but in total it is still lower than in 1997. Under the crime fighting fund we expect to recruit 9,000 officers over a three-year period and to that extent we are on track for an increase. However, there is a problem to be dealt with and the review is part of that.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree that policing on the streets is clearly better served by younger officers, but in the investigation of murder and fraud there is a pool of talent, skill and experience which is lost when people retire? Does he agree that one reason for retirement is the silly rule about tenure introduced in the past few years, which I understand is to be abolished, whereby police officers are transferred out of specialist departments for no reason other than the fact that they have been there for a number of years? Some chief officers are more enlightened than others. Does the Minister agree that where people have investigative skills in specialist departments they should be retained and encouraged to stay in the job?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I freely admit that I am not supremely qualified to answer detailed questions about tenure, but I am aware that when it was introduced in the West Midlands some years ago it caused considerable difficulties for many officers. All things are good ideas at the time they are introduced, but it is a matter of how they work in practice. Some of the 43 chief constables—I am aware that my noble friend believes that there are too many of them—have decided to change the situation. That matter is best left in their hands.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can my noble friend be clearer on the date when the consultants will report their findings? Perhaps I may request that they do not rush into it. Although there are advantages in encouraging officers to stay on, there are also disadvantages for the line of promotion and so on. I declare an interest in that in the next two months my son, who has served in the police force for 30 years—for two years before that he was a cadet—is to retire. It is interesting that I am able to see my son retire at a comparatively young age.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a problem sometimes in the way that an organisation is structured with ceilings and promotion blockage. That is in no one's interest—either of those doing the blocking or those who are seeking promotion. Such a situation requires flexibility in the use of the available human resources.
I regret that I cannot give a date. The issue is being considered at the moment. The House will expect to see police reform legislation during this Session. This exercise will form part of that process. The issue of police reform goes much wider than retirement and pensions and is highly complex. We have this opportunity, and proposals will be before the House during this parliamentary Session.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister say whether in other parts of the public sector where there are known to be shortages of skills and experience similar possibilities are being explored?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, when I answered a similar Question on 12th July I referred to the report from the Performance and Innovation Unit, Winning the Generation Game. When the report was published it made clear that in this country, between the age of 50 and retirement, there were 3 million economically inactive people. That is an enormous waste of this country's greatest asset, which is people's willingness and capacity to work. It happens right across the public and private sectors. The matter is being actively considered throughout Whitehall in the different departments as well as in the private sector. There is no one magic solution. If there is one issue to be dealt with, it is what I consider—I am speaking for myself at the moment—to be the sometimes archaic Inland
968
Revenue rules which cause difficulties for people. That issue is being addressed following the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit.

Economic Growth
2.57 p.m.
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what limit they would be prepared to allow a budget deficit to expand to maintain economic growth in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, sound public finances are essential for economic stability and growth. The Government's fiscal rules have put the public finances on a sound footing to allow them to support growth in the face of adverse shocks. Fully consistent with the fiscal rules, the 2001 Budget projections showed modest borrowing of 1 per cent of GDP in the medium term to finance capital investment in priority public services.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In the short term, the Government's surplus will weaken due to the weakening UK economy prior to 11th September, foot and mouth, and after the terrorist outrage of 11th September. In the longer term—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Northbrook: —the finances will weaken because of independent projections. City projections are forecasting a deficit by 2004–5. The golden rule—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Northbrook:—restricts the Government's level of borrowing.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, the Home Secretary stated that he wishes for decreased spending. The Prime Minister has asked for higher taxation. This is very confusing. Can I ask which approach the Minister favours?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have never pretended that public finances in this country are immune from economic changes, either in our own economy or in the world economy. When we come to the Pre-Budget Report next month the noble Lord will have an answer to his Question. What I shall not do is to give a running commentary on the public finances of this country.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, if the so-called war leads to extra expenditure which may be a temporary strain, do the Government agree that the key answer will be borrowing at the lowest possible terms? Will the

969
Government look again at Keynes's work, How to Pay for the War, which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—I do not think that he is here today—described as perhaps his greatest achievement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have great pleasure in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in his absence. The general theory has a good deal to be said for it and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, referred to it in the introduction to his question. Of course borrowing is one of our options, but it would depend on what kind of expenditure is involved as regards both military and humanitarian aid for Afghanistan.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can the noble Lord reflect on the contribution or otherwise made to national productivity by the Inland Revenue? The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to the Revenue in a response to the previous Question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has couched his question in uncharacteristically neutral terms and thus I do not know whether he is referring to the malign influence of the Inland Revenue or its benign influence. Perhaps we should discuss this point at some other time because it does not follow on from the Question tabled on the Order Paper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if we were to enter a serious recession, would the Government feel constrained by the 3 per cent rule imposed under the Maastricht Treaty, which would prevent our public borrowing from exceeding 3 per cent of GDP?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Stability and Growth Pact, to which I believe my noble friend Lord Stoddart has referred, requires that the United Kingdom, as a member of ECOFIN, should submit a convergence programme. We are committed to avoiding excessive deficits. In return for that commitment, we take part in the surveillance programme, both at official meetings and in ministerial meetings at ECOFIN. Furthermore, the commitment that our public finances should be held close to balance or in surplus would be our policy whether or not we were members of the European Union.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can I ask my noble friend to remind noble Lords that the Chancellor is committed to a fiscal policy which balances current expenditure with current income over the cycle? That means that, in a recession, the finances can go into deficit as long as an equivalent surplus is achieved during a boom. Incidentally, that is precisely Keynes's view of the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston for reminding us of what was Keynes's opinion and what is the Government's position. As he has rightly pointed out,
970
both say the same: the Government will use the public finances as appropriate; that is, to boost demand when the economy falls below trend and to dampen demand when the economy rises above it. That Keynesian principle is sensible and is reflected in government policy.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, perhaps I may offer the Minister a slightly different interpretation of the public finances. During the Government's first term of office, when they largely followed the inherited economic plans of the previous administration, they generated a surplus of around £34 billion. However, is it not right that during the Government's second term—the current term—they are planning to borrow £34 billion? Those plans were made before the events of 11th September. Does the Minister agree that that is a good definition of boom and bust?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept the premise set out by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. During the first two years of our administration, we did not follow the previous government's economic plans; rather, we followed their spending plans. That is quite different. Over that time, we made plans for and began to increase expenditure on essential public services, paying particular attention to capital expenditure and investment, which had been so sadly neglected by the Conservative government.

Teacher Vacancies
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many teacher vacancies were recorded at the beginning of the autumn term.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, a telephone survey of 1,500 schools taken in September indicated that there were about 2,000 vacancies in maintained nursery primary and secondary schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she agree that the situation is rather worse than that indicated by her response? A large number of vacancies have been filled by teachers who are being asked to teach subjects for which they are not trained. Ultimately, that will not help to raise standards and certainly is not good for children.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I should make it clear that the definition we used for this purpose covered full-time appointments that had been advertised for at least one term. That should be put on the record so that the point is made absolutely clear.
The noble Baroness will know that we have not collected information on the shortage of teaching provision by subject since 1997, when we learnt that

971
82 per cent of secondary school lessons were being taught by those with appropriate qualifications. We are investigating whether we should now conduct a further survey, bearing in mind the need to ensure that we do not increase the load on teachers. Although we know that vacancy rates are high in certain subjects—maths at 2.1 per cent and ICT at 2.8 per cent—teacher shortages for the rest of the main subjects stand at under 2 per cent. We have looked carefully at the applicants coming into PGCE and other courses this year, recognising that there has been an increase in applications for those subjects where previously we had shortages.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the survey conducted during September showed that there are over 1,000 teacher vacancies in primary schools? In view of that, and in view of the continuing problems regarding the retention of teachers in primary schools, can she explain to the House why this year the department has seen fit to cut by 600 the number of training places available for primary education?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the figure for primary school teacher vacancies is indeed 1,000, which represents 0.6 per cent of the places available for teachers. We are not complacent. Some 6,000 more teacher training places are now being provided than was the case 10 years ago. Furthermore, we have introduced a raft of measures, including school-based training places for mature graduates who wish to change careers. The number of such places available has been trebled to 2,250. We have funded 1,800 refresher courses per year to cater for returning teachers. We have put in place welcome-back bonuses, we have changed the rules on pension schemes and we are allowing more time for teachers trained overseas to study for their UK qualifications. All of these measures form part of the strategy to attract and retain teachers.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the Minister given any consideration to the enormous problem of teacher vacancies in London, in particular as it relates to housing? Teachers cannot afford housing in London. Has she considered whether the old tied house system might be a help in London? The tied house system helped 19th century education. Teachers cannot afford to live in London and it is no use simply employing Australians.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the teacher vacancy rate in London currently stands at 4.3 per cent. I agree with the noble Lord that that is above the average and is thus a matter for concern. We have put in place the starter home initiative for teachers. I am not sure whether the teachers I know well would fancy the idea of a tied house, but certainly
972
teachers are very interested in the starter home initiative, which will help some 3,500 teachers to buy their first home this year.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that reducing the burden of bureaucracy would help to attract more people into the teaching profession? Over 70 documents have been issued to schools since teachers returned after the summer holidays. In view of that, does the Minister further agree that the burden of paperwork is still far too heavy? The department has not yet succeeded in appropriately reducing that burden.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that a review is currently being undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers, in conjunction with the teaching unions, to look at the levels of bureaucracy in schools. There are three aspects to the bureaucracy burden: first, the DfES—although we do endeavour to reduce the burden; secondly, local education authorities and others; and, thirdly, many teachers undertake roles that have nothing to do with teaching. Examples of that are: collecting in money; filling paint pots; and answering the telephone. We need to find different ways of reducing the bureaucratic burden on teachers. Increasing the number of support staff in schools is important and we are committed to doing that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 2,000 vacancies for a profession employing some 450,000 people does not seem to be a high vacancy rate, especially when compared with some other industries and services? In the context of this Question, what progress is being made to attract more men into the teaching profession, in particular into primary school education?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to point out that the vacancy rate of 0.6 per cent compares favourably with the latest government statistics showing an average vacancy rate of 1.5 per cent. Nevertheless, every teacher not in place in a classroom has a dramatic impact on the children so affected. I would not wish to underestimate that problem. It is certainly true that there are issues in regard to men coming into primary education, although there are more issues about men coming into early years. If the noble Lord has been watching the TV advertisements that we have been putting out recently, he will have seen that we have specifically produced role models of young men coming into early years as a way of attracting them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in this time of an acknowledged deficit of full-time teachers, to what extent are supply teachers filling the gap? To what extent are our children not being educated?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, supply teachers play an important role. We are working with supply teacher organisations to increase the

973
qualifications and training of supply teachers. There is no doubt that for some schools there are real difficulties. I do not wish to under-estimate that. We are doing all that we can to increase the numbers of people returning to the profession, coming into the profession and staying within the profession. I have outlined some of the measures. I would be happy to outline more, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House today. We hope that all these measures together will address the problem.

Lamb Consumption: Safety
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What, in the aftermath of the failure of the study commissioned into BSE, is the current advice on the safety of eating lamb, especially in relation to food given to babies.
'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government set up the independent Food Standards Agency to advise on food safety. The agency's advice continues to be that while consumers should be aware of the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep, it does not advise them to avoid consumption of lamb. This applies equally to all sections of the population, including babies.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that the Government set up the Food Standards Agency—with a great deal of ballyhoo and taxpayers' money—and then proceeded to give it the wrong answers to tell consumers? Does he further agree that it was a marvellous example of double talk when his noble friend Lord Whitty said in your Lordships' House last Monday that no advice has been given to consumers not to eat sheep meat? Will the Minister, please, now tell consumers in a straightforward way whether or not it is dangerous? Will he relieve the fears of many parents about baby food? While he is doing that and giving a straight answer, will he also apologise for the whole fiasco?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the FSA was not responsible for the commissioning of the research. That was the responsibility of DEFRA. So far as concerns giving straight advice to the public, the very reason the Government set up the Food Standards Agency was because of what happened with BSE under the previous government. The FSA has said—and it reiterated its position at a board meeting on Monday—that the risk of BSE in sheep remains theoretical and that it is not advising against the consumption of lamb. That was not the response of my noble friend Lord Whitty but the response of the Food
974
Standards Agency. That advice applies equally to meat used for infants as for any other section of the population.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, given the mistake that came to light last week, does my noble friend the Minister believe that the FSA is building public confidence in the safety of food?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is probably referring to the original comment made by the chair of the Food Standards Agency on the "Today" programme, when he said that all lamb in baby food is sourced from outside the UK. Within a very short time he had made clear that he had misremembered the fact on that broadcast. The fact is that most, but not all, lamb is sourced from outside the UK. Sir John corrected himself as quickly as he possibly could. So far as concerns the performance of the agency, it has a very important role in enhancing public confidence in food in this country. It has made a steady start. Building confidence is a long-term process, but the work that it has done, the surveys of public attitudes to food and food safety, the publication of a comprehensive food labelling action plan and the involvement of members of the public in its work show that it has made a substantial start.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Welsh lamb is the best meat in the world? Does he agree that we should congratulate the Welsh Development Agency on its excellent promotional work in persuading the British housewife and others to buy our produce?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall, of course, have to refer to the Food Standards Agency for advice. However, as I am hoping to go to Wales tonight, I shall certainly take advantage of the noble Lord's advice.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, he said that most of the lamb we eat comes from abroad. Does he not consider this to be a disgrace when so many of our farmers are in difficulties? Can he do anything to persuade people to eat more home-grown lamb and less imported lamb?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lady may have misunderstood me. I was referring to the consumption of lamb used in the production of infant food. So far as concerns the consumption of mutton and lamb generally in this country, my understanding is that in 2000, 395,000 tonnes of beef and sheep meat were produced for home consumption, with exports of 134,000 tonnes. The position is a lot better than the noble Lady suggested.
Earl Howe: My Lords, taking the Question back to baby food, can the Minister say whether any lamb that is processed in the UK for baby food is sourced from any country where scrapie in sheep is endemic?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, not as far as I am aware, although I shall follow up that matter with

975
the noble Earl. We obviously have to be concerned that imported lamb which is used in products in this country is as safe as possible.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, given that the FSA is an independent body and ought not to be susceptible to manipulation, is it subject to any sanction by the Government for the advice that it tenders?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is worth reiterating the point that Sir John corrected the misleading statement that he made on the "Today" programme within a very short period of time. Anyone can seek redress from the agency through its own published complaints procedure. Complainants can also ask, through their MP, for their case to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and, of course, it is always subject to judicial review. The chair, deputy chair and board members can be removed from office by Ministers who make their appointments for any serious failure by the agency. But, in general, these matters are best discussed through proper dialogue between government and the Food Standards Agency. As I said, my own view is that the agency's performance over the first few years has been satisfactory. It is making progress in ensuring that public confidence is enhanced in food that is produced in this country. We shall encourage the FSA to continue that work.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given the implications for both health and the British farming industry, is the Minister satisfied that the amount of money given to this research by the Government—some £1,000 per week—is sufficient? The implications of anything affecting the sheep flock are huge.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that the thousands of pounds per week refers to a specific project of research. My understanding is that the Government as a whole are funding 140 projects, which are looking at the whole issue of BSE and TSEs. Of that funding, DEFRA provides £17 million and my own department £4 million. There is a substantial research element. Of course, in the light of what has happened in the past few days, I have no doubt that SEAC and the Food Standards Agency will be providing more advice to the Government on research and what needs to happen. We shall pay very careful attention to that advice.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. After that, my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the
976
House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on Northern Ireland. The Statements are likely to be taken after the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield in the first debate.

Public Service
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford rose to call attention to the concept of service, especially in the public sector; and to move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have put their names on the list of speakers. There is clearly much wisdom and experience on which to draw. I particularly look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Moser, Lord MacGregor, Lord Chan and Lord Condon.
A few years ago, I was speaking to the distinguished headmaster of one of our distinguished schools. I lamented that his school, which in previous generations had produced a great number of ordinands for the Church of England, no longer did so. "Oh, Richard", he replied, "the whole concept of service has gone". That phrase has haunted me ever since, and in part lies behind this debate. Yet I hope that we may be able to go beyond a mere lament to ask some critical questions. Has the concept of service in our society really gone? If it has, in what way is that a loss? If it is a loss, and is regretted, what might be done to recover it?
In tabling this Motion, I had in mind three interrelated aspects. The first is the concept of service generally which might motivate people in both their private and their public lives, their voluntary activity and their careers. The second is the voluntary sector. The third is the public sector—in particular focusing on whether we need to do more as a society to value those in the public sector who have traditionally seen their role as one of public service.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the concept of public service generally. I take for granted—not only from a Christian perspective, to which it is fundamental, but from other perspectives, both religious and nonreligious—that the desire to be of some use to other people is fundamental to our human nature. People who live only for themselves are pretty unattractive; we do not choose them as either friends or colleagues.
Self-interest is also part of our nature. Without it, we should not survive for more than a few hours. But so is altruism. It is that mixture that makes us what we are. A civilised society, let alone a Christian one, will encourage the altruistic side of our nature. A settled cynicism which assumes that people always act out of their own narrow or short-term interest saps the human spirit and undermines the human community.
The desire to help others to be of some use can be expressed in many ways, through a person's whole career or through a neighbourly act of kindness within the family or in the wider community. The voluntary sector is one important area of our society where the

977
concept of service finds fruitful expression. The year 2001 is the Year of the Volunteer. It is said that 25 per cent of the population take part in one piece of voluntary work a year. Over 50,000 people are involved in running charity shops. In Oxfordshire alone, there are more than 2,000 voluntary organisations.
Yet voluntary organisations often experience difficulties in recruitment. In many families both husband and wife work. People work very long hours and, understandably, when they come home they want to see something of their family or simply recover for the next week. But there is also straight, old-fashioned hedonism. People are out to enjoy themselves. Today, we have the wonderful addition of life which we know as the "third age". People retire early and live into their 80s. They may have 30 years with time, money and health—a situation that has never previously arisen in human history. It is a wonderful time for voluntary activity. But I am not sure that volunteers in their third age are coming forward in the numbers that were once expected or hoped for. Driving along a few years ago, I saw a couple of camper vans with large placards on the hack. They read: "We're too old to work, we're too young to die. So off we go, just Mum and I"!
I like to enjoy myself as much as anyone else, but a hedonistic society is neither healthy nor civilised. There used to be a sense of noblesse oblige. I recall the wonderful remark by the mother of Sir Alec Douglas Home about her son:
"I think it's so good of Alec to do Prime Minister".
There is less noblesse around; and there is certainly less sense of obligation.
A good society is one in which voluntary service in the community is encouraged in our schools and forms part of the ethos of our universities. Not only is it promoted by Churches and religious bodies; it is also seen by businesses as being important. I am glad to say that among some of our more enlightened companies that is now the case. It is a form of service that cart find particular expression in the third age when people have experience and wisdom as well as having some energy left.
The state does not, should not and cannot respond to the whole range of human needs. Voluntary bodies have a crucial role to play. They can be sensitive to local conditions. They can innovate. They can campaign on behalf of the vulnerable. I shall not say more about this aspect of the expression of service because I know that a number of your Lordships with great experience of contributing to society in various ways will be sharing their wisdom with us.
I now turn to the third aspect of this subject; namely, the concept of service in the public sector. The ideal of a public service ethic has its roots in the late 19th century as a result of the influence of a group of dons who saw the university as a training ground for service for the common good. That tradition lives on. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, was one of those who wrote to me saying that they wanted to take part in the debate but were unfortunately prevented from doing so because of business abroad. The noble Lord gave me permission to quote his words:
978
"Public service … is a high and honourable calling and the sense of being in the public service, or the service of the public, gives meaning and value to the work that the public servant does, however apparently humdrum it may be".
Although many people who work in the public sector still feel the strength of that ideal, there is also evidence to the contrary. Someone told me that people now move into the Civil Service for a few years simply to add something more to their CV.
Clearly, the move to privatisation in some spheres of the public service has been unsettling to people personally, as well as calling into question the public service ethos. But what concerns me even more is the denigration that some sectors of the public service have received in recent decades. Those whom we expect to pick up the pieces of a broken society—teachers and social workers—have been caricatured. Civil servants are lampooned; and now doctors are receiving a great deal of criticism.
People who work in the public sector on the whole receive less financial reward than those in the private spheres. In the past, the compensation for that 'was the respect in which they were held by the public, which in turn reinforced their desire to serve the public as professionally as possible. When there is nothing but constant criticism, something fundamental to our society is being eroded. 'To quote the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, again:
"Politicians and members of the media need to be reminded that public service is an honourable calling and that if the pride of public servants in their calling and in their profession is too greatly undermined, it will not be just the public servants who suffer. Those who depend on the work of the public services and the body politic at large will also be the losers".
I am not ideologically opposed to privatisation. Clearly, it has brought: about and can continue to bring about not only greater efficiency but a much greater service to the public. Furthermore, I do not accept that those who work in the private sector are motivated only by the prospect of greater financial reward. The recent work of Professor Charles Handy indicates clearly that businessmen, like all human beings, need a larger purpose than simply making money.
The American retailing group, Dayton Hudson, has as its mission statement:
"The business of business is serving society, not just making money. Profit is our reward for serving society well. Indeed, profit is the means and measure of our service—not an end in itself'.
That, I believe, gets matters the right way round.
At the same time, there is clearly some truth in the claim that those who work for state-run bureaucracies are also motivated by self-interest, like all of us, and that the bureaucracies themselves are an interest group. So there is not an absolute divide between the private sector and the public sector.
Nevertheless, if we take the paradigm case of the armed services (and that description is itself significant) or the police, or the core of the Civil Service, these will always remain in the public sphere. Their ethos needs to continue to be one of service to society and they need to continue to be bodies which can be both respected and trusted. Of course, there

979
need also to be proper systems of accountability, quality control, audit and so on. But none of this can be a substitute for an environment in which there are high standards of professionalism motivated by a desire to serve and resulting in a sense of pride to be working in the service of society.
In New York recently people have been clapping fire crew and the police in the streets. That stands in sharp contrast to the declining esteem in which public servants now appear to be held in the United Kingdom. Pay is, of course, a factor. When differentials with the private sector are too great people will either move out or not be recruited at all, as is the case at the moment with teachers. During the 1970s I was chairman of a Church of England comprehensive school. It was a time when, historically, for the first time ever, the salaries of teachers were comparable with those of doctors. Whenever we advertised a post, we had a large number of highly qualified and well motivated applicants. Unfortunately, the same point cannot be made now. In the nursing profession more and more nurses are having to be recruited from overseas. Public servants, like the rest of us, need to be appreciated. The obvious indicator of the extent to which we in society are willing to value those in the public sector is by ensuring that their salaries do not get too far out of kilter with those working in the private sphere.
In prisons, education and the National Health Service, various schemes have been tried in recent decades to improve efficiency such as contracting out, quasi and internal markets, rights, entitlements and citizen's charters. Much of this is salutary and effective. Nevertheless, they cannot be a substitute for an ethos which encourages a high standard of professionalism out of a sense of service to the community and resulting in a sense of pride to be serving in that way. Whatever else may be done to ensure an efficient and accountable public sector, moral values remain fundamental.
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, kindly sent me a copy of a substantial and philosophically finely honed lecture of his, for which I am grateful, in which he states:
"I did not find it very surprising … when the unilateral alteration of teachers' contracts in the mid 1980s led to teachers in state schools not being willing to give up hours out of school to provide sports etc. The rational calculation is that if I am required to stick to a contract as a constraint on my behaviour as a member of a producer interest group, then I will stick to the contract no more and no less. An appeal was made by the then Secretary of State to the professionalism of teachers but that was pretty well bound to fall on stony ground when the whole thrust of the reform had been to treat professionals as a self interested interest group rather than animated by a service culture … If all human motivation is reduced to the rational calculation of interest we could certainly end up with a contractual society, but it will be a very attenuated vision of a good society if people motivated on the assumptions behind the model worked to contract and nothing else—discounting any idea of common good or common purpose".
The noble Lord, Lord Plant, also said, quite correctly,
"If we design institutions on the assumption that people will always act in a self interested way, this very design may well encourage this to happen even in areas where it did not do so before, as the teachers' example shows".
I believe, along with people of many religions and none, that there is an altruistic side to human nature as well as a self-interested one and that this altruism expresses itself in a desire to be of use to others. I also believe that it is fundamental to a civilised society that we create an ethos in which this desire to serve is encouraged and reinforced. This desire to serve can take many forms, private and public, within the local community and within wider society. It can motivate not only individual acts of helpfulness but a whole career whether in the private or the public sector. In particular it finds expression through the voluntary sector which is, I believe, of fundamental and growing importance in our society. It has traditionally been fundamental to those working in the public sector.
Instead of the current disparagement of those working in the public service, we need a concentrated campaign to raise the esteem in which they are held. There are many good stories of devoted care in the NHS, dedication in teaching and high standards in the Civil Service. These are stories that need to be in people's minds for a proper respect for those working in the public sphere will in turn reinforce the desire to serve to the highest standards.
Whatever reforms are necessary in the public sphere, I believe that the ethos and ethic of service is not only worth preserving but that if it was lost something essential to the well-being of our society would also be lost. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Moser: My Lords, in my years as an academic I became used to speaking for one hour at a time and I became disciplined in that respect, so five minutes on this occasion is a challenge, but I shall do my best.
First, I thank everyone here, Members and officials, for their warm welcome which has meant a great deal to me. Of course, I am deeply honoured to find myself in your Lordships' House. It was a particularly happy occasion for me that the very day my peerage was announced was 65 years to the day when my family came to England as Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany. We were, indeed, lucky to find ourselves here. I have been grateful every day of my life for the welcome we received, the friendship shown to us from the beginning and the future that lay before us.
I have been proud to spend most of my working life and, indeed, my non-working life, in the public sector. That is one reason why I so welcome this debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. He has emphasised the public sector which to me is without question at the heart of a good, caring and fair society. I am, of course, aware that there are elements of the public sector which from time to time benefit from and, indeed, need the help of private enterprise but, in my view at any rate, that should not

981
deflect us from putting the public sector at the very heart and at centre stage of our society. It deserves involvement and a spirit of service from all of us. ft has not had that in all the years I have been here. There has been considerable underfunding and lack of morale. However, I believe that all that is in process of improvement.
It seems to me, and has always seemed to me, that within the public sector nothing is more important than education. Education is also at the heart of the feeling of service which is what this debate is about. I refer to education all the way from nursery school to graduate studies—which should be planned as a truly seamless web of life-long learning. Happily, much has improved in recent years but the challenges that remain are to my mind formidable.
I have time only to comment on one particular element in which I am involved partly as chairman of the admirable Basic Skills Agency. I refer, of course, to people's ability to read, to write and to cope with numbers. Without those basic abilities there is little point in thinking about service or anything else. A year or two ago I chaired a committee which dealt with adult literacy and numeracy. It reported exactly two and a half years ago and our findings, which are relevant to this debate, rightly shocked the nation. It emerged that something like 7 million adults—one in five of all the adults one sees wandering the streets of this country—have serious problems of literacy and numeracy. We love league tables. As a statistician I do not, but most of us do. In that league table, we come second from bottom in Europe. It is a shameful situation for a rich country. Many of those most affected are unemployed or in menial jobs from which they cannot escape. Many are inevitably en route to social exclusion. Not surprisingly, as your Lordships know, some 60 per cent of people in our prisons are unable to read or write. It is truly shocking.
Our report set out an ambitious strategy, seeking to tackle, above all, the hard problem of how to motivate and encourage those most affected: how to provide attractive schemes for learning to read and write among many people who do not particularly know the point of so doing. All that needs help from everyone, not least employers—in my view they are insufficiently involved—community and voluntary organisations and, of course, the educational sector.
Luckily, we now have a government strategy based on our report, with a special unit in the department. That is encouraging, as is the promised priority. But none of that must slip; nor must educational spending generally, even if present tragic circumstances force the Government to review their financial strategies. With regard to this particular problem, nothing but a national crusade will do. In that crusade the search for more voluntary teachers and trained mentors is crucial. That is one aspect of the wider problem discussed earlier today in Answer to a Starred Question. There are critical teacher shortages everywhere. I believe that that is the heart of the educational crisis we are in. We have to find ways not only to reward teachers properly but to lessen the bureaucracy under which they suffer—which
982
interferes with their true role—to slim the curriculum, and to give this dedicated profession the public respect it richly deserves.
When I was 12 and still in Berlin before my family had decided that we should leave, my father said that if I did not succeed him into banking, which was his business, and if, but only if, I turned out to be really able in every respect, then I might possibly get into the profession of teaching in schools. I hope to live long enough to experience that being said in this country.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure on your Lordships' behalf to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moser, on his maiden speech. I first met Claus Moser more than 50 years ago when I was a starting undergraduate and he was beginning his career as an assistant lecturer. I was sent for by Lionel Robbins, who was the greatest man connected with the LSE to come to your Lordships' House. "I see that you have chosen to do sociology as your ancillary subject in an economics degree", he said, "That is a complete waste of time. You must do mathematics". In those days I did what I was told so I trotted off to be taught by Mr Moser. His lectures generated a fascination with pure mathematics which has lasted all my life. His exposition was superb and everything he had to say was full of interest. He has demonstrated those qualities to your Lordships in his maiden speech today. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions in future on that broad range of subjects which are very much connected with him: the arts, especially music, statistics and, in addition, higher education.
As an economist, I now turn to Adam Smith and one of his most famous remarks. Noble Lords will recall that he said:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
However, it is often forgotten that he also wrote a book called The Theory of Moral Sentiments and here I paraphrase. He also said that self-centred economic ambition is socially beneficent so long as it is limited, as it normally is, by the beneficent dictates of our moral faculties. I think that the right reverend Prelate will agree with that remark.
Contemporary management philosophy, usually American in nature, tells us that people must have well-defined tasks, their performance must be monitored and their remuneration adjusted to those measurements. That is all very well but—I echo the right reverend Prelate—if you only get paid for what you do, you will only do what you get paid for. Voluntary activity and a life of service will diminish or disappear altogether. I regret to say that we see this happening in our schools and hospitals even today. In my judgment we are worse off as a result.
As the right reverend Prelate said, teachers do less out-of-hours work for schools, clubs, sporting activities and the like. Even nurses spend less time in their caring role, which is not easy to measure and is

983
not measured, and concentrate purely on the medical side. More generally, people who do their best but because their best is below average receive less remuneration than their fellows, start to say to themselves, "Why should I even bother to do my best?" That is the nature of the society into which we have moved.
All this derives, of course, from the economic philosophy which dominated our country in the 1980s. In fairness, I have to add that its earlier origins were in the winter of discontent where, again, public service workers forgot totally that that is what they were. They abandoned their principles at that time. We have moved on from those days; the position is not as bad as it was then. But there are vestiges remaining, especially in education, where, I regret to say that my right honourable friends—Ministers—are too devoted to the crude mechanisms of a reward system and have lost sight of the public service role in our schools and universities. I speak as someone who looks askance at the greater role of the private sector in the provision of education. It seems to me pre-eminently a public service activity and one that we should stick to.
Finally, I refer to a lack of appreciation of service which arises in our honours system. Knighthoods are awarded to businessmen and senior professionals who merely do their jobs and are immensely well rewarded anyway. Senior professionals get where they do because they sit endlessly on committees, which they consider as service but I do not. If one examines the Honours List to find out who has served our nation in the sense of doing much more than they were paid for, one needs to look at the bottom end of the list. Nowadays, they are awarded MBEs. There one finds the people who do more than their job, work much longer hours than are in their contracts and accept relatively low pay.
That was brought home to me some 25 years ago when I met a school dinner lady who was awarded a British Empire Medal. I think that those are now abolished. It turned out that throughout her working life she had always arrived at least one hour earlier to make sure that there were no problems and never left until at least one hour later than she should have done to ensure that all was well for the next day. At that level of honour, one did not get to meet Her Majesty the Queen. Instead, one's award was presented by a Government Minister—not bad, but he or she is certainly not Her Majesty. That taught me something which I still feel. It is my concluding remark. We really should change. Such a person should be properly honoured because that person really has served the nation and worked within the spirit of what I hope that we all think is right.
3.50 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I feel privileged to be a member of your Lordships' House, and I am delighted to be able to continue my contribution to the national debate on the issues which concern and interest me in, if I may say so in my short time here, a very civilised environment.
984
This is not a subject which I would normally have chosen, but I was anxious to make my maiden speech as early as possible in order to make my contribution. One feels diffident about talking about one's own life and career and one's approach to public service. However, I feel passionately about the denigration of those in public life—especially politicians—and the apparently low esteem in which they are held. I agree with so much of what the right reverend Prelate said in his opening speech, but I shall not repeat that as I want to concentrate on a narrow area.
I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It is not from that vantage point that I speak, but from the wider perspective of someone who has served in public life in various capacities for 41 years, 27 of which were in the other place.
Recently my attention was drawn to a worthy educational institution which was developing new criteria for making honorary awards for distinguished service. It decided that serving politicians should be excluded as one of the criteria. I thought it ironic and sad that awards for major contributions to the nation's life should exclude those who serve the nation in public life. It gives the impression that there is a stigma attached to being in politics.
Why is that? I shall have to be brief. I did not expect to have to be so quick. Parliament does not always help itself. Some of its less appealing aspects receive undue attention. Perhaps more attention in Parliament should be paid to the weaknesses of the confrontational system in today's world. The priority given to spin rather than policy has done great damage; which brings me to the media. To quote one journalist recently, the media's,
"thrall to deadlines and weakness for sensation",
has contributed to the low esteem in which so many in public life are held. I would add to that the 24-hour coverage, which means that the media are constantly looking for a new story every hour. It is impossible to feed that need without sensational issues being highly dramatised and over-exposed. There is also competition in the media, which means that they are always looking for gossip in the Lobby rather than listening to the serious debates in the Chamber.
In an era of cynicism, the blame culture and hostility to authority, those who transgress—in every walk of life there are those who transgress—are given much greater attention than the vast majority who never do so throughout their lives. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has greatly improved the processes, but there are two dangers. First, the same amount of attention will be given to a minor transgression, and it is headlined so as to appear that the whole institution is like that. Secondly, there is a danger of political tit-for-tat in putting cases to the committee.
I turn now to the financial rewards. It is regrettable that many footballers can earn more in a year than politicians, Members of Parliament and senior government Ministers can earn in a lifetime. Lawyers starting their careers in their first year in the City earn

985
as much as a Member of Parliament. None of us expects great material rewards in public life, but there has to be a balance. It is strange that it is more rewarding to ask questions in the media rather than to find solutions or spend time dealing with difficult concepts and producing answers.
I know all this. I know why we are in this position. I also know that the vast majority of people in public life have high standards, integrity, a desire to contribute substantially to improvement and change in the areas that interest them, and dedication to serving their constituents. The right reverend Prelate said that the concept of service has gone. I do not believe that. It is a shame that the desire to serve is so often scorned or scoffed at.
Why does that matter? There are many talented and experienced people who could make substantial contributions not only to politics but to many other public appointments, but they are currently hugely discouraged from doing so. As a result, to take politics alone, we are now in danger of drawing politicians from far too narrow a pool. That is a great worry. It is disappointing that the Commissioner for Public Appointments said recently that people are also being discouraged from applying for public appointments.
What can we do? We need to keep emphasising the generally high standards in British public life, compared with many other countries and perhaps also our past. We need to ensure fair rewards for those who play a part in public life. They do not expect high rewards, but they do not expect to have to make huge sacrifices. Above all we need to accentuate the positive and, wherever possible, combat and diminish those negative aspects to which I have referred.
This is an important debate. I hope that the messages that we are hearing this afternoon will go out more widely to ensure that many more people will consider the worthy calling of politics and think about playing a part in the many other aspects of public life.
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, it is a very pleasant duty for me on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, on his maiden speech. He brings to this House an unusually wide range of experience in no less than the public sector of service. He was the Member for South Norfolk in the other place. He has served as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as Secretary of State for Education and Science, as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons and as Secretary of State for Transport. That list alone reveals what we have gained by his joining your Lordships' House. We look forward very much, given that wide range of experience, to the contributions of the noble Lord and we hope that we shall see him here as often as he is able to come.
986
I have a personal reason for thanking the right reverend Prelate for this debate. For the past 13 years I nursed my wife at home where she died just a year ago from Alzheimer's disease. Why am I mentioning this in the debate? I was diffident about doing so, but throughout those 13 years I received service from the public sector on a daily basis—from district nurses, local doctors, care assistants and the man who serviced the hoist enabling us to lift my wife in and out of bed. This is not anecdotal; it reflects NHS practice serving no fewer than 10,500 people in a Midlands market town. From wide contacts with those people, I know that I am not alone in saying that.
My work also connects me with others serving in the public sector, including a chief constable who is responsible for more than 2,000 officers, a woman prison chaplain with pastoral care within the Prison Service for 600 male inmates and a friend who works for a health authority, which is itself responsible for the healthcare of nearly 500,000 people.
I have three points to make. First, I want your Lordships' House to give pause to recognise that despite the pressures, a spirit of service is alive and well in many parts of the large West Midlands region where I serve. The events of 11th September enforced on many minds the vast importance of the emergency services.
Secondly, I record briefly factors that militate against the delivery of good service. We all know about the need for public accountability. But is there not a danger of rather too much monitoring? There are a few too many demands from commissions for health and audit offices and too many Ofsteds. Good staff want to get on with the job.
Again, is there not a danger, in all our zeal for the public service, of ignoring intractables? On my last visit to a local prison, a prison officer closing the visitors' room after visiting hours found a child of four holding a 10 month-old baby. They had simply been abandoned. Where does service begin and end there? I have waited for 12 hours beside my wife on a hospital trolley, but the intractable is that there were too few beds for too many admissions. Mortality.
Finally, I close with two factors that I hope may strengthen the concept of service. I want to underline in red ink, figuratively speaking, all that the right reverend Prelate said about the voluntary sector. Those district nurses did well for us because they were helped by volunteers from a local community. I have become aware that in many primary and secondary schools a hidden army of women help children with learning difficulties. I also want to emphasise that at times surely service is, in its way, its own reward. Recently, I was walking down an aisle in our cathedral when I suddenly recognised part of Corelli's "Christmas Concerto" being performed by children from a local state school. The school has had its usual crop of problems, but the sound made by that musical

987
tribute to the patient service of teaching music was, in a sense, its own reward. I am very glad to support the right reverend Prelate's Motion.

Humanitarian Situation in Afghanistan
4.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, I would like to keep the House informed regarding the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and my recent visit to Pakistan.
"The humanitarian situation remains fragile. Humanitarian agencies, particularly the World Food Programme, are performing impressively under very difficult circumstances. Deliveries of food and other essential relief supplies which were halted after 11th September have resumed and the quantities crossing into Afghanistan are increasing. Deliveries inside Afghanistan are continuing, but are very difficult. So far, the refugee outflow has been smaller than expected. Contingency plans are being made in case the exodus increases.
"This situation is very worrying, but the House will be aware that a very severe crisis existed long before the events of 11th September. It is due to 20 years of conflict, the policies of the Taliban and the drought of the past three years. All those events have devastated the livelihoods of millions of people. Emergency humanitarian supplies have been provided inside Afghanistan and to refugees in Pakistan and Iran for many years.
"Immediately after 11th September, all international staff were withdrawn from Afghanistan due to fears for their safety. That led to a cessation of all supplies into Afghanistan. I and others have been doing all we can to get supplies moving again.
"Due to harassment and Taliban restrictions on the use of telephones, it remains very difficult for the aid agencies to communicate with colleagues inside Afghanistan. Precise information on deliveries is therefore sparse. The Taliban have looted the offices and stocks of some aid agencies. Afghan hauliers are also fearful of harassment and attack.
"But, despite those difficulties, programmes inside Afghanistan continue due to the brave efforts of local staff of the UN, the Red Cross and nongovernmental organisations, who have continued to work in the face of extreme hardship and serious personal danger.
"Our capacity to influence the humanitarian situation is also limited. Access to many areas of the country is not possible. But the international
988
community remains determined to do all in our power to continue to provide desperately needed assistance. We are looking at all options—for example, World Food Programme air drops and the possibility of opening new land routes from neighbouring countries, such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
"Since deliveries recommenced on 11th October, the WFP has continued to make progress. Regional stockpiles are adequate and deliveries are entering the country in increasing amounts. The World Food Programme is moving towards achieving its target of delivering 1,700 tonnes of food a day. Over 5,000 tonnes have been delivered in the past week and when I was in Peshawar, rates had reached 1,300 tonnes a day. We are also doing all we can to maintain the onward distribution of those supplies from the major warehouses inside Afghanistan. Given the difficulties, WFP is now looking at delivering food direct to more destinations.
"We are also working with the UNHCR to identify and prepare sites for refugee camps in Pakistan. We continue to urge all neighbouring countries to adopt an open border policy and allow those seeking refuge safe passage. Agencies are also attempting to provide assistance to those who remain on the Afghan side of the border.
"As the House is aware, our aims are to bring to justice those responsible for the events of 11th September, to dismantle the Al'Qaeda network and to maintain humanitarian supplies to the people of Afghanistan. It is essential that we pursue all three aims at the same time. The humanitarian effort remains difficult for all the reasons I have outlined. It is not the case that a pause in the bombing would solve these problems. Indeed, a pause would simply encourage the Taliban to harass humanitarian supplies more than at present to prevent further military action.
"All our objectives would be better achieved if a new government can be put in place in Afghanistan. Key to this process will be the central role of Ambassador Brahimi, Kofi Annan's newly appointed special representative for Afghanistan. We warmly welcome his appointment. Ambassador Brahimi is well respected and has considerable experience of the region. His is a difficult task and we stand ready to support him and his office in any way we can.
"There is also a need for the current coalition military campaign to be fully informed about the humanitarian effort and situation. Co-ordination mechanisms have been put in place, although closer co-ordination is still required. My department continues to liaise closely with the UN and our US and UK military colleagues at both HQ and field level to ensure that there is a shared understanding of each other's objectives and to create safe areas as rapidly as possible.
"We also continue to urge other donors to turn pledges to the UN appeal quickly into actual payments. Of the 600 million dollars requested,

989
over 700 million dollars has been pledged, but only 70 million dollars has so far been received. Although immediate needs are covered, unless pledges are released soon, ongoing operations will be hampered.
"We cannot resolve the humanitarian—and political—crisis in Afghanistan without attention to the regional context. Afghanistan's neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Iran, have generously provided for millions of Afghan refugees for many years. Pakistan's role is of central importance. President Musharraf's government have given strong support to the international effort in Afghanistan. We should not underestimate the burden that that places on a country already playing host to 2 million refugees while at the same time undergoing painful economic reform to overcome the legacy of previous mismanagement.
"Last week, I had fruitful discussions with President Musharraf, Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz and other ministers in Islamabad. The government there remain strongly committed to the efforts of the coalition, to economic reform and to poverty reduction in Pakistan. They are also firmly committed to parliamentary elections by October 2002. There is a real prospect that the government can achieve a much better future for the country. But the economy of Pakistan has taken a knock as a consequence of the events of 11th September. Pakistan needs short-term help, debt relief and continuing support to maintain its long-term reform effort.
"I reaffirmed our commitment to a new IMF/ World Bank programme of budgetary support and to writing off remaining government debt. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking urgently with his Finance Minister colleagues at how we might best collectively agree a debt alleviation package for Pakistan that underpins its reform programme.
"Afghanistan is a country that has suffered terribly and faces a very severe humanitarian crisis. The reason why bin Laden has his headquarters in Afghanistan is linked to the cause of the crisis. Afghanistan is a failed state because of 20 years of warfare and the excesses of the Taliban regime. We must retain our resolve to bring to justice those responsible for the events of 11th September, to dismantle the Al'Qaeda network and to maintain our humanitarian assistance. We must also, through the efforts of Ambassador Brahimi, support the establishment of a representative government in Afghanistan who will work with the international community to resolve the immediate crisis, start the long haul of reconstructing Afghanistan and offer its people a better future. Our Government remain determined to do all that we can towards this end".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for repeating the Statement on
990
this very important issue. We have had four debates on the present crisis, but a number of questions remain unanswered. The Minister will know that my honourable friend Caroline Spelman has called for a matching in this country of an appeal launched by President Bush asking every American child to donate a dollar for an Afghan child. The British Red Cross is willing to administer such a scheme and has been to see her officials. We feel most strongly about this valuable initiative. Will the Minister use the opportunity to support it?
I shall structure my comments around three key areas: first, the aid situation within Afghanistan; secondly, the refugee situation around Afghanistan; and, thirdly, thoughts on the long-term reconstruction of Afghanistan.
First, there has been little unanimity about how much aid is required for the region. We fear that the figures used by DfID may prove to be a considerable underestimate. The World Food Programme says that we need to get 50,000 metric tonnes of food into Afghanistan every month. However, a month from now, two regions of Afghanistan will be cut off by snow. In those two areas 70,000 tonnes of food need to be stockpiled within the next month. In other words, we need to ensure that within four weeks 120,000 tonnes of food get into Afghanistan.
The latest information released by DfID is that we are currently shipping in approximately 50;000 tonnes of food each month. That will not be sufficient to provide stockpiles for areas that will be cut off by the snow. There is clear dissent between the NGOs and the government agencies over the basic facts. What is the Minister's assessment of the true position? Does she acknowledge that a significant proportion of the food meant for the starving in Afghanistan never even reaches them? Last week we heard reports of 7,000 tonnes of food aid being seized from a UN warehouse. Médecins sans Frontières reported that the Taliban had seized medical supplies from its compound. How obstructive is the Taliban to the delivery of aid?
Another aspect of the question is whether food is reaching people in the remoter regions of Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of people are on the move throughout the country. There is a real need to get food to the people in their villages to prevent them from fleeing their homes and adding to the refugee crisis. How much food is reaching people in their homes and villages in remote areas of Afghanistan, and how much is based in the larger towns of the country?
Can the Minister say what are the latest figures on population movement within Afghanistan? Does she accept the assessment of many aid agencies which say that it is likely that many people will die a lonely death in the mountains, not necessarily from starvation but from illnesses generated by malnutrition? Yesterday's Select Committee interviewed representatives of the aid agencies, and concern was expressed about the lack of co-ordination on the ground where a considerable number of NGOs are working. Relations with local

991
Afghan NGOs have been vital to the aid distribution network. Indeed, Christian Aid has a policy of working with local partner agencies from the region.
The importance of local partnerships with British aid agencies cannot be stressed highly enough, especially where the Taliban heavily restricts contact with the outside world. Will the Minister acknowledge the role of Afghan NGOs and their importance in the relief work? I am most grateful to the Minister for reversing the Government's policy earlier this year regarding our people working for NGOs in Afghanistan. I wonder what the present situation is.
That leads me to the refugee problem. Is the Minister satisfied that standards in refugee camps are adequate? We on these Benches have asked repeatedly for the refugee camps to meet internationally agreed standards. However, indications are that that is not the case. The UNHCR reports that there are great difficulties with the refugee camps in Pakistan. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, said that the UNHCR is fighting a losing battle to build adequate refugee camps on time.
Unless the refugee camps are adequate and prepared for a large influx of refugees, the situation will deteriorate rapidly. Aid workers in yesterday's Select Committee meeting said that a potential for disaster was looming on the borders. As the Secretary of State has just returned from Pakistan, where a generous aid package for the country was agreed, can the Minister tell your Lordships whether assurances were received from the Government of Pakistan that they would take action to improve the standards in the refugee camps?
It was reported in the newspapers yesterday that the Taliban will run one of the refugee camps in Afghanistan. Can the Minister confirm or deny those reports? If they are true, who authorised that decision and who will ensure that the poor refugees chosen to be housed in Taliban refugee camps will not face the brutality and repression that characterise Taliban rule?
Thirdly, I turn to the long-term rebuilding of Afghanistan. We on these Benches have called repeatedly on the Government to commit themselves to the rebuilding of Afghanistan after the conflict has ended. In that regard, we were very pleased to see that that is now one of the Government's official war aims. Given that the rebuilding of Afghanistan is such a large and ambitious commitment, can the Minister inform your Lordships what discussions were held with our coalition partners about this shared responsibility?
Finally, what will be the position of women in the future Afghanistan? On Monday, the Foreign Secretary made a very detailed speech in which he outlined his vision of a future government in Afghanistan. How does his vision compare with that of the other coalition partners? However, the Foreign Secretary did not mention the representation of women within Afghanistan. Women have been treated in the most inhumane and degrading way. I am sure
992
that everyone in this House will agree with me in saying that providing the women of Afghanistan with a far better future should be a top priority in the rebuilding of the country. What assurances can the Minister give the House that women and children will be treated fairly when food aid is distributed in refugee camps? The present policy of allowing village elders to decide who gets food does not necessarily mean that food goes to the most vulnerable.
War always takes its toll on women and children, but they do represent the future for this war-torn country. The Government share an enormous responsibility to get the humanitarian aspect of this crisis right. Otherwise, ordinary Afghan people will never believe us when we say that our war is not with them.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, particularly because I believe that doing so meant the postponement of her travel plans for this evening. We are grateful that she is here to answer our questions.
I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that the Statement contained a classic under-statement; namely, that the humanitarian situation remains fragile. The possibility of a humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan is brewing. That is one reason why many in my party feel cautious about the continuation of the present campaign. However, we must face the real situation. Although much food is available and can be shipped in, the Taliban has done little during the past few months, and it continues to do little; it merely exacerbates a difficult situation. Indeed, there are reports that the Taliban is charging vast amounts for the transportation of food across its borders to feed its own population.
I take this opportunity to commend NGOs on the work that they have undertaken in a dangerous and difficult situation. There have been unfortunate incidents in which they were hit by bombs that were aimed elsewhere—Afghanistan is becoming a very lawless area. It takes much courage for those working for the World Food Programme, Feed the Children and Oxfam to man the trucks that are taking vast quantities of food—thousands of tonnes—into an area, and they risk their lives by doing so.
I, too, recognise the role that Pakistan has played in this context. It has opened its borders to not just thousands or tens of thousands of refugees but to millions of them. That has been done by a country that is suffering its own economic problems. As someone who monitored the previous elections in Pakistan, I also look forward to the elections in 2002.
Other noble Lords wish to discuss this matter so I shall put only one question to the Minister. What are the Government doing to replenish DfID's budget? The aid that has already been pledged will have drained the emergency relief budget. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the needs of Afghanistan are met and that other programmes, such

993
as those relating to Sierra Leone and other African projects, will not be stripped bare to pay for this immediate crisis?
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that NGOs are to be commended on their work in a very difficult situation. Many Afghan workers in NGOs are putting their lives on the line when they seek to deliver food.
I shall try to address the questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness asked about the appeal that has been launched by President Bush and whether we would support it. We should be happy to discuss that with the British Red Cross, but it has not yet been in touch with us. When it is, we shall discuss the matter with it.
The noble Baroness asked about the figures. I assure her that we are working closely with the World Food Programme in that regard. The figures that we are using have been agreed with the WFP. She mentioned that 50,000 tonnes of food was needed per month. In fact, our figures suggest that 52,000 tonnes needs to be delivered and distributed every month, along with several thousand tonnes of medical supplies, clothing, blankets and tents.
Like the noble Baroness, we are particularly concerned about the onset of winter, when the situation will become very difficult. We are keen to ensure that there are adequate stockpiles of food. As the noble Baroness said, the Taliban is being obstructive. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, it is taxing food supplies that are coming into Afghanistan.
Communication remains difficult. The Taliban has pre vented NGO representatives from using telephones to gauge the situation on the ground, which would assist with planning. In some cases, it has allowed NGOs to make one telephone call a day. Noble Lords will understand how difficult the situation is on the ground. It has also seized assets. For example, the WFP does not now have access to its warehouse in Kandahar. Food might be in a warehouse, but access cannot be gained to it.
The noble Baroness asked about the importance of supplying food to remoter regions. That is why the WFP is considering delivering food direct to more destinations. It is also considering air-drops to the more remote regions in Afghanistan precisely because of the problem, although we recognise that air-drops can be difficult.
The noble Baroness discussed the lack of coordination on the ground. Given the communications difficulties, that problem is of course understandable. However, the work of local NGOs is absolutely vital to that process. She also asked about standards in refugee camps—she has raised that matter with me previously. We work very closely with the UNHCR in that regard. Part of the UNHCR's role is to try to ensure that
994
refugee camps meet internationally agreed standards. It will continue to monitor the situation and try to ensure that refugee camps do that.
The noble Baroness asked about the situation regarding women and girls, which we take very seriously indeed. We strongly support the common programme approach under the UN-led strategic framework for Afghanistan. One of its key themes is the protection and advancement of human rights, with particular emphasis on gender. The agencies through which we channel our funds, including the UN agencies, the Red Cross movement and other NGOs, continue to focus on the rights of Afghan women and girls, both inside Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. Obviously, the role of women and girls will be important within any future effort to build a coalition or consensus government in Afghanistan.
I have to say to the noble Baroness that I have no evidence of the Taliban running camps in Pakistan. If she knows any more about that, perhaps she could let me have some information.
We are, as the noble Baroness said, committed to rebuilding Afghanistan after the conflict has ended. We are engaging in ongoing discussions with our coalition partners and others and the UN is playing a key role in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked what the Government are doing to replenish DfID's budget. That is under active consideration. There have been discussions between the department and other government departments. The noble Lord will know that in past situations the Treasury has been mindful of the need to ensure that DfID's work in other parts of the world will continue.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we all deeply appreciate the fact that my noble friend has made herself available for the Statement this afternoon. I should declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam association in asking two questions. First, my noble friend has referred to Mr Brahimi. All who know him cannot think of a better appointment and we all wish him well. Can my noble friend assure us that no penny will be spared in ensuring not only that the United Nations has a role to play in reconstruction but that it will have the resources to play that role effectively? There is a very strong feeling within the United Nations system that repeatedly it is called upon to take up responsibilities without being properly resourced. Can we have a specific reassurance on that point?
Secondly, my noble friend has referred to coordination. Can she assure us that if there is to be no pause in the bombing—and I personally accept that position—will there be the maximum possible coordination between those responsible for the humanitarian tasks and those responsible for the military tasks so that objectives on both fronts can be fulfilled without one part of the operation getting in the way of the other?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we all recognise the important role that the UN is playing and will have to

995
continue to play in the future reconstruction of Afghanistan. The resources issue will be looked at very carefully indeed. We all recognise that if the UN is to play such an important role it must be adequately resourced. All countries within the UN system will need to look at this.
As regards securing the maximum possible coordination, this very much concerns my right honourable friend Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development. She is working with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that there is co-ordination from the UK end and we are also working to ensure that such co-ordination is carried through internationally with our partners. I can reassure my noble friend on that point.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is enormous concern among the staff of the aid organisations about the side-effects of the bombing and whether it is properly targeted or will have consequences for humanitarian work in itself? There is now clear evidence of civilian casualties, not least in centres where there are humanitarian workers such as have been described, related to our own aid organisations. How can that be reconciled, and can she say whether more members of her own party will be allowed to express these concerns on behalf of aid organisations and the public?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, can I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that every effort has been and is being made to ensure that the bombing is targeted. We deeply regret any civilian casualties as a result of the bombing. As regards members of my own party being able to raise any concerns that they may have, it is important that in the present situation everyone has the opportunity to voice any such concerns because that is the difference between what we have, with our freedom and our democracy, and what exists in Afghanistan.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I am particularly pleased that in the Statement this afternoon a lot of weight was put on the problems facing Pakistan, because although that country is—temporarily, I hope—suspended from the Commonwealth gatherings it is a well-founded member of the Commonwealth. When the Prime Minister was in Islamabad not long after the 11th September, when Pakistan very bravely said it was going to be a full member in the battle against the terrorists, he had a long talk with General Musharraf. Mention was made at the time of the debt which is owed by Pakistan. Only last week the USA has either rescheduled or forgiven part of the debt, and it behoves us to be proactive in helping Pakistan with its debts. I hope the Minister will make this clear. Finance Minister Shaukiat was due to visit England about a fortnight ago. His trip has been momentarily cancelled, but I hope that he will be coming fairly soon.
996
Lastly, I think that there is a misunderstanding. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, spoke about the Taliban looking after refugee camps in Pakistan. There would be no question of the Taliban being allowed to run such places in Pakistan itself.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, for his clarification. It is true that Pakistan is suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth, but the transition to democracy is happening. Provincial and local elections took place earlier this year and a commitment has been made for national elections by October 2002.
On the subject of debt, substantial progress has been made on economic reform. Pakistan completed a nine-month standby arrangement for the IMF earlier this month, which is the first time in her history that this has been done. The UK is ready to provide substantial economic assistance, and we have made that clear. It will enable Pakistan to bring about improvements in social services delivery. That will amount to £15 million in this financial year and in the order of £45 million for each of the following two years. We agree that debt relief is important. We are not a major creditor and we have written off some £20 million of debt which was previously owed to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and transferred to the department earlier this year.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, although I am not an expert on the numbers of refugees or on the current situation in Afghanistan but merely an observer and a parliamentarian, would my noble friend respond to the concern that thus far the amount of humanitarian assistance available in particular to vulnerable women and children is about a quarter of what is required? What are the Government doing to make sure that not only this country but others involved in the conflict try to ensure that we provide at least as much food as is required, not only on a daily basis but in the long term?
Also I should like to say that in this conflict the plight of Afghan women has been long forgotten: very little attention has been paid to that aspect. Will my noble friend assure me and your Lordships' House that expertise and sufficient resources will subsequently be made available to Afghanistan when re-building takes place, and that every effort will be made to provide a role model for women's advancement not only for British Muslims but for other Muslim countries—a role model which can withstand the allegation of an imperialist model for the advancement of women that has often been attributed to modernisation of any kind and the intervention of any western countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first I can reassure my noble friend that we are doing all we can to ensure that the food that the World Food Programme and others have identified as being required is delivered. However, in the Statement and in the answers that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I made it absolutely clear that there are some difficulties

997
attached to getting the food through that are not of our making but are a result of the way in which the Taliban operates.
On the amount of humanitarian assistance, the UN has made an appeal. It requested 600 million dollars and in fact received pledges for over 700 million. Our concern is that of those pledges only 70 million dollars have been received so far. With the UN, we are putting pressure on those countries that have made those pledges to ensure that the money is released.
I agree with my noble friend that we need to ensure that the experience and expertise of other countries which have worked hard to ensure that women are a part of the development process are used in our thinking and planning when talking about the future reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can answer a question on airdrops to outlying places. She talked of airdrops and she cast some doubt upon how well the produce is received on the ground. Is there any possibility of using helicopters for the job, or is that too difficult? I know that helicopters now can carry a considerable amount and they could land the food where it is wanted.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that in considering whether it is appropriate to use airdrops, the method will also be considered. The issue is much less about the method used—be it planes or helicopters—and much more about whether airdrops will be dangerous, who they will land on and whether they will be more problematic than not doing airdrops at all. All those factors are being and will be taken into consideration when the World Food Programme considers the use of airdrops as part of its future strategy.

Northern Ireland
4.34 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I shall make a Statement about developments in Northern Ireland. It is the Statement which I have been told so often I would never be able to make.
"Yesterday the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it had witnessed an event—which it regarded as significant—in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms beyond use.
"The matèriel in question had included arms, ammunition and explosives. The commission was satisfied that the arms in question had been dealt with in accordance with the scheme and regulations. In other words, the IRA's act constituted an act of decommissioning under its statutory remit.
998
"The word 'historic' tends to be over-used about the Northern Ireland political process. There have been so many twists and turns, so many moments of optimism, so many setbacks along the way. But yesterday's move by the IRA is, in my view, unprecedented and genuinely historic. It takes the peace process on to a new political level.
"Rarely has the whole community been so united. As the Belfast Newsletter said this morning:
"for most people, Ulster this morning seems a more hopeful place in which space created by the IRA's unprecedented move will be seized by those with political vision and courage".
"From another perspective, as the Irish Times said:
"a rubicon has been crossed … a historic milestone has been passed. It is an affirmation by the republican movement—in tangible terms—that it cannot operate in both the paramilitary and political worlds".
"Let us recall why we got here. We got here through a widespread recognition—after thirty years of death, pain and misery—of the futility of violence. That was the spur and its memory should remain the spur to all of us.
"And let us remember just how far we have come in the last four years: the major constitutional changes, including the establishment of the principle of consent and the ending of Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The new institutional architecture has been shown to work, and can and must be revived by yesterday's historic move. The Human Rights and Equality Commissions have been set up—and are hard at work.
"After much debate, an unprecedented new beginning to policing, with cross-community support, has been made.
"None of these has reached full fruition but all of them, we have been told, were impossible to accomplish. Yesterday another seemingly impossible achievement was brought about.
"This is the culmination of efforts by many people over many years, including my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, John Major, successive US Administrations, the republican leadership, which has shown itself to have the vision and confidence to bring an armed movement to the point of ceasefire, the honourable Member for Foyle and the party he leads, and the smaller pro-agreement parties.
"I pay tribute also to the right honourable Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues. Were it not for his persistence, willingness to take risks and sheer courage under attack, it is no exaggeration to say that yesterday's events are unlikely to have happened. It is a vivid illustration of the power of engagement, the powerlessness of detachment. It is those who have taken risks for peace who have achieved this progress, not those who have doubted from the sidelines.
"And of course I am sure the whole House would want to join me in thanking General John de Chastelain and his colleagues. They have shown endless patience and dignity. The best thanks we can give them is to let them get on with their task.

999
"Yesterday's events opened up opportunities and challenges—opportunities which we need to seize and challenges which we need to face in three areas.
"First, the political institutions which are the democratic core of the Belfast agreement—the Assembly, the Executive, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council—should now be restored to full operation as quickly as possible, and should operate in a stable and uninterrupted way. The decision of the Ulster Unionist Party today to put the Ministers back into government is a helpful step in creating a new dynamic.
"Secondly, we need to press on with the implementation of the agreement in all its aspects. I have placed the Government's response to the decommissioning commission's report in the Library of the House. But I should in particular mention that we will complete the implementation of the Patten report, including the review of the new arrangements to which we are already committed and the introduction of legislation to amend the Police Act 2000 to reflect more fully the Patten recommendations.
"We intend shortly to publish an implementation plan for the criminal justice review and draft legislation, and to introduce the legislation during the current session.
"And we will undertake a progressive rolling programme of security normalisation, reducing levels of troops and installations in Northern Ireland, as the security situation improves. Our aim is to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements. That is the task which now confronts us in the period ahead.
"But I can announce a step in that direction today. The IRA's action in putting weapons beyond use has wide political significance. It also, in itself, makes a contribution to the improvement we all want to see in the security situation.
"In the immediate aftermath of yesterday's event, I have discussed the situation with my security advisers—including the Chief Constable and GOC. There is, of course, a significant continuing threat from republican and loyalist dissidents. Notwithstanding that, the Chief Constable confirms that yesterday's developments represent a real improvement. We therefore intend, as an immediate response to yesterday's developments, to demolish the observation tower on Sturgan mountain in South Armagh. Work on this is starting today.
"We will demolish one of the observation towers on Camlough mountain in South Armagh. Work on this is starting today. In addition we will demolish the supersangar at Newtownhamilton police station adjacent to the helicopter landing site. Work on that will begin tomorrow. We will also demolish the Magherafelt army base. Work on that will begin tomorrow.
1000
"But there is a third priority. All paramilitary groups should now play their part in building on yesterday's progress. This is not just about decommissioning. When small children cannot go to school without being terrorised or innocent civilians cannot sleep in their beds without fear of bombs, the scale of the challenge facing us is evident. Some of the loyalist organisations have played a crucial part in the peace process. I now ask them to ask themselves what they can do to move the process forward. Whatever else, there must be an end to the mindless sectarian violence of recent weeks.
"There are other difficult legacies of the past. The early release scheme was, I know, one of the most painful and contentious aspects of the agreement. All qualifying prisoners have now been released. We and the Irish Government have now accepted that it would be a natural development of that scheme for outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings for offences committed before 10th April 1998 not to be pursued against supporters of organisations now on ceasefire. Both Governments have agreed to take such steps as are necessary to resolve the issue as soon as possible, and in any event by March 2002.
"Piece by piece the Belfast agreement is taking shape. As the Prime Minister said last night, we are a long way from completing our journey. There will no doubt be obstacles ahead, but at a time when the world is grappling with the effects of the most evil terrorism, and we see in the Middle East the awful consequences when political dialogue breaks down and opportunities are missed, I can tell the House that the political process in Northern Ireland is alive and moving forward. To sustain this will require hard work, steady nerves and the continued ability on all sides to reach out and make difficult compromises. The Government are ready and eager to play their part".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend in another place. We on this side of the House welcome the general thrust of the Statement. Certainly, this is a step forward in the Northern Ireland peace process. There have been many positive changes especially to the constitution during the negotiations of the peace process, as pointed out in the Statement. The fact that there are two republican leaders taking part in the government of a part of the United Kingdom is remarkable and is certainly significant.
I join the noble and learned Lord in his compliments to the right honourable David Trimble and his thanks to General de Chastelain. With that go my thanks and praises to all Prime Ministers and former Secretaries of State who have worked so hard on the peace agreement. Two of my noble friends who are former Secretaries of State are in their places today. We owe them all a due debt of gratitude.

1001
Where I start to part company with Her Majesty's Government is over the matter of further legislation to amend the Police Act 2000. I ask the noble and learned Lord to reassure the House on this matter, especially in relation to the appointment of convicted terrorists to any part of the new structures set up for policing Northern Ireland. Does the noble and learned Lord agree with me that there should be no further concessions to Sinn Fein/IRA in this context? Is the new legislation likely to come before the House shortly? Will it be dealt with in a rush, or will it just take its place in the normal day-to-day routines of your Lordships' House?
Furthermore, does the noble and learned Lord agree that today's act of decommissioning must be followed by a verifiable process which includes all IRA and so-called loyalist paramilitary weapons spread throughout the awful network of aggression and violence, and that all gang leaders from whatever part of the Province they come must get on the bandwagon and join the process? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will turn their attention to how they can start to make that happen after today's developments.
Can the noble and learned Lord also assure the House that General de Chastelain's remit, which runs out in February, will last, and be seen to last, to see the process through? I understand that the responsibility for verifying the process of all decommissioning remains firmly on the gallant general's shoulders. It is important that we do not lose him half-way through the process.
As to future security arrangements, will the noble and learned Lord reassure the House that no reductions of security forces will take place which could leave the people of the Province, and, in turn the whole nation, vulnerable to attack from dissidents from any organisation, especially in the light of this morning's statement by the Real IRA that it intends to take on the mantel of PIRA and continue the armed struggle? For those who do not know it, this follows the history of the republican movement in Ireland and is very depressing.
As the Statement says, there will be many obstacles ahead but the public decommissioning by PIRA is a very significant event in the history of Irish republicanism. Those who know something of the history will have some understanding of the ramifications; namely, the bureaucratic processes, the heart-rending and the arguments that must have gone on in republicanism for some time to arrive at a point where there has been at least some public decommissioning of arms. Although this is only another step on a long road, this event should not be treated lightly.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement made earlier in another place, I too wish to associate these Benches with the main points made in it. It has been an extraordinarily taxing and exasperating process over the past eight years or
1002
so. Patience, dogged determination and mental agility in the highest degree have been called for, and in the end forthcoming, from all those involved: politicians and officials alike from both sides of the Anglo-Irish divide. I witnessed their performance for eight years, and I pay tribute to their skills. Their efforts and the complex meanderings of the whole tortuous process will provide further employment for Irish historians for many years to come. Irish historians are about the most viable and enduring industry on both sides of the Border.
The role played by the USA in achieving this outcome cannot be stressed too much. President Clinton was quite remarkable in the energy and time that he devoted during his period in office to the problems of Northern Ireland, and it is good to see that his initiatives and determination have been followed up by the Bush Administration.
In acknowledging the various contributions over the years I also emphasise the persistent assiduity of Mr John Hume whose initiatives early on began the process with the Hume-Adams talks. To this was later added, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, the remarkable negotiating skills of the right honourable David Trimble. It was fitting that both of them received the Nobel prize. Not merely did they receive that prize but they have continued to live up to it.
IRA decommissioning is something of a watershed. There is still much to be done to promote an authentic democratic polity and its concomitant a liberal civic society. We wish Northern Ireland God speed in that vital regard. There is the immediate problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred, of the position of the loyalist paramilitaries. I know that the Government are fully apprised of the problem. Can the noble and learned Lord indicate how the loyalist groups might be persuaded to accept the Belfast Agreement and join with others to secure a lasting and prosperous peace in Northern Ireland?
5.1 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am for the generous responses from both Front Benches? The one thing that unites us in this Parliament, not simply in this House, is that, whatever occurs, at the moment the motive that drives us entirely is the ambition that our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland should have the opportunity of a decent ordered life in—as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said—a liberal civic society.
It is extraordinary that two republican leaders have been so significantly engaged with a government over part of the United Kingdom. It seems to demonstrate—the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I are agreed—that the recognition dawns far too late that we must live together in whatever community with whatever differences of view or differences of tradition or religion. The only way to live together is to accommodate the fact that people are different.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked a number of questions on the Police Act. I specifically mentioned that Act in repeating Dr Reid's Statement. We remain

1003
committed to the implementation of effective and representative policing set out in the Patten report and the implementation plan published in August. We are proceeding on that basis. We are committed to the timetable in the August plan. The police name changes on 4th November. The board assumes its powers. At the same time new recruits enter training.
The implementation plan announced, as your Lordships will remember, a review to start next March and to be completed by October 2002. The plan also announced a number of legislative amendments to be made following that. Therefore, that indicates my answer on the parliamentary timetable. I stress that that is my present understanding. Things change so rapidly in the Northern Ireland context that sometimes, as we know too well in this House, one has to alter arrangements for a greater purpose.
As is well known, the appointments have already been made to the board. Sinn Fein did not nominate anyone. A question was put about the verifiable continuing process. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right that the effects of the act of decommissioning come to an end in February next year. That means that if we want to continue—I say in parenthesis that it seems to me to be overwhelmingly likely that we shall—I will have to come to this House to ask for an extension of the decommissioning act.
I personally of course hope that General de Chastelain and his two colleagues will continue their selfless work. The noble Lord is also right that it is not simply the Provisional IRA that needs to be part of a verifiable process, the loyalist groups do and so do all splinter groups from the Provisional IRA. Until the noble Lord mentioned the matter, I did not know that the Real IRA had said that it had taken on the mantle of the Provisional IRA. It is a small group. It is a vicious and violent group. One of its members has just been sent to prison for five years. If one is allowed to applaud a fellow human being going to prison, it seems to me that that is the occasion for significant applause. Furthermore, the alleged leader of the Provisional IRA is in custody in the Republic of Ireland awaiting trial. It would not be appropriate to say anything more about the course of his trial.
The loyalist groups are not monolithic. They have different views. If what David Irvine said is correctly reported, the situation seems to be rather more encouraging than some responses from other leaders of groups. They are small but dangerous groups.
The noble Lord's final question related to security. He wanted my assurance that there would be no reduction of security in the wider sense leaving the people of the Province not properly protected. I give that assurance. Plainly, in the past 30 years no Secretary of State has ever made decisions of this nature and quality without taking the most careful advice from the appropriate agencies.
I absolutely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, said. We owe a significant debt to the United States. Both administrations of President
1004
Clinton and President Bush have fully engaged themselves. Although President Bush's administration has been for a brief time, it has been a critical time. John Hume and David Trimble are extremely distinguished. Not only did they gain the Nobel Peace Prize but both were—rather more importantly I think in the scale of things—given honorary doctorates by the University of Wales.
I am cautioning myself about being optimistic, but this is a sea change. It is quite extraordinary. I do not think that the full magnitude of it has entered our minds because it has happened so recently.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, today I stand here as a proud Ulsterman and the first member of my party in history to speak in your Lordships' House following an act of decommissioning by a republican paramilitary group. As my party leader, David Trimble, said last night:
"This is a day we were told would never happen".
But it has. I would like to pay tribute to him for his brave and resilient stance over the past three-and-a-half years in seeking to implement the objectives of the Ulster Unionist Party—democracy and decommissioning. If he had indeed listened to the advice of a number of other politicians in Northern Ireland—I am thinking here in particular of representatives of the Democratic Unionist Party—we would never have been in the position that we are today.
Does the Minister agree that yesterday's beginning to decommissioning by the Provisional IRA should mark the start of a process which will be completed prior to the expiry of the mandate of the international independent commission on decommissioning in February 2002?
Will the Minister further agree that a move now by so-called loyalist paramilitaries to decommissioning their arsenals of illegal weapons and explosives will give a further boost to the prospects of permanent peace in Northern Ireland? It is only when all the illegal armaments in Ulster and the Republic of Ireland are really put beyond use that we can believe that our Troubles of these past centuries are really at an end.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I endorse again what the noble Lord said about the right honourable David Trimble. I think that I have dealt with the question of February 2002.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord in answer to his first question. To be quite candid with the House, I agree with the timescale that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, had in mind and the fact that, by necessary implication, we shall almost inevitably be looking for an extension of that period in terms of legislation.
I entirely agree with the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about the loyalist paramilitaries. If they have the imagination and if their heart is big enough they should see that plainly we must maintain the dynamic. Mr Trimble responded today

1005
immediately. I hope that the British Government are seen to have responded immediately. It was said that we must try and respond with a generous and full heart. That applies to everyone.
The problems of other weapons used for the kind of intimidation—blackmail and general threats—that we discussed yesterday in this Chamber remain a continuing blot on a society which could otherwise be so happy.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, may I too express gratitude for much of what is contained in the Statement? 'The Government have succeeded in at last laying hold of something which many apparently thought was impossible. It was considered to be a will-o'-the-wisp and incapable of being made real. For that, I wish to congratulate them. In particular, along with the congratulations that have been made so widely today, I wish to add mine for Mr Trimble and General de Chastelain.
For many of us and, I suspect, for the noble and learned Lord himself, it will be a struggle to accept the amnesty that has been announced in the Statement. We must recognise that not only is it a risk as regards peace, but that it is also an act of injustice. As regards the rest, I wish to express my agreement with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord. This is a sea change and I believe that it will be seen to mark a real advance in the process.
In conclusion, is it not right that we should all remember how many continue illegally to hold arms and munitions in Northern Ireland and how far the Provisional IRA itself still has to go in order to fulfil the Belfast agreement? In calculating what reductions in security may be appropriate in response to this real advance, will the Secretary of State continue to exercise true Scottish perception and caution?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, knowing John Reid as I do, I think I can say that those elements are bred in the bone. The noble and learned Lord is quite right in his final remarks. That is why Dr Reid has taken particular care deliberately to underline the fact that, as is his duty, he had taken advice from the GOC and the Chief Constable.
The noble and learned Lord speaks as a former Attorney-General and as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I agree with him in his remarks that no one who believes in the rigour of the law likes to see anything other than that rigour of the law applied. I have not used the word "amnesty"; I said simply that outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings would not be pursued in respect of those supporters o f organisations not on ceasefire and that the precise mechanisms have not yet fully been worked through. But it is right to say that those who may have committed crimes and go unpunished bring a consequential injustice. It was for that reason that I stated last night—knowing nothing of the contents of this Statement—that it was probable that we would all have to compromise, unwillingly, but faithful to the
1006
purpose which must drive us on. I do not pretend that my views are any different from those of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Eames: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. I wonder whether he would agree with me that, in the natural euphoria over what has taken place, there are certain ingredients which this House should not ignore?
One of those is a sense of perspective. Anyone who knows or reads about the history of Irish republicanism cannot doubt that what has taken place over the past few days is monumental. It represents a total sea change for that element of Irish life. To that extent, this is a historic moment and one that should not be underestimated. However, would the noble and learned Lord agree with me as regards a view that I know has been expressed recently in a few quarters; namely, that the real test of what we have been amazed to witness is that of what will happen now? This is not the end of the peace process. It does not mark the end of our worries, our problems and our suffering. It is an important stage along the road.
It is extremely important to remember two aspects of that. I beg the Minister to take this seriously. First, a connection must be made as regards what we have been amazed to see and admire over the past few days. I refer to the connection that must be made between the recent events and what is happening at the ground level. The attitudes of councillors and the attitudes of local representatives at community level must be addressed. It will be no use if we applaud this "earthshaking event"—the words used this morning by one newspaper—but then find that the problems of north Belfast continue. There is no sense in applauding what has been done by the Irish Republican Army and what has been said by Sinn Fein, and then finding that Protestant homes continue to be targeted, pensioners attacked and children assaulted on their way to school. Unless we witness a sea change at that level, many people will continue to be sceptical about the euphoria which, quite naturally, has been expressed in regard to the recent developments.
The second aspect that I ask the Minister to take on board and convey to his colleagues is that the response we now seek in what is a new scenario is a new sense of hope for the ordinary, decent Roman Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland. The stop-go scenario of the local administration, brought about by party political reasons which we all accept, has become a generally frustrating influence for all people right across the community. People comment that it is impossible to predict the future. It is impossible to be certain that bread-and-butter issues such as hospitals, education and transport will be dealt with by the devolved administration. As a result, the natural reaction has been a growing sense of frustration with what many had welcomed; namely, devolution I hope that the Minister will take seriously the danger emanating from the general sense of frustration with the stop-go scenario and that he will convey that difficulty to his colleagues in another place. If we can

1007
transmit a vision of hope for Northern Ireland, one that has been rekindled over the past 48 hours, then a great deal will have been accomplished.
I should like to make a final point. Does the Minister agree that, so far in our debate, one element has not been mentioned? I speak from pastoral experience. I wonder whether the House is conscious of the many, many people who have found the events of the past two days almost impossible to contemplate in terms of their sorrow, suffering and hurt? I refer to the bereaved families of those who have been murdered in the terrorist campaign and who now say, "What was the point?". Is human history now going to move on, and will people like myself and my colleagues be left to try to teach a sense of proportion in the healing process?
I believe that those are the considerations that we must keep on board as we thank God for the progress that has been made over the past 48 hours.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Eames. Yesterday evening the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, initiated a debate in this House in which many moving speeches were made in respect of the issues raised by the noble Lord in his remarks. The debate was directed entirely towards the victims of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland, whether they had been driven away from their own part of the United Kingdom to live in England or Wales, or whether they remained fearful in their own homes. I think that I have paraphrased fairly what was said by most noble Lords and certainly what was said most eloquently by the noble Baroness.
I recognise and acknowledge the points made by the noble Lord. We are asking those who have suffered to commit themselves to great acts. That is because the vast majority of us have not suffered, but we can recognise that it is unimaginable suffering. The noble Lord also asked about a sense of perspective. Of course I agree with him. He asked what would happen now. In response to that I think that the central and critical point, which cannot be overlaboured, is that we must maintain the dynamic. The Government have responded very promptly—and that response has nothing to do with party politics. We are grateful for the support that Mr Duncan Smith has given and for the tone of the questioning here. General de Chastelain must continue his work. Attitudes on the ground of course have got to change, and there are some glimmerings of minimal hope in the earlier responses from some of the loyalist groups.
I recognise and respect the scepticism which those who live in Northern Ireland are bound to feel. Their scepticism will be diminished only by a proven improvement in their quality of life. I agree with the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Eames, that they are not really asking for anything other than what they are entitled to—namely, the opportunity to live a
1008
decent life and the hope that their children may have a better one. It is not an enormous ambition, but they have been failed over a very long period of time.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he said about the tenor of the debate last night.
If, as the Minister has told us, the Government are to consider taking no further action against people who might otherwise have been tried and convicted for murder, would it be unreasonable in the negotiations which I presume will continue with the heads of the parties—in particular with Sinn Fein, IRA and the loyalist groups—to say to them that there could be a quid pro quo for this by them putting the word out that everyone who has been exiled shall be allowed to return?
It is not an enormous gesture, but it would be an extremely important one as far as the communities are concerned. Nothing could give a simpler but greater assurance that things are changing than that. It is in their power to do it; they have been able to turn the tap off before. Presumably they could say to the paramilitaries who are terrorising their own communities, "You will do this no longer and the people you have expelled will return and be left to lead a peaceful life". I hope that may be considered as a quid pro quo.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I recognise and sympathise with the thrust of what the noble Baroness said. I am not myself a participant in any negotiations, but I shall certainly personally ensure that the point that was made, and well made, in our earlier debates on these topics is transmitted to the Secretary of State.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope that I will not be accused of puncturing the prevailing euphoria, but what proportion of the IRA's weapons will be put "beyond use", to use the noble and learned Lord's words, and how permanently will they remain beyond use? After all, pouring concrete into a bunker containing weapons does not automatically guarantee their permanent and total destruction.
Secondly, how lethal are the weapons which will be initially decommissioned? Are we talking about rifles, revolvers and automatic pistols, many of them of 19th-century or early 20th-century design, or are we talking about the serious stuff—mortars, rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, surface-to-air missiles and Semtex?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answers to the noble Lord's questions are to be found in the report of General de Chastelain, which is dated 23rd October of this year. He reported yesterday to Dr Reid and to Mr John O'Donoghue, who is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Irish Republic. The report states:
"On 6th August 200I the Commission reported that agreement had been reached with the IRA on a method to put IRA arms completely and verifiably beyond use. This would be done in such a way as to involve no risk to the public and avoid the possibility of misappropriation by others".

1009
The critical paragraph—and, after all, one is not talking about a babe-in-arms; General de Chastelain knows the context in which he is operating—states:
""We have now witnessed an event—which we regard as significant—in which the IRA has put a quantity of arms completely beyond use".
And, in regard to the noble Lord's question,
"The material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives".
The report goes on to state in paragraph 3:
"We are satisfied that the arms in question have been dealt with in accordance with the scheme and regulations".
That, of course, is the statutory decommissioning scheme. The report continues:
"We are also satisfied that it would not further the process of putting all arms beyond use were we to provide further details of this event".
Paragraph 4 states:
"We will continue our contact with the IRA representative in the pursuit of our mandate".
Therefore I am not in a position—nor would it be prudent, sensible or responsible—to go beyond what the General said as recently as yesterday.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who is waiting patiently to make his maiden speech, I have been asked to remind noble Lords that our first debate was interrupted by Statements. Of our two-and-a-half hours we have already used 41 minutes; therefore 109 minutes remain. The time is now 5.26 p.m.; the debate will therefore conclude in 109 minutes' time at 7.15 p.m. I should also mention that we are near the start of the speakers' list and we are already running seven minutes over time. If Back-Benchers take more than their allocated time it will be at the expense of Front Bench spokesmen. Noble Lords should remember that as soon as the clock shows five minutes their five minutes' speaking time is up.

Public Service
5.26 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, it is an honour to follow such distinguished noble Lords in the debate. I had not expected it to be such a momentous occasion, where I would be speaking immediately after the Statements on Afghanistan and Northern Ireland. It is, therefore, with some trepidation that I present my maiden speech.
First, I thank all members of staff who have been so very helpful and courteous to me during my induction into your Lordships' House. They have demonstrated so eloquently the concept of service for which your Lordships' House is renowned. I also thank colleagues from all sides of the House for their warm welcome.
I intend to explore the issue of dissatisfaction in and with the health service. Here I declare an interest. I was a consultant paediatrician in an academic department for almost 30 years before moving into public health.
1010
A MORI poll in March this year found that 89 per cent of the public trust their doctors to tell the truth. The same proportion is fairly satisfied or very satisfied with the way doctors do their jobs. Therefore we may conclude that the public continue to place their trust in doctors.
Other surveys repeatedly show that patients want more than the average seven minutes' consultation time with the general practitioners. GPs are also dissatisfied with this inadequate consultation time. Consultation time is even more constrained by this routine when the patient requires an interpreter because of insufficient English. In these circumstances, all doctors prolong the consultation for as long as is necessary.
People are using the health service more than ever before. Therefore, although the number of patients registered per GP has fallen to 1,800 today, the number of patient consultations per GP has increased since 1984 by nearly 800 every year to 9,000 consultations per doctor per year in 1996. On average, each patient consults a GP five times per year. Children under five years and people over 65 see a GP seven times a year. It is this increasing demand on the time of our GPs and the shortage of general practitioners that have led to dissatisfaction and low morale among primary care doctors, who continue to manage 90 to 95 per cent of consultations without referring on to specialists in hospital.
Nursing shortages based on the March 2001 NHS vacancy survey are around 20,000 across the United Kingdom. For the year 2000, one in three new entrants to the United Kingdom Nursing Register were from outside the United Kingdom. In order to realise the shared goal of reshaping health services to meet the needs of patients, it is vital that the current nursing shortages are reversed. This means ensuring that nurses want to stay in the NHS, encouraging trained nurses to return to the service, and making nursing an attractive option for new recruits. Meanwhile, many nurses are struggling to provide good patient care on under-staffed wards.
The concept of service in the NHS is alive and well. However, increasing demands on primary healthcare and on hospital treatment—with limited beds and serious staff shortages among doctors, nurses and in the professions allied to medicine—make it very difficult for staff to demonstrate personal warmth and give undivided attention to patients and their carers. We also have the smallest number of doctors per 1,000 of the population in Europe. That is further compounded by the increasing verbal and physical abuse thrown at hospital staff by patients and their families. Long working hours with high levels of stress force NHS staff to concentrate on clinical and technical aspects of treatment rather than on the warmth of personal care. Of course, I accept that in all situations doctors and nurses should always try to give comfort to their patients.
In conclusion, the spirit of service in the public sector, especially in the National Health Service, is alive and well and can be fostered if we manage the

1011
expectation of patients, carers and service users. We need to communicate clearly the reality of what can reasonably be achieved with the resources that are available today.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to convey the congratulations of the whole House to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, on his maiden speech. It was an interesting, thoughtful and important contribution. The noble Lord brings to this House great knowledge of both race relations and health service issues which will be invaluable to us. He was made an MBE for services to the Chinese community in this country and has been chairman of the Chinese in Britain Forum since 1996. The noble Lord has served on the Commission for Racial Equality and on the Home Secretary's Standing Advisory Council on Race Relations. As noble Lords have heard, by profession the noble Lord, Lord Chan, is a paediatrician; and between 1994 and 1997 he served as the director of the NHS Ethnic Health Unit. He is currently a visiting professor in ethnic health at the University of Liverpool. With such a record, the noble Lord will be a great addition to this House and we look forward eagerly to his future contributions.
I begin my remarks on the Motion by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for instigating this timely debate. Today, we are concentrating on service in the public sector—an area that faces many challenges. Over a number of years, our public services and those who work in them have been at the sharp end of the nation's considerations. As those considerations have grown and expanded, so have the expectations of the public. As expectations have risen, so too have the all-too-familiar criticisms of and scepticism about our public services—usually without justification. But when a band wagon starts, it is very difficult to stop.
I want to concentrate in particular on those who work in the public sector. As a former national officer of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, I worked with and for thousands of members employed in the public sector. The MSF has within it a section specifically for those who work in "not for profit" organisations. The union's members are in both full-time and part-time employment, across a broad spectrum of jobs. Many of them are in directly "caring" roles: in childcare, disability care or elder care. As such, they are dedicated and committed personnel—usually, they work for an organisation because they believe passionately in what that organisation was established for.
But therein lies the rub. Because they are dedicated and committed, because they have a vocational interest in their work, their rewards in terms of pay are usually at the lower end of the wage scale. Why? Because dedication, commitment and vocation have always been thought of by too many people in this country as "rewards in themselves". Such workers obviously receive pleasure from their roles, it is said, so they cannot expect large sums of money as well.
1012
Usually, such workers do not expect large remuneration, but I submit that they deserve enough to live on without constant worry, and that they deserve acknowledgement of their achievement.
It is far easier to blame than to praise. It is far easier to find a scapegoat than to ensure that the public service system will uplift and support those who work in it and those who are users of it. As our hospitals, schools and other public services were run down over recent decades and as care was transferred into the community without the back-up systems or resources to support it, I heard directly from public sector workers about the effects upon them and those who relied on them. They genuinely believed that they should be able to give more help to the users of those services but were often unable to carry out even minimum functions and were, therefore, left feeling frustrated and angry, indeed in despair.
Our public services need investment. They need systems and structural changes. They need a government who apply themselves to their well-being. Although I accept that such changes cannot be effected overnight and that substantial steps have already been taken towards those ends, there is still a long way to go. That is why I particularly welcome the latest government proposals on public sector reform. The Prime Minister has stated on a number of occasions recently that the Government have,
"a mission to change and reform public services".
Therein lies much hope for the future.
I could continue, but time does not permit. I ask my noble friend the Minister to outline in her reply the initiatives that the Government will be taking to effect the attitudinal changes that are necessary; what they will do to raise the morale and self-fulfilment of public sector workers; and, above all, how they propose to ensure high national standards throughout the public sector.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Condon: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the warmth of the welcome and the generous support that I have received from everyone associated with your Lordships' House. I also express my gratitude to the many noble Lords who have called me "young man" on more occasions in the past three months than has happened over the past 30 years. It has enormously pleased me and I have revised my life expectancy accordingly!
Our country is at its best when we have a vibrant and successful private sector complemented by an efficient, confident and just public sector. I have been privileged to work in both. The service ethos is certainly not unique to the public sector. It runs through the private sector as well. Both sectors bring complementary benefits to our society. Having spent most of my life in the public sector, I can say that the service ethos is at the core of job satisfaction in that sector. The sense of vocation and service, the sense of serving one's fellow citizen, is vital to attracting, retaining and motivating people within the public sector.

1013
Earlier speakers asked whether the service ethos was alive and well in the public sector. Like them, I believe that it is alive and well—but I suggest that at present it is "'under-nourished". We owe it to the public sector to find ways to nurture, to celebrate and to encourage the service ethos within it. That could be done very efficiently in three ways.
There are three aspects on which I shall comment briefly: recognition, respect and reward. Recognition is vital for those serving in the public sector. So often our public services are denigrated and criticised. We must find more innovative ways to describe their successes not just in terms of overall services but in terms of the many individuals within those services at all levels who carry out on a daily basis acts of heroism and dedication way above and beyond the normal call of duty whether that is in nursing, policing, the fire service, teaching, the health service or in the many other services which serve us so well.
In speaking of recognition, I was disappointed to hear yesterday in your Lordships' House that not a single police officer will currently receive a Jubilee Medal to celebrate Her Majesty's glorious reign. I admire the notion that medals will be given to uniformed military personnel with five or more years' service, but I believe that the same criteria should be applied to the police service. I have done some research and I understand that that would cost just in excess of £2 million. I believe that that would be money well spent to celebrate the service of policemen and women to Her Majesty the Queen.
l[ turn to the issue of respect. Our major public services are quite properly due for reform, in many cases long overdue reform. However, they would like their professional views to be respected and to be considered at the table of reform. The enlightened members of those professions know that they must reform, but they would like their views respected.
On the issue of reward, no one goes into the public sector for wealth creation, or, if they do, they are more likely to face a prison sentence than a knighthood because their activities will almost certainly be unlawful. However, they do not want their service to be exploited. They do not want their sense of vocation to lead to hardship. We must be careful to review the necessary pay and review bodies which ensure that our vital public services are kept up to date in terms of pay and conditions.
Finally, I have spent the past two weeks in America where I have seen how the celebration of the emergency services and the public services generally has provided a rallying point for patriotism, hope, optimism and plans for the future. I do not believe that we need to await or contemplate a similar tragedy here before we seek to recognise, respect and reward our own equally brave services personnel who contribute so much to our life. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord
1014
Condon, on his maiden speech. How appropriate that he chose to address us on the subject of service as he is a distinguished public servant. He joined the Metropolitan Police in 1967. He worked his way up and was commissioner from 1993 to 2000. He knows the realities of public service, the satisfactions and the accountability, but he is also aware of the hurtful criticism to which we sometimes subject our public servants when they handle difficult situations on our behalf. He has carried that well. I hope that we shall hear him speak often in your Lordships' House.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that the concept of service applies equally to the private sector as to the public sector. I spent my working life in the private sector. After all, what is the concept of service? I believe that it is the desire to deliver satisfaction to the giver and to the receiver. Sadly, in the private sector that important concept has been pushed aside by the clamour for profits and fear of competition. More thoughtful businessmen know that companies are profitable and competitive if they can deliver satisfaction and service. Indeed, it is because business may have got these priorities wrong that some think that it cannot be trusted to deliver public services. Only yesterday the Association of British Insurers, which controls one-quarter of all the shares quoted on the London Stock Exchange, laid down some pretty tough new guidance about social responsibility.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the concept of service bringing satisfaction applies not only to companies but also to individuals. That surely is the only way to explain the huge amount of voluntary and philanthropic work described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. People get satisfaction from putting something back into the pot, as they say in Yorkshire.
The concept of service not only extends to people who volunteer but also to people who give. People give to an incredible number of causes. They respond to political needs and natural catastrophes. They support the arts through museums and universities. They support searches for the causes of disease and remedies for injustice and the improvement of social conditions. All of that is fuelled by the wish to be of service to others. It is not done for personal profit or gain. Indeed, my right honourable friend Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recently set up the giving campaign which is led by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. The objective of that campaign is to encourage a culture of giving and to increase the number of donors and the amount of donations.
But perhaps when the right reverend Prelate called our attention to the concept of service in the public sector he referred to the delivery of public services. It has long been part of the Labour philosophy that good public services make a major contribution to a fairer society. The discussion has concerned how those services can be delivered efficiently and with a high degree of satisfaction both to the givers and to the receivers—back to satisfaction again.
The Conservative government used privatisation to break up huge monolithic public services—water, gas, electricity, the telephone and the railways—in the hope

1015
that local smaller organisations would be more efficient and closer to the consumer and in that way would deliver a higher degree of satisfaction and service. That kind of outsourcing of public services works where there is competition, as failure means going out of business. But where there is not really an alternative, as in education, as described by my noble friend Lord Peston, the whole question of privatised delivery of public services is uncertain.
Certainly the market is a great stimulus to establishing high standards and aligning the interests and common purpose so essential to delivering quality public services. Yes, quality public services do require constant progress and innovations which the market stimulates. People are no longer prepared to accept that the standards of public service can somehow be less than the standards expected in the private sector. Yet if business wants to be trusted to deliver public services, it must not just pander to consumerism and crass commercialism. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford told us, the business of business is to serve society. So there is a place for public services in the enterprise culture and the market has a role to play in encouraging innovation and improvements. It is a difficult balance which the Government are trying to find; I wish them every success.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has invited us to talk about the concept of public service. I hope that your Lordships will therefore forgive me for being conceptual. First, what makes a service public rather than private? A public service is not the same as what economists call a public good. A public good is public because you cannot slice it up into little bits for individual consumption. You can buy a meal at a restaurant or you can buy a slice of butter but you cannot buy a bit of streetlighting. Streetlights are public goods and therefore have to be paid for by public contribution.
Healthcare and education are not technically public goods. They can be consumed in individual packages exactly like meals in a restaurant and therefore you can readily charge for them. Is it just an outworn prejudice to think of them as public rather than private services? I do not think so. We think that healthcare and education should be provided for the good of society whether or not people want them or are able to pay for them. Moreover, we think that they should be distributed as equally as possible.
The reasons that people think like this are complicated and I do not have time to go into them. But we do think in that way and the fact that we do so affects the motives of those who choose to work in those services. By and large, whatever companies now say, they are full of the notion of corporate social responsibility, and so on—I believe that people go into the private sector mainly to earn money. Their satisfaction comes from the incomes they earn. I know that that is not a complete explanation but as a broad generalisation it is true.
1016
However, it is not true for most of the people who choose to work as doctors, nurses or teachers. Much of their job satisfaction comes from doing good. They regard their calling as honourable, even as noble. That gives rise to the problem. For 20 years, the main thrust of public service reform has been to replace public service motives for action by commercial incentives. The language of markets has replaced the language of service. We have been told to think of hospitals and schools as businesses selling services to customers and clients. We look for all kinds of market mechanisms short of actual profits and losses to hold those business "accountable" to their "customers". The noble Lord, Lord Plant, was a pioneer of what is called the "quasi-market" approach to the reform of public services. I shall be fascinated to hear what he thinks in retrospect about that.
I have no doubt that a big shake-up was necessary. The typical vice of the public service ethic is self-righteousness which too easily becomes indifference to the wishes and needs of those whom the public servants are meant to serve. Furthermore, a public service ethos is no justification for a blank cheque. And just because material incentives are weaker in the public services, it is extraordinarily difficult for them to adapt to new demands made of them.
However, in trying to make public services more like markets, we run the great risk of drying up the springs of genuinely valuable motives for action. The loss of that motive will make the services more expensive in the long run. As has been pointed out in the debate, people do not go into them to make money.
I do not claim to see my way clearly through the conundrum: that one has to introduce accountability and control but at the same time take care not to destroy the valuable motives which cause people to go into those occupations. At the very least, politicians and public persons could start talking a different language which more adequately reflects the nature of public services. They must not talk so much about buying and selling but more about responsibility, obligation and the nobility of the calling. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has put us all in his debt by reminding us what that language is.
5.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many others, I am pleased to take part in this debate moved by my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It is a subject which sits between many of the problems and opportunities which face us today.
I make three observations. First, I begin by focusing on the implicit models of public sector service which operate both in the United Kingdom as well as in Europe and the United States. It is clear that the public service sector has had a long and noble tradition in this country but it is not necessarily the only way to arrange our affairs. As someone with close family ties with Scandinavia, I am consistently struck by the level of resourcing which goes into the public sector in

1017
countries such as Denmark. However, I also draw attention to the fact that in much of northern Europe healthcare provision is the responsibility of private insurance.
Looking in the opposite direction, public service in the United States was seen until recently as the poor relation to the world of commerce. As with much in our economic life, the United Kingdom seems to sit somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic, providing an alternative model and one which I believe we should value highly. We should have confidence in our public institutions despite those very necessary times when we look for the checks and balances. It is a very British trait to knock and undermine the very sources of stability and democracy which are so widely admired around the globe.
Secondly, like many of my fellow bishops, I have close working relationships with local government and have been impressed by the response of local authorities, for example in Gosport and Havant, to the Local Government Act 2000 which calls upon such authorities to produce a community strategy that acknowledges the place not only of the public sector but also of those working in private, business, community and voluntary spheres. Through the local strategic partnership there is both the opportunity and the duty to create strategic alliances which acknowledge the value and mutual interdependence of those areas. Gone are the days when in some Stalinist centralised view the state is able to legislate for the minutiae of social interaction. Equally, gone are the days when it was believed that business was the answer to all our problems. We are now, thankfully, in a position where we acknowledge and value service in all its various guises, whether public, commercial community or voluntary; and, of course, in this the public sector has a vital if self-limiting role.
Thirdly, conventional economic measures such as GDP take no account of the notion of service, whether in the public or voluntary sectors. Most of our key public services whether in health, social services, prison or the law courts are increasingly dependent upon voluntary support, whether through charitable funding or the provision of vital support services. Where would we be if government had to pay for school governors? How many hospitals benefit from the league of friends not only financially but through awareness and the generation of good will? How many environmental projects rely on key alliances with community groups who give freely of their time?
Fundamental to both public and voluntary service is the belief that individuals make a significant contribution and that is a strong motivator to society. Oddly enough, the very attempt by government—welcome in itself—to provide funding for voluntary services and the concomitant apparatus of financial management and funding application can have the opposite effect of what is intended. It can create a professionalised bureaucracy which is focused on the next funding round and dissipate the energy which provided its original vision. The role of government must be to provide resources for public services but acknowledge that motivation differs between the
1018
sectors. This is particularly poignant for the faith communities of our country. As well as supporting their own community lives, they carry the burden of responsibility for historic buildings for which they receive little or no funding from government. That can skew, for example, a parish's focus towards bricks and mortar and away from other wider purposes equally inherent in the working of that faith vision.
In conclusion, I should like to make a more general comment on the Question which may complement the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, and the other maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor. As we deliberate the role of public service, it is crucial that we at least try to view it from everyone else's perspective. It is very easy to create a culture in which those on the fringe are judged by those at its heart. That is a somewhat forceful way of saying that we really all have to be in this together.
6 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, the idea of public service is much invoked in debate about the reform of public services, but little analysed. Does public service have more than rhetorical and sentimental value? I believe that it does, and I have two reasons for saying that. First, there is the link between the public sector and the provision of certain basic goods such as health, education and welfare, which impinge directly on human well-being, and physical security, in the case of the police service and the fire brigade.
If those services are not provided for properly, wellbeing will be lowered. In certain circumstances, it may be that the effects of that are irreversible. For example, if people miss education or health opportunities, or if policing fails, the effects may be irreversible. In this country, most people feel that these services should be provided by government out of taxation.
Secondly, it is vital that there should be a high degree of trust on the part of both government and consumers that services are being properly provided for and operated in the interests of the needs of consumers and not in the interests of producers. The ethic of service can provide a basis for that trust. Service provides a constraint on sectional and producer interests in the public sector and allows government and consumers to have a degree of trust in the provision of services that have a basic effect on people's lives.
The alternative view is that associated with public choice economists. Many Members of your Lordships' House know much more about this than I do, but the view which is favoured by people on the Right is that there is no such ethical realm as that of service in relation to the public sector. They say that people entering the public sector do not step into a different ethical realm from that of the market or the voluntary sector and that people are motivated by utility maximisation and self-interest, whichever area of life they are in. That applies as much to the public sector as the private sector. It is argued that that is the best

1019
explanation that can be provided for the growth of the public sector in western society. It is the result of the utility maximising behaviour of those employed in the public sector.
On that view, the institutional reform of the public sector should not pay much attention, if any, to the idea of service, but should look to reforms that constrain self-interest or engage self-interest in ways that will produce benefits.
I would argue that even on that public choice model, one cannot escape the problem of trust. If one considers the kinds of constraints that public choice theorists put on self-interested behaviour, contract is a main focus. The imposition of a kind of contract on individuals in the public sector will constrain their behaviour better than anything else. While that may be so, it does not avoid the problem of trust. However specific a contract is, there is always a gap between a set of rules and how the rules are implemented. That point has been well known since Aristotle. If there is always a gap between rules and their implementation, one has to use judgment to apply them. How can one do that if the rules do not give the answer? One has to trust people to apply judgment in an appropriate way.
If we devise institutions on David Hume's injunction that we had better treat people as if they were knaves, we may end up driving out good motivation, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. If we adopt a wholly contractual and rule-governed approach to behaviour, we shall end up with people fulfilling their contractual obligations and no more, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
We cannot continue devising rules and contracts to constrain behaviour. There has to be a degree of trust and judgment, which must be exercised against the background of the ethos of service. The service ethic is important in that respect. I certainly do not think that we can use the service ethic as the whole basis for thinking about the public sector, and I do not regret what I did in relation to quasi markets. Nevertheless, it is important that we do not end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, in thanking the right reverend Prelate for this opportunity, I should like to say something from a policing perspective. I declare an interest as a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police where I am a commander with responsibility for the force's training. It is therefore a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and former commissioner.
Martin Luther King said,
"life's most urgent and persistent question is what are you doing for others?".
Every five weeks a new group of recruits arrive at Hendon and answer that question, committing themselves to public service as police officers. Last year the youngest was 18 and the oldest 49, which suggests that the instinct to serve can appear at any time. Throughout the country new officers express
1020
that commitment in the oath of allegiance and seek to be true to it in organisations separated by geography, but joined through common values of duty and care. In London, officers swear that oath as constables of the Metropolitan Police Service, recognising that while force remains a necessary part of law enforcement, policing is underpinned by notions of consent and accountability. They commit to serve "without favour or affection" to
"cause the peace to be kept"
and to
"prevent all offences against persons and property".
That is an honourable but challenging commitment, and one from which we sometimes fall short. It reflects the fact that the essence of policing is bound up not in confrontation but in protection and service.
Writing in 1829, when the whole of Kensington was protected by six parish constables, whom he remarked "were not invariably sober", Robert Peel emphasised that good policing was not about the
"invasion of liberty but a restraint of licence".
The first instruction book made explicit this public service ethic. A constable should be,
"civil and attentive to all persons, never suffering himself to be moved by any language or threats … Such conduct will induce well-disposed bystanders to assist him should be so require".
That recognised that the future of the new police depended almost entirely on public acceptance. Today it means that a safe, just and tolerant society can only be built by working with others. For that reason, we should not define the concept of service in an exclusive way. In developing policing doctrine, we should take every opportunity to involve others. One does not have to join the police service to contribute to the service of policing. We already have special constables who the statute says:
"enjoy all the powers, privileges and protections of a Constable".
They also face the same dangers and challenges and their families have the same anxieties and pressures. We have much to thank them for. There is a range of ways in which active citizens can participate in policing and which help to shape the conception of what good service looks like.
The concept of service in a policing context is far-reaching when one stops to consider its ultimate demands. Tomorrow Her Majesty the Queen will visit Hendon to be present at the dedication of the Metropolitan Police Book of Remembrance. We shall recall our 876 colleagues who have died in the course of duty between 1830 and 14th March this year. Though separated by 171 years, those officers are united by a common bond of duty and honour, which led them to forsake their own interests in the service of others.
When the book is dedicated, it will be opened at tomorrow's date, for which there are five entries. The last two are: Francis Joseph O'Neil, died 1980, aged 31. While on plain-clothes duty he was stabbed in the heart by a suspect whom he was questioning in a chemist's shop at Waterloo. Despite being fatally wounded, he attempted to make an arrest before he collapsed and died. The last one refers to Kulwant

1021
Singh Sidhu, died 1999, aged 24. Late at night he attended a call to suspects on a roof in Twickenham. In the early hours he was found inside the premises, having been fatally injured by falling through a glass skylight while pursuing the suspects. It is surely appropriate that the book and memorial in their honour should be at Hendon where our newest recruits begin their career. The humanity and sacrifice of those officers will be an example and inspiration to them, as it is to us all.
In 1754, Saunders Welch wrote:
"Let the service of the public be the greatest motive of … your office. This will keep you from wanton acts of power".
Today, the abuse of authority by police officers is regrettably not unknown, but there are few organisations more prepared to confront malpractice from within. The service of the public remains policing's most enduring ethic, manifested not just in great heroism, but in daily acts of kindness, help and reassurance. The underlying philosophy of policing remains rooted in the concept of service, and long may it remain so.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I add my congratulations for the four outstanding maiden speeches in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has given us the opportunity to debate this subject at an appropriate time. The grim events in New York last month and all that has followed have brought home that in the frenzy of our materialist preoccupations, we should never take for granted the dedicated men and women in our public services, both civil and military. They have provided, and continue to provide, a powerful reminder of what the values of a decent civilised society should be about. That has been evident not just since 11th September. In the foot and mouth epidemic and in this week's floods, we have looked to the civil and military services for their professionalism, effectiveness and commitment.
In my past work with Voluntary Service Overseas and Oxfam, I have repeatedly seen at first hand that same spirit of selfless service among thousands of volunteers and staff in the United Kingdom and abroad. It is something very special.
We like to think that we have moved into a post-ideological age, but have we? Our preoccupation with the market and with price as the most valid determinant smacks to me of perhaps an unprecedented ideological commitment in the United Kingdom and beyond. Of course we need a vibrant private sector, but it must be characterised by drive, financial discipline, entrepreneurship and vision, not dominated by short-term returns for shareholders, astronomical remuneration of directors, asset-stripping, blinkered business school core-business talk and greed. If the private sector is to be seen and encouraged as a key pillar of society, as it should be, company reports should invariably be convincingly about their social contribution as well as their profitability. There are many such companies and it is
1022
tragic that their contribution and commitment to service and to the community is frequently eclipsed by the sordid stories of the irresponsible opportunists.
Regulation is required, but it is seldom creative. There have to be the values and social priorities in the culture of the private sector itself. Experience and common sense demonstrate beyond doubt that there are social priorities in which the provision of services to all to a high standard will make more sense in the public sector; for example, where meaningful or sane competition will be absent or where the returns on the social investment, while always demanding efficiency and value for money, should not be unduly distorted by an over-riding requirement to make profits—in other words, where it is the high standard that matters most. Education and health are good examples, but so are other services where the quality of what is provided will underpin society and the rest of our economic activity. Large parts of our transport system, and, arguably, water and power, are among them.
The long-term sustainability of our society also requires hard-headed pragmatism on the relative merits of public and private provision in terms of what should be an overarching priority at all times—the protection and enhancement of the environment.
The essence of good governance is surely to achieve the right dynamic, rational and responsible mix between the private and public sectors; between the thrust of the private sector at its best and intervention for the common good.
The systematic denigration of too many public servants and public sector workers in recent decades has been tragic. There has been a refusal to recognise the economic value of commitment within a sector that the employees feel is primarily about service. It is hardly surprising if much demoralisation has inevitably followed.
The prevailing message seems too often to have been that those who have what it takes make money rather than championing those who endeavour to work for the quality of our society and unashamedly for others. Teachers, lecturers, social workers, health workers, postal workers, transport workers, municipal, rural and amenity workers and public service workers of all kinds should be celebrated as models for us all, not just in the aftermath of 11th September, but all the time, because they are working for a civilised reality with the wealth that we generate. By the same token, wealth producers—those who really produce wealth—should also be accorded pride of place.
All that should be evident in our value system in a cultural recognition of service. It should not be merely a matter of sentiment. While those who seek to serve professionally are invariably motivated by more than material reward, that sense of commitment should never be exploited. I believe that a decent society is one in which it is absolutely clear from the conditions of employment that such people enjoy how much we value the service provided by our public servants and those who provide service in a whole host of different ways.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I think that everyone will agree that we have heard some excellent speeches today. I join in the congratulation to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on choosing such an excellent Motion, which refers to,
"the concept of service, especially in the public sector".
I shall concentrate on that.
I very much regret that I cannot refer to all the many excellent speeches, not least the maiden speeches. However, one of them fits in with what I intend to say. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, spoke of how passionately he felt about the denigration of politicians. Needless to say, I very much agree with him, having shared both his profession and one of his jobs.
Not surprisingly, there are strong views not only about politicians, but about the denigration of others in the public service, who, as we have heard, do such a wonderful job generally. Most politicians I know from all parties sincerely hold their strong views and speak them clearly and honestly. Even when I disagree with them—which I frequently do—I know that they hold their views very sincerely.
My concept of public service began when I came out of the forces after the war and, together with many others, decided, perhaps naively and idealistically, that the only way I could achieve something in public life and have a practical effect on what could or could not be done was as a politician. In political life we could not only talk about issues, as we did quite frequently, but also perhaps one day do something about them, both locally and nationally. I felt that my future should be in the Labour Party, although I very much respect those who chose other parties, because they did so for the same good reasons. I worked locally and, after some time, have managed to spend 37 years in one House or the other trying to fulfil a public service. My idea of a public service means just that—doing something for the public, both locally and nationally. I chose to make my contribution in that way.
Sadly, the only opportunity that I had to carry out an executive role in government was as Chief Secretary to the Treasury—a post the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, also held later. I had entered into that area of political life from public life in the hope that I would be able to play a part in improving public services and spending public money. Unfortunately, during virtually the whole five years that I spent as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, economic circumstances ensured that I cut expenditure in precisely the areas that I had come into public life to improve. Of course, I told myself that, in the economic circumstances, that was essential. I told myself that eventually it would all come right and that I would be able to carry on with the job that I really wanted to do. Unfortunately, I left office at that time.
1024
On the other hand, the aims that brought me into public life more than 50 years ago have been carried through by others during that length of time, and less; namely, the improvements in services that I wanted to see under successive governments.
I hope that the present Government will do much more than I was able to achieve. I am no longer quite as naive as I was in those days, although I hope that, to some extent, the idealism remains. However, experience has ensured that that idealism is tinged with a sense of realism, and I am no longer one who expects too much from any government. But I certainly hope that, as well as improving public services in this country, the present Government will do many of the things that I mentioned to help to close the gap between the rich and the poor, both in the UK and elsewhere in the world.
Although I no longer expect the Government to do too much, I hope that, in replying to the debate, my noble friend will be able to assure me that a great deal will be done. I still hope—after all these years one still has hope, if nothing else—that this Government, whom generally I support although at times I am a little critical, will do better than I managed to do. I hope that they will improve public services to help those in the world generally and in the UK. However, under the present circumstances, I say that without deluding myself.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for initiating a debate on the extremely important question of service, especially in the public sector. Briefly, I want to say something about the importance of the public sector in the collective life of any society and then to say something about how we can get the best out of that sector.
During the past two decades or so, we have come to believe that the public sector is the relic of a nanny state, reminiscent of an age in which the state knew what was best for its citizens and ran their lives from cradle to grave. One may also see it as the last resort of those who have been unable to succeed in the private sector. Those are wholly false readings of the nature and place of the public sector in our collective life.
The public sector is a vital expression of our communal life, which it consolidates and nurtures. It reflects our collective commitment that certain basic conditions of the good life should be available equally to all our citizens. Although the market has a legitimate place in our lives, it has inherent limitations: it is unplanned, its consequences are unpredictable and it bears particularly heavily on the weak and vulnerable sectors of our society. It also privileges profit and efficiency over public spirit and mutual concern.
Therefore, we rightly want to ensure that the things which are essential for a good life and which should be available equally to all our citizens are taken out of the market and made the responsibility of the public sector or the state. That is the only way to ensure that the market economy does not degenerate into a market

1025
society and distort our scheme of values. Education, health, public utilities, transport and so on, which are all concerned with the quality of national life and require long-term planning and national coordination, rightly fall within the public sector.
The public sector binds us together as a community, forms our collective capital, which we cherish and pass on to future generations, and, inevitably, constitutes an object of collective pride. When the number of our fellow citizens taking out private health insurance rises from 2 million to 7 million in 20 years, and when the number of children turning to private schools increases threefold in as many years, we have reasons to feel concerned. Those things fragment society into different groups which have very little common interest to bind them together, limited understanding of each others' needs and little sympathy for each others' predicament. When some members of our society break away from shared communal provisions for the good life, our sense of solidarity is weakened and our character as a community is, to that extent, diminished. All that is so obvious that it hardly needs reiteration, except at a time when we are in danger of forgetting the importance of the public sector.
The quality of our public services must obviously be of the highest standard. The question is: how do we ensure that that is the case? During the past 100-odd years, we have tried out two major ways of achieving that, and each has its obvious limitations. One is what I might call the "altruistic" model. It relies on a strong public spirit among those who work in the public sector. It appeals to their professional pride, their desire to serve their fellow human beings and to deserve well of the wider society.
While there is much to be said for that model in an ideal world, it has its limitations. Not all public servants are highly motivated, and some cut corners. They also display the arrogance of expertise and tend to see their clients and consumers as passive objects who should be grateful for such services as they receive. Professional associations cannot always be relied upon to be self-governing because of their tendency to be protective about their own members.
The other model is based on mistrust. It introduces the ethos of business into public services and relies on the managerial style of carrot and stick. The Government are expected to lay down targets, prescribe performance indicators, constantly audit performance of those involved, punish the laggard and reward the successful, and demand value for money, and so on. This model, which relies on the language of business and management applied to the public sector, is fundamentally flawed. It makes sense in relation to market or material products but not in relation to human beings and human relationships. It is also cynical and manipulative. While it can prevent people from doing their worse, it can never inspire them to do their best. It is also inevitably centralist, bureaucratic and heavy-handed.
Therefore, I suggest that neither model is particularly applicable to the public sector. We need to rethink our whole approach to public service and find
1026
ways to combine the best in both. In other words, we must foster public spirit, professional pride and dedication among those involved in public service, and mobilise their better impulses. But we must also ensure that there is greater accountability, transparency, diversity at the local level, creativity and cost-effectiveness.
Countless ways have been suggested as to how we might be able to integrate the best in both, and I do not need to repeat those now. The public sector requires not only a spirit of public service but also new investment. I am glad to see that the Government are seized of the importance of that and are beginning to invest very heavily in the public sector.
Before I end, I express my sincerest apologies that I have long agreed to chair an important meeting elsewhere and that I shall need to leave fairly soon. I very much hope that your Lordships' House will extend to me the Christian spirit of caritas and see no discourtesy in my early departure.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I shall address this subject from a specific angle. My concern is not so much with the provision made for supplying essential services, such as health and education, which at present are matters of great public interest; rather, it relates to the changes taking place in the public service itself, particularly the concept of being a public servant—the "ethos", as some have expressed it.
I have a lifelong interest in this subject, having been brought up to believe that the distinctive character of our Civil Service was its unique combination of loyalty to the elected government of the day, its political impartiality, and the control of its activities by a Minister, himself answerable to Parliament.
I was much influenced in these ideas by my father, a well known public servant in his time, who had been Secretary to the Cabinet throughout the Second World War and subsequently Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. My own professional life of nearly 40 years was spent in the Diplomatic Service whose ideals were those which I have just described and remain the same.
There have, however, been some interesting and necessary changes and desirable innovations. Take, for example, the role of the political adviser. When serving as a Private Secretary in the Foreign Office in the 1960s I recall the appointment of a political adviser to the then Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart. It was one of the first such appointments, I believe. This adviser was John Harris, later a prominent Member of this House on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
My recollection of this appointment is very positive. The political adviser was helpful both to the Minister and to the department. As a trusted political ally of the Minister, he could discern or readily discover the potential domestic political impact of policies being considered in the department. Armed with this knowledge he could help the department to formulate its policies in such a way as to cause the minimum domestic political problems for the Minister. This was

1027
a valuable contribution and an example of the public service and the political world working together positively.
Another relevant recollection derives from my three year stint as a Private Secretary to the Prime Minister from 1972 to 1974. For the first two years the Prime Minister was Sir Edward Heath. I judged his Private Office to be an effective, indeed valuable, part of the government machinery. After Sir Edward's party lost the election in February 1974 we all anticipated that his successor would make some changes in the Private Office. Also, we were conscious that Harold Wilson, when he paid visits to No. 10 in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, took the trouble to find out who we were and what we did. We were mostly products of politically unacceptable public schools and had all studied deeply unfashionable subjects in ancient universities. So we felt that the Prime Minister would require a rather different team.
When the newly appointed Prime Minister arrived at No. 10 from Buckingham Palace there was a great deal to be done in helping him to form his new administration. Clearly the Queen's Government had to be carried on and we all felt it was our duty to help him. Somewhat to our surprise the incoming Prime Minister made no changes to the Private Office staff and I remained in my post for a further year to complete the expected three year cycle. The impression we had from talking to the Prime Minister's political staff was that he wanted to run his Private Office differently in his second term and thought the existing team would do rather well. I mention all this because there have been some recent changes in the staffing arrangements at No. 10 and I shall comment on those briefly in a moment.
The old system had some advantages. It could be very efficient. The Private Secretaries had a good knowledge of the subjects they handled and an understanding of how the departments they worked with actually performed and functioned. Thus in my own case I knew my parent department quite intimately and also had personal experience of the other subjects I dealt with, which were defence, overseas trade and Northern Ireland. That system also strengthened the role of Ministers in charge of departments, as the Private Secretaries saw it as part of their function to keep Cabinet Ministers properly informed of the Prime Minister's views on current problems.
The present arrangements have changed all that. The former Private Secretaries are now called policy advisers (I do not know what that means) while the executive tasks are entrusted to persons who may have no personal experience of the public service and, for all I know, may be selected on a personal or political basis. I do not say that there is an objection of an ethical kind to these changes but I do suggest that the new model may be a good deal less satisfactory than the old. In particular, there is a potential for weakening the role of Ministers in charge of departments and their responsibility to Parliament.
1028
This is slightly worrying and the recent decision regarding Railtrack is perhaps an illustration of the kind of problem which may arise.
An overriding aspect is that these changes have all been made by administrative means without public discussion or examination by Parliament. It is this kind of decision which occasionally makes one wonder whether an unwritten constitution is wise in all circumstances. Thus we can no longer claim, as my father did in a series of lectures and essays delivered after his retirement (now the subject of critical examination by the Departments of Politics in our universities) that the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms had created a Civil Service of a non-political character free from party allegiance. That tradition, I regret, is being somewhat undermined and without regard to the long-term consequences. I hope that the new arrangements can be reviewed with these considerations in mind.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like everyone who has been sitting here throughout the debate I have listened to a fascinating range of experiences, which is what this House is best at. Many of them have been, as the Motion suggests, conceptual and philosophical, but I want to introduce what might be termed the grass roots, from my own personal experience.
When I was a lad I began to work for the Cooperative Movement and I joined the Co-operative Youth Movement. I then began to enjoy and benefit from the voluntary service of a range of people who guided and instructed me; and I have followed the ethics of the Co-operative Movement all my life. It had 10 million voluntary members; 100,000 employees; and introduced the concept of the dividend which, as is well known in the country, was a Co-operative product.
For 150 years the Co-operative Movement has given back to the community the profits made, in the form of dividend and in other ways. Many businesses in 2000 and 2001 recognise the value of community service and provide the community money in the form of grants and in other ways. My experience as a Member of Parliament must be shared by many on all sides. My eyes were opened as I began to do my job and I realised just how many people gave thousands of hours of their time.
Before becoming a Member of another place, I was leader of a London borough council at a time when one did not get paid for being a councillor; I complained about that. I am glad that councillors now receive something but in my time they did not. We would go to old people's clubs, CAB meetings and works meetings. In 1976, when the Queen celebrated 25 years on the Throne, I remember particularly the street parties, the gaiety, the laughter, and the contribution to uplifting the community spirit, all provided by volunteers. There were trestle tables down the streets with sandwiches, cakes, rock buns and balloons and all the rest of it. It has remained with me all my life. It was the same in 1981 when Prince Charles and Diana were married.

1029
When I think of public service, I think of it in small terms. I think, for instance, of the ancient Order of Foresters and many other friendly societies which may have professional organisations but which rely on the work of hundreds of thousands of volunteers every week. I think also of other organisations, such as residents' associations. I still keep up my links in Enfield. When I meet, say, 100 people who are committee members, I know that they represent 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 people. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any figure, suspect as it might be because it cannot be complete, of the number of those undertaking such work. There must be millions of people who are members of organisations who serve the public and their communities.
I think also of schools. When I used to go round my constituency, I enjoyed speaking to the teachers and the headmasters at school functions run by volunteers. That is service to the community and I think it is great. Last night I attended on the Terrace a reception given by the Open University. I am a graduate of the Open University and am proud of it. More than 2 million people have been associated with the work of the university over the years.
There are varying degrees of contact. My wife and I are members of the University of the Third Age, which was created in the past 20 years. It was inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. Retired people can meet and voluntarily provide services and interests for the members.
I say to the Minister that when she goes back to her colleagues she should not be put off by people who want to reduce the amount of money that is spent in support of a range of services. Voluntary service and service to the community require underpinning. People do not require medals and lots of money, but they want to know that they are loved. They want to know that the service they are giving is appreciated.
Civil servants who work locally and nationally do not enter the service to become millionaires. A phrases I learnt from my Co-op life was that the Co-op never made a millionaire and it never made a pauper. No one joins the public service in order to become a millionaire but people get satisfaction out of the job. Their reward is to know not only that they have done a good job and an honest day's work but that they are appreciated by the community.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford deserves our thanks for initiating this debate. I hope that the Minister can tell the House that service of any kind to the community is well worth while.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on 'winning the ballot and enabling us to have such a fascinating debate on the subject. We have heard impressive contributions, not least from the four maiden speakers. Each spoke from a different viewpoint and background and they made most valuable contributions.
1030
To many people in their daily lives and work, the concept of service as a sufficient motivation in itself has been seriously devalued for well over 20 years The incentive of the profit motive has been elevated to the status of a panacea for solving most of our economic problems and problems with our public services. Without doubt, self-seeking advancement is an important element in the motivation of society. But the motive of service is of equal importance. Depending on one's temperament, beliefs and up-bringing, it can bring to many if not most people in our country a great sense of fulfilment, satisfaction, happiness, achievement and security which would elude so many of them if they were confined to a competitive jungle. Everyone is different.
I speak as a Liberal who has always believed in free trade and private enterprise as being essential for the economic prosperity and well-being of our country and the world, provided that there are adequate safeguards against monopolies and economic imperialism, a qualification which some of our American friends have not yet fully appreciated. I do not believe for one moment that privatisation or the private initiative is the answer to all our problems either in the economy or in the social services. Yet new Labour appears to have adopted it as a replacement panacea for the old Labour one of nationalisation.
I have been in one or other of the two Houses for almost 40 years and I remember being virtually howled down by Labour supporters in another place when on behalf of the then tiny Liberal Party I objected to the renationalisation of steel. Equally. I was against privatisation of the railways. Steel has always seemed to be a competitive business. It needs to be efficient and productive and that is more likely to be achieved in the hands of private enterprise. But our railways are a public service.
Looking back over the past 20 years, in common with the vast majority of people in this country I would 20 times prefer the nationally owned and operated railway systems in France or Denmark, with the staff proudly wearing the uniforms of those public services to the privatised mess that we have succeeded in achieving in this country. We have mixed up two issues: first, the necessity for a public sell, ice:; and, secondly, the profit motive.
I have always thrived on competition—indeed, I entered an extremely competitive profession—but I have seen the great benefit to many of having a secure background and a certainty which people such as me would not want. Often we receive the best service from people who have a sense of public duty not only in their spare time and voluntary work but in their jobs.
I believe that good management is not the prerogative of private enterprise. In my day, I have been the chairman of two large public companies and I have seen private enterprise fail as well as achieve great results. However, there is no reason whatever why one cannot have properly managed businesses which are publicly owned. Privately financed enterprises have from time to time suffered—for example, during a depression—when they have taken great risks which

1031
otherwise would not have been justified. One can see them come to a sorry end. If that happened to a public enterprise, there would be a great public outcry.
As regards our railways, for example, is it not true that they have lacked proper investment? If they had remained in the public service, that could have been provided. Of course it would have cost money which, in the case of a public enterprise, could have come only from taxation. I speak for a party which believes that it is essential to have a profitable private sector; that is the basis of our prosperity. However, that prosperity is helped only by having certain public services. I am sure that more than half the population would prefer a sense of public service and public duty to activate them rather than merely profit motive.
I want to comment on the various public services which have been mentioned. First, the National Health Service. I would have thought that the first duty of this Government, like any other, would be to ensure that the NHS is a properly run national public service. To a considerable extent, the NHS has subsidised the private sector health service. I am doubtful when I hear consultants say to patients, "We have an enormous waiting list and you cannot be operated on for another 18 months. However, if you want a private appointment in a hospital nearby and to go privately it can be arranged in a very short time".
One wonders about the cross-fertilisation between private and public sectors. However, I say to the Government that their duty is to provide in the NHS and in state education a proper public service. They must safeguard against building a huge superstructure of bureaucracy above the public services. It can be so frustrating; there is no proper substitute for highly responsible individuals at all levels exercising discretion and their own initiative. We want to get away from the concept that initiative and a sense of economy can come only from private enterprise. In many spheres, it is the best answer but in many others it is not.
In view of what has happened recently and the threat of a depression, the right reverend Prelate performed a great public service at a timely occasion in our lives. He stressed the importance of public service in this country.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I owe a personal debt of gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for opening this debate. I cannot recall a debate in your Lordships' House for which I have more enjoyed preparation or one to which I have looked forward with greater anticipation.
As many noble Lords have said, this is an important and timely debate. Its timeliness is reflected in the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who both said that since 11th September people have turned to the public services in a way that they had not perhaps done previously. They have seen first hand the
1032
importance of the public role in defence, security, policing and intelligence and, of course, the role of doctors and nurses.
This choice of debate is particularly important. We have been reminded of it in your Lordships' House, in which, today, by good luck, four wonderful maiden speeches have been delivered. They were by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, on teaching, by my noble friend Lord MacGregor on politics, by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, on health, and by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on policing. They all reflected a point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford made in his introductory remarks, and with which I should like to deal. The right reverend Prelate referred to—I believe I use his words—the disparagement, denigration and criticism of, the lack of respect for and the lack of recognition among those who work in the public services. The noble Lords who made maiden speeches today all touched on their sense of that—how very right they were to do so.
We all remember the events of 11th September. They are burned in our memory, and we are all touched by different memories. Many of us are perhaps most moved by the picture of the fireman trudging his way up the staircase of the World Trade Centre, carrying his pipes and tubes on his back, and going up to danger and possible death while others were walking down to safety.
As a result, while preparing for this debate, I sought out the fireman's prayer, with which noble Lords may not be familiar. I shall read an extract from it because it touches on all that has been said in this debate. Part of it states:
"When I am called to duty, God,
I want to fill my calling and
give the best in me
And if according to your will
I have to give my life
Please bless with your protecting hand
My children and my wife".
As has already been said this evening, it is a high and honourable calling.
Many noble Lords have said that we all want to believe that that public service ethos will not die and will last for ever. But will it? Christian theology has wrestled with the question of work and its meaning throughout the ages. In his commentary on Genesis, Augustine argued that work was related to the human spirit. The Garden of Eden was both a place of delight and of work—Adam was created as a working gardener. However, after the Fall, private gain is put before the common good. Selfishness, not arduousness, is the sign that we live in a fallen world.
But then a great change occurred. Baptised in the icy waters of Calvinist theology, the business of work—once regarded as being perilous to the soul—acquired a new sanctity. Labour became not merely an economic means but a spiritual end. In his iconic 1904 work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber explained this new morality, and I shall try to describe it.

1033
It has many elements. First, people have an obligation to fill their lives with toil. Hard work and effort are to be valued for their own sake. Secondly, men and women are expected to spend long hours at work, with little time for personal recreation. Thirdly, a worker should have a dependable attendance record, with low absenteeism. Other elements of that morality are that workers should be highly productive; that workers should take pride in their work and do their jobs well; that employees should have feelings of commitment and loyalty to their organisation; and that workers should be achievement-oriented and strive for promotion. Further elements are that frugality and thrift are desirable and that wealth should be acquired through honest labour; and that a universal taboo is placed on idleness, and that industriousness is considered an ideal—waste is a vice and frugality is a virtue. Finally, the view turns on a belief that events in one's life are the result of one's own behaviour—the converse, of course, is the belief that events in one's life will be a function of chance, luck or powers that are beyond one's control. In all of those ways Weber showed how a task that is done out of necessity is transformed into an expression of divine action.
But how do these ideas relate to today's debate and to the modern world of mixed private and public services? Today, public services exist—I quote the standard textbook definition—where,
"the state is not seeking to engage in gainful activity but is fulfilling its duties to its own population in the social, cultural and educational fields".
The idea is straightforward: the state is not in business. The crucial clause in that definition is the phrase, "fulfilling its duties". If the duty is seen as the adequate provision of the service (which may be education, healthcare, retirement provision and so on), and if the services are not being provided, the state is not fulfilling its duty. That seems to be what is happening.
A MORI poll reveals public disquiet at the future of public service. It found that 37 per cent of people think that most or nearly everyone will pay for private schools; that 56 per cent think that most or nearly everyone will pay for private healthcare; that 59 per cent think that most or nearly everyone will pay for private welfare insurance; and that 66 per cent think that most or nearly everyone will pay for private pensions.
In a Consumers' Association survey, 40 per cent of the public said that in the face of NHS delays they were willing to pay for private treatment, even if they had no health insurance and had to pay for treatment out of their own pocket. Last week the NHS sent its first ever patient abroad for treatment.
Why is all that happening and why has it led to the discomfort that many noble Lords have expressed this evening? Last week a Downing Street official explained very crisply:
"We're running a Soviet-style centralised system and that's never going to work".
He is right. The state sometimes behaves in the manner that is contained in Marx's description of monopoly capitalists, who depress wages down to the lowest
1034
level. That, Marx said, was the way in which labour became mere material to be exploited and a commodity treated,
"as if it were a thing, a non-human entity, like wool or leather or a piece of machinery".
Instead of our public servants being rewarded and respected—as they should be—in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and others, one finds the exact opposite; they are disparaged and denigrated, as the right reverend Prelate said. Neither the people who work in public services, as people, nor the service that they provide have the resources to provide the public good that we all want.
Here we come to the heart of the matter; the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, came to it, as he usually does. Let us consider the nurses. Christine Hancock, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said:
"One of the biggest things … that drives clinical staff out of the NHS is the feeling that they are not able to care for their patients properly and they are not able to do their job properly".
So it is with doctors. It was found that 80 per cent of doctors would leave the NHS if they could, that 80 per cent would not recommend general practice as a career, that 69 per cent were prepared to take industrial action and that 68 per cent would like to retire early. That is a tremendous fall in the public service ethos.
Why has all of that happened? Adonis chronicles the change in the public service ethos at Oxford University during the past 25 years—this will be agony for the noble Lord, Lord Moser, who knows the situation well. He described Oxford University as,
"probably the single most important institution for shaping elite mentalities in modern Britain".
He shows how in the last 25 years there has been a wholesale switch from public sector careers, especially teaching, towards a narrow range of financial careers. Between 1971 and 1994 the number of Ox ford graduates entering state school teaching collapsed by 60 per cent. and, as a proportion of all graduate careers, fell from 9.7 to 3.3 per cent. Meanwhile the number going into City occupations from Oxford increased nearly four times. Why is this? Adonis points to money, social esteem and responsibility as the reason for this collapse.
And so it is. Kenneth Galbraith sums it up very well:
"Nothing sets a stronger limn on the liberty of the citizen than a total absence of money."
This leaves the Christian theology of money and the public service ethic with a very considerable task in the years ahead, which is why I hope that this debate may be a turning point and why I hope that all of us will rise to the challenge that the right reverend Prelate has set before us.
7.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Morgan of Huyton): My Lords, perhaps I may say first of all that I found the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ox ford on the concept of public service most thought-provoking. I shall try to cover

1035
the issues that he raised. We have had an excellent debate, as has been recognised around the House, and once again I am struck by the depth of knowledge we are fortunate to be able to draw on in this House. Many noble Lords have contributed personal experience of their own involvement in public service. Given the constraints on time, I shall endeavour to reply to as many noble Lords as time permits, and beyond that I shall write. I would also commend the paper of my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield on the public service ethic, to which other noble Lords have already referred. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Moser, Lord Chan, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market and Lord Condon, on their respective maiden speeches and welcome the immense experience they bring to the House.
There are two interconnected strands to this debate: the underlying ethos of public service; and, if we believe in that ethos and its particular though not unique application to public services, why those services must change, evolve and improve. There is no easy or glib definition of a public service ethos. Clearly, it is based on a shared sense of common purpose and a belief that we can together make a difference for the greater good. That indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, and my noble friend Lord Barnet recognised, is why many enter public life in the first place. Our definition must 'recognise that we are not just individuals fighting for ourselves and our families, but part of society, part of communities, held together by common beliefs, values, aspirations and mutual responsibility. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that the Government are committed to reviving the ethos of public service and restating the importance of those values, which at times in the past have been easily disregarded.
The ethos of public service goes beyond the public services. The wide-ranging voluntary sector, with which many Members of this House are closely involved, exemplifies this quality. For example, the Giving Campaign aims to create a new culture of giving in Britain, not just of money but of time too. Volunteering in this country has a long and proud tradition on which we want to build. At this difficult time I am particularly struck by the idealism and commitment of many young and older people taking part in Voluntary Service Overseas, who are an example to us all. As my noble friend Lord Haskel pointed out, an increasing number of businesses are recognising their social responsibility role too.
Our public servants symbolise that ethos. If one speaks to many good teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers, it is clear that they take professional pride in seeing the child learning to read, the patient returning to good health and the victim of crime knowing that the criminal who attacked them is behind bars. And the awful events of 11th September and the weeks since have, of course, highlighted the selfless dedication of public servants.
I understand the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he speaks of the need to recognise public servants fully. I think we all recognise the three Rs of
1036
the noble Lord, Lord Condon—recognition, respect and reward. The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, also spoke eloquently about the ethos of service in policing.
Our public services symbolise our vision of community. Public services available to all have a place in our lives today just as they did more than 50 years ago, when the NHS was created and the Education Act was passed. Collective provision continues to be the best way of ensuring that the majority get the opportunity and security that those at the top take for granted. We believe that everyone—every man, every woman, every child—deserves the chance to make the most of themselves within a strong and cohesive society.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moser, recognised, without high quality education for all, children will never achieve their potential, and the prosperity of the nation, which is dependent on skill, will suffer. Without good healthcare that is accessible and free at the point of use, people are forced to pay or to live in pain. Without a properly-functioning criminal justice system, the society we live in is less stable, less secure and less fair. Without decent public transport, there is no alternative to ever greater congestion on the roads and ever greater environmental damage. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, emphasised, we are all committed to the integrity of the Civil Service.
But if we believe in public service, we must also seek to provide the best public services for our people. That is why our public services cannot stand still. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that this does not mean that the ethos of those services has to change. None of us should underestimate the enormity of the task ahead.
The Government are committed to reform because the demands on the systems and people's expectations have risen. More people live longer; more diseases are treatable; more children go to nursery; more young people go on to university; and more people use public transport. The consumers of our public services expect quality, high standards, choice and speed in all areas of the country. And of course the public services need to recognise and meet the changing roles and demands of men and women today.
We are committed to reform because there has been chronic under-investment over decades in all our public services. That has led to the run down of the country's essential infrastructure. That is why we are embarked on the largest ever investment in our public services. Your Lordships will know the macro figures, but these mean, for example, 600 new or completely refurbished schools over the next three years, the largest ever hospital building programme, 44,000 extra classroom assistants, the recruitment of 1,300 police officers in the past year alone and £239 million over the next three years for improved rural transport.
We are committed to reform and improvement for our public servants as well, because their recruitment and retention is the key to sustainable long-term improvements in services. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, talked from experience about the NHS. We are making a start by improvements in that area for our

1037
staff. We have massively improved recruitment and salary packages for nurses and we are giving every newly-qualified doctor going into GP practice an extra payment. We are striving constantly to increase recruitment and to keep up retention rates across the NHS. That is also why the NHS is striving to keep its skilled, largely female, staff by offering more childcare, flexible working and other practical improvements to working life.
We are developing our public services via four pillars of reform. I hope that demonstrates to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that we are not satisfied with the status quo and are not standing still. The first is the setting of a framework of national standards, inspection and accountability across the country. In practice this means rebuilding and developing services so that they meet the diverse needs of individuals, offering greater choice but with universal high standards. So we have national tests for literacy and numeracy and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to set standards for health treatment across the NHS.
The second principle is the devolution of freedom to frontline professionals and local leaders to innovate and develop services. Staff should be freed up to work in new ways to meet the needs of their customers. In health, with the establishment of local primary care trusts, 75 per cent of all NHS resources will be spent by frontline workers. That is a massive increase in the devolution of responsibility to where it should be. It is a large challenge to staff but it is one which, from my experience of meeting staff in recent weeks in Ipswich, York and Swindon, they relish. Similarly, 85 per cent of all local education funding now goes directly to schools.
The next pillar of reform is more recognition of the work of frontline staff. Without the support and professionalism of public servants, the Government's plans for reform will not be delivered, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen so rightly said. So we are improving conditions, increasing pay and introducing rewards for high performance. Indeed this year, for the first time in many years, it is significant that public sector salaries are growing at a faster rate than private sector salaries.
The final approach is more choice for service users, whether that be a greater variety of schools and the expansion of successful ones, or the expansion of successful and efficient GP practices. That means the promotion of alternative providers where minimum standards are not reached. It also means partnership with other sectors to improve a service. It means freeing up our public servants to innovate and to take responsibility for making change happen. The private and voluntary sectors can both play a role. This does not mean replacing or changing the ethos of public services, as my noble friend Lord Judd made clear. But where the use of other providers can improve public services, we should be open to that.
For instance, there is a place for public private partnerships and for private finance initiatives where they deliver quality. In Glasgow, for example, 29
1038
secondary schools are nearing completion after a large amount of investment. They are providing state-of-the-art computer networks, scientific laboratories, well-maintained and attractive premises in which to work and in which the pupils can prosper.
Of course, we must safeguard the position of public servants in those initiatives and we have taken sound steps to do that so that the workforce can feel secure. We will reduce fears over job security and remove uncertainty, for example, over pensions.
The private sector is not the only source of skills and expertise and it is not a panacea. As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and other noble Lords know well, there are over 400,000 voluntary organisations and millions of volunteers in every part of Britain. These organisations make a significant contribution to the health and dynamism of the economy and society, empowering local communities, strengthening citizenship and helping to build neighbourhoods and communities.
The voluntary sector is often well placed to work in partnership with the Government in delivering public services, because it already works so effectively with many parts of our communities nation-wide. Indeed, Government have much to learn from the flexible and innovative approach of many in the voluntary sector and their capacity to meet the needs of local people sensitively and responsively. Programmes such as Sure Start, Neighbourhood Renewal and the New Deal for Young People, involve working in close partnership with the public, private and voluntary sectors, particularly in areas of social deprivation—a point well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. The Government want to encourage the voluntary sector to flourish. I am pleased to be sponsor Minister for a review of the legal and regulatory framework to further the contribution of this strong, independent and diverse sector. We want to see increased growth in this sector in the future.
As has been clear from the debate, at the moment we are particularly aware of our interdependence and our mutual responsibility as citizens. It is an appropriate time, therefore, for us to underline the importance of public service in maintaining and indeed strengthening society, both within Britain and internationally, and to pay tribute to those involved in their day-to-day lives with public service. I believe that our debate today has played a valuable part in furthering that discussion, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part.
7.13 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I began by quoting a headmaster who said that the whole concept of service has gone. From the many valuable contributions to the debate it is clear that that is far from the case, particularly in the voluntary sector. Great worries have been expressed about the public sphere. I was pleased to hear the reassurance from the Minister that in all the necessary changes and

1039
reforms that will take place, the Government will try to conserve that precious gift. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Education of Children in Care
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews rose to call attention to the educational needs of children and young people in public care; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have just had a stimulating and wide-ranging debate on the nature of public service. I believe that that debate has close links to this second debate which it is my great privilege to introduce. Services to children can be no more than the highest expression of what it means to aim for the highest standards in public service.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who share my convictions that this is an important topic, particularly to those who have already taken part in, so to speak, the matinee performance and for whom this will be a second appearance. I am grateful to them for giving their time.
In the time available I want to set out what I believe are the key areas of need that we face in relation to the care of the educational needs of children in public care. Over the past two years we have seen a definite and welcome improvement. The biggest change has been that we now see the education of young children in public care as the heart of their care, the key to their future, and not something that is relegated to the margins.
It has taken an incredibly long time for this fundamental point to find its way into public policy. I was shocked to discover that four years ago hardly any local authority in this country knew where its children in public care actually were or how many there were. Two years ago, half of all local authorities did not know how those children were achieving at school.
Eighteen months ago, the joint guidance on the education of children in public care, which has followed the Quality Protects initiative, identified 15 different reasons why children were failing to thrive in schools, and not one of those reasons included the lifetime effects of separation from parents and siblings, the trauma of abuse and violence, or even exile from country, let alone culture. They mentioned the lack of information, the low value put on education by those who have day-to-day care and much else.
Much has been achieved, not least due to the public servants who are entrusted with the care and education of those children and the voluntary agencies that carry out magnificent work in championing their rights. My questions to the Minister—I am delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box as I feel we share a common bond this evening—are whether Quality Protects, the framework that has enabled so much improvement, is
1040
working properly, whether the definition of what it means to be a "corporate parent" is sufficient and whether that is and will be enough for the future.
I believe that it is fair to ask such questions because the Social Exclusion Unit, for example, which has made a habit of asking awkward questions, is now probing deep beyond the structures that enshroud children in public care, to ask about the subtle and complex reasons why they are failing to thrive, even when they regularly attend school and even when they are known to be able.
The debate is also timely because we have a fresh set of statistics that show just how steep the incline is. In March 2001, 59,000 young people were in public care, and one in five of those children was under the age of four. The statistics published last week show that in March 2001, 37 per cent had one or more GCSEs compared with 30 per cent the previous year. But 63 per cent do not have a single GCSE. The national target for those children is that half of them should achieve that minimum standard. Ninety-four per cent of other children achieve one or more GCSEs.
Likewise, in March 2001, five out of every 100 children in public care attained five top GCSEs, compared with four in the previous year. The national target for these children is merely 15 in every 100, but the national average is 50 children in every 100. Later I shall return to the issue of raising expectation in relation to targets because it goes to the heart of what I would like to see.
More troubling still is that children tend to do worse as they grow older and the longer they are in care. On average at key stages I and 2 they do half as well as others; at key stage 3 they do a third as well, and by the time they approach higher education, only one in 100 goes to university, compared with one in three children not in care.
The other day one of these young people explained that to me in the following words:
"There is very little support or love in the system. It doesn't promote the idea of a future … A single GCSE is considered a great achievement. If you go to college there is little financial support … and there is no parent to fall back on".
Some of the reasons for that failure are all too obvious. When there is no parent to fall back on, there is no one to encourage or to nag about homework and project work and key stage tests and exams are only one of a thousand worries about the future.
Also deeply troubling is that even when such young people have the love and support of a stable foster family, according to Ofsted they still do not achieve as well as they should—they still only "tick along"—and they do not achieve the expected level for their age.
There is another group of children whose lives are full of endings and constant changes of placements and who may end up miles away from their extended families and friends. They are likely to form an even more graphic set of statistics, namely that children who have been in care make up 26 per cent of the prison population and almost one third of all rough sleepers on the streets. That is why all those involved in helping these young people to live more successful

1041
lives are so concerned about the need to provide the right care in the right place near extended families, siblings and schools, not miles away where, as one said to me the other day, "I stand out because I am black".
For these children education itself protects. School is perhaps the only safe place that they have ever known; and it is probably the only place where they can rediscover—if they ever have known it—what it feels like to play, to have a book read to them, to be the same as other children and, crucially, where other adults believe that they can do well.
Yesterday I met a young lady who was one of the 5 per cent who had achieved five top GCSEs. She was one of the lucky ones. She had found someone in her school who was, significantly, a learning support assistant who "was always there for her", believed in her and encouraged her in the highest expectations. She is now training to be a child care worker herself. She told me she believed that no one thought she could do it but she had showed them.
Recently, the chief inspector of social services has reported major improvements. There are designated teachers looking after children in public care in schools in many areas. Personal educational plans are in place or in development which establish individual learning needs and goals. Information is finally being gathered on children's achievements. Quality Protects is beginning to work but needs to go much further before all local authorities become the kind of corporate parent that we would recognise as a good parent.
One cannot gloss over the well-known problems of capacity, whether it be finding the right and consistent care setting for many children or the social workers who are needed. There are substantial gaps in social work provision up and down the country. As a result, in many areas local authorities do not meet the major challenge of making sure that no child is out of school for more than 20 days. Losing out on school means constantly losing out not only on the curriculum but everything else: social life, the support that the school offers the child, motivation and friendship.
There is no quick fix. It is in that context that I should like to ask the Minister, first, for an assurance that Quality Protects is here to stay and is not a national project but a national policy which will survive beyond the lifetime of its technical funding. Secondly, there is an outstanding need to implement the guidance as fully and quickly as possible and bring all local authorities up to the level of the best. Why, for example, are only 30 out of 150 local authorities meeting the existing national targets for basic GCSEs?
I pay tribute to the excellent work that is being done by the joint implementation team, but I ask what else we can do proactively at national level quickly to spread the knowledge of what works among authorities, because one thing these young people cannot do is wait. We need to know what works best and why, whether it be about information systems, the recruitment of social workers, training care workers or listening to children.
To answer my second point, I believe that Quality Protects should and could go further, to the point where we are convinced that the corporate parent, albeit an ugly term, is a good one. Quite simply, a good parent wants all the people involved with these children to work closely together and talk continually to one another. Too often the life chances of these young people are hampered by bureaucratic barriers, hierarchies and egos as much as by family breakdowns. Where these have been replaced by joint services and joint working we see a dramatic improvement in quality. I should like to see that as the first step in providing a coherent service for children which does not treat them as a bundle of problems but as full participating citizens.
The personal education plans need to be embedded in care as well as education which means regular contact between teachers and social workers. It is no good social workers ringing up the day after GCSE results are published to ask, "How did you get on?" if they have not provided the support that the child needs at the right stage. If the joint guidance is being implemented at this stage, why are we not looking at the possibility of the joint training of social workers and teachers and joint monitoring by Ofsted and the SSI?
A good parent would also want his or her child to go to the best school available, not the only school. I also should like to see those decisions made by joint panels of education and social services, together with the child and foster parent or care home. A good parent would also want to know whether the right expectations had been set for the child and all its achievements were recognised and encouraged. Many children in care believe that they are set up to fail. In that context it may be that the time is right to revisit the national targets for achievement. They may be as yet unattained by the majority of local authorities, but they are seen as depressing aspirations and disgracefully low. They require to be thought about again.
One of the constant complaints of young people in care is that they are treated as stereotypes. While they want to have their personal histories acknowledged and understood, they do not want to be treated differently. Failing to acknowledge what they can achieve is to entrench low expectations. I believe that there is a more constructive way out of this tension; namely, to look at the possibility of adding real value to what they do in terms of measuring achievement. That might be recognition that the child had read aloud for the first time, received an attendance or good behaviour award or taken part in a school play. All of those matters can be huge steps for a child. Why is it that we do not recognise those in the targets? Those targets are not only for the child and school to see how the child is improving but also for the local authority to see what is being achieved and drive standards and provision.
Finally, a good parent would make sure that the child had what was needed in school when it was needed. It is not simply a question of including the child in the life of the school; it is providing what the

1043
child needs when it needs it. For example, for most children the change from primary school to secondary school is an enormously traumatic experience. They also need extra help for homework between key stages 3 and 4—no matter how well they are doing they tend to lose momentum—and also in the run-up to GCSE. One must also ensure that every children's home has a superb library with plenty of space for books, including a homework mentor and lots of ICT so that children can for themselves open up the virtual world of learning. The Who Cares Trust has a magnificent new site for this purpose, and I very much hope that it will be able to encourage foster parents and children to use it.
Often foster parents are isolated and extremely stressed by the task that they have taken on. They are reluctant to go into the school and do not know what kind of welcome they will receive. A much more proactive and conscientious programme must be worked out with the school in terms of family learning and family activities in an informal way. Above all, a good parent is there to listen and ensure that the child participates.
At one level I support the commendable suggestion that we have a publicly funded advocacy service for children. I believe that that could lead naturally to a children's commissioner, but the important point is to provide somebody who is there when the child has a complaint which it cannot take to anyone else. At the moment, whether it ever finds the right person is very much hit or miss.
The designated teacher does not have enough time. The story of the young girl with the learning support assistant to listen to her is not a counsel of perfection but something which all good parents want for their children; it is a minimal standard. As one local authority leader put it to me the other day, frankly if we do not provide for these children something that is better than they have left behind we will have failed utterly. I am confident that we have the framework to make sure that that does not happen. I am grateful for your Lordships' support. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for initiating this debate. As the noble Baroness has so ably outlined, the situation for these vulnerable young people is serious and, if we as a society do not take appropriate action to enable them to benefit fully from their education, we are failing them miserably. What is more, we are depriving the country of their potential contribution and setting ourselves up with problems for the future.
There is clear evidence in Ofsted's last annual report that children in long-term foster placements function in school at a level which is reasonable given their abilities, whereas those in children's homes are more often the ones who are excluded from school, truant or run away.
1044
The Department of Health's Children Act report of July this year showed that 42 per cent of children whose longest placement was with a foster family left care with one or more GCSE or GNVQ qualifications, compared with only 17 per cent of children whose longest placement was in a children's home. There is also some evidence that it is better for children's educational attainment, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, if they are fostered locally in their home area.
The evidence that foster care is better for the education of children in public care is backed up by a report carried out for Barnardo's by Sonia Jackson. Her researches show the importance of the quality of foster care in achieving good results. She found that in schemes where the carers actually focus on educational attainment, instead of just being preoccupied with overcoming disadvantage and working on building relationships, startlingly better results can be achieved. She quotes an American programme where the foster parents made efforts to encourage the children to read more and watch TV less, and their educational attainments were raised a good deal. Clearly, fostering is not just social work but should be a more varied, skilled job with clear objectives.
The National Teaching and Advisory Service, an independent not-for-profit organisation, has demonstrated what can be achieved by having teachers visit foster parents and schools, helping to promote effective home/school communications. The first results from independent fostering agencies working with NTAS were encouraging. All of the children in the study attained key stage 1 level 2 English and there was a dramatic improvement in their mathematics and science. All those eligible to take national exams did so and 25 per cent gained eight or more GCSE passes. These results are remarkable given that a quarter of these young people had been out of full-time education for two years or more before being placed with the agencies and supported by NTAS.
That brings me to a point about qualifications for foster carers. There is plenty of evidence that a lot of benefits can accrue from well trained foster carers, but these hard-working people cannot be expected to commit to courses of study if there is no benefit to them as well as to the children. Although some local authorities, such as Westminster, pay extra to carers with relevant qualifications, not all of them do. I should certainly like to encourage more local authorities to consider the advantages of doing this.
Evidence from the young people themselves dramatically supports the theory that good foster parents matter enormously to their education. One young care-leaver said:
"I couldn't have done anything without my foster dad. You need someone close to you to go to if you have any problems. I think if I'd been put somewhere else I'd have failed all my GCSEs. I need pushing and he pushed me".
Another said:
"Probably my foster mum is my main source of support. She's the only one who's gone past GCSE stage. She went to university and she's been helping me".

1045
Another said:
"It's great to have someone to help you with your homework and take an interest".
I particularly like this one:
"If you can fit education into your survival pack it can beam you up to somewhere very different".
The abilities of children in foster care are often underestimated by society. Many of them have enormous potential as this moving letter written in August this year to the Fostering Network (formerly called the National Foster Care Association) shows. I think that this young woman wrote very movingly. She said:
"I wanted to inform you that I have now finished my degree course at Brunel University. I graduated on 18th July receiving a 2.1 in Psychology. I could not have done this without the support of my foster parents, Brent Social Services and the National Foster Care Association. I want to thank you for everything that you have done for me all these years. The help and support that you have provided extends to more than financial assistance. It is the encouragement that you provide and the faith you have in children who have been pigeon-holed by society as being criminals, single teen mothers, unemployed and a burden on the taxpayer. Schemes such as the 'My Place' scheme are beginning to break this myth and show people that despite their troubled upbringing foster children have the potential to succeed. Hopefully my success story has shown that everybody's hard work was worth it in the end".
As someone said to me recently, "Loving them is not enough".
We need high standards, training and a proper career and remuneration structure for foster carers if we are to attract good people into the job and keep them there. The Fostering Network has produced a set of standards—it calls it the "Gold Standard"—to underpin the provision of high quality foster care for children and young people. Although the Department of Health has produced a set of minimum standards, these are minimum standards. The best local authorities are going much further. I am pleased to say that my own county of Cheshire was given beacon status for fostering last year and Kensington & Chelsea also has many excellent innovative schemes. We need more opportunities to disseminate best practice and more incentives for local authorities to implement them.
I noticed as I came into your Lordships' House from my home in Battersea that the Borough of Lambeth is currently advertising on bus stops to recruit more foster carers. I wish it well in its efforts but I feel that certain nettles need to be grasped nationally before large numbers of good people will be attracted into this worthwhile job.
Currently, many of them are paid such low expenses that it actually costs them money to do it. The remuneration varies enormously from place to place, ranging from as little as £70 to as much as £500 per week. There is enormous inconsistency. Private agencies pay carers more, but then they charge local authorities more in turn. Only about 10 authorities make any extra payment for qualifications. Carers do not get any holiday pay and do not have a right to a week's break between placements. If they take such a break, they risk not being given a placement afterwards and they lose money.
1046
Because much of the payment is expenses and not reward, they are not taxed, but also they do not get a pension. I know that the Inland Revenue is looking into this at the moment because some foster carers are paid just expenses and others get taxable remuneration. The whole thing is an awful muddle. I believe that foster parents should be paid proper wages, pay taxes and have pensions like everyone else. This, as well as the thanks I extend to them tonight for the wonderful work that they do, would send out the signal that they are appreciated and valued by society.
7.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for introducing this debate. I particularly warmed, if I may say so, to the passionate detail with which the noble Baroness took us through her opening speech.
I do not intervene on this subject in your Lordships' House with any specialist knowledge, but simply to underline the responsibility that we all have as a society to ensure that these young people in public care get a better deal.
Many of your Lordships will have had the experience, which I have had, when meeting such young people, of remembering suddenly one's own good fortune. To have actually known the security of a home in which your parents love and care for you is the best possible start in life. But at the heart of this debate is the knowledge that that ideal is not available for far too many children. There may be problems of domestic violence, of physical, emotional or sexual abuse, alcohol or drug misuse, or one of the parents may just have walked away from their responsibilities.
Recently I visited one of our youth prisons. While I was there it came to light that the prison officer in charge of prison visitors and relatives visiting the prison inmates, when closing up found a child of four holding a little baby of about 10 months in his arms. No one was in the room. He was totally abandoned. For those and other kinds of reasons children often need to be removed from such environments.
The last figures I saw revealed that 58,900 children are being "looked after" in England. Of course the ways in which those children are cared for vary greatly, but in paying tribute to the dedication and commitment of foster carers and residential social workers—I am so grateful to the last speaker for her words about fostering—I know that they would be the first to say that they struggle to do their best, often in very difficult circumstances. In other words, the care they give cannot replace the things which so many parents can give to their children. I am haunted by those two young children in that visitors' room.
I welcome the Government's determination to address the challenge presented by the multiple needs of this group of young people. I am sure that the Minister will listen carefully to the responses to, for example, the consultation exercise being carried out by the Social Exclusion Unit:. However, it is clear that we need more than words and the setting of objectives. We

1047
all welcome the objective of maximising the life chance benefits which flow from improved educational attainment. Let us be under no illusion about the multiple and interlocking causes of the staggering figures of under-achievement of which, in an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Moser, reminded us. We need to remember that the emphasis—good in itself—placed on league tables, on competition and success, runs the risk of causing us to forget the special needs of children who have never known stability or the support of understanding parents who are there for their children in the bad times as well as the good. Many of these children cannot compete. Let us be realistic about that. Some of them do well to survive at all.
Again, I offer a general reflection from my own experience. Along with many Members of your Lordships' House, I have had the experience of attending parents' evenings at our own children's school—experiences which have been positive and less positive. I used to go with my heart in my mouth about what was going to be said about my middle son—I do not mind that comment appearing in Hansard. We have been able to think about how best to encourage people like him and, sometimes, even how to apply sanctions. But who is there to do that in the case of looked after children? We need to ensure that what happens at present in only the best cases becomes the norm. That will require not only resources, but also imagination.
We need to think ahead and see if we cannot find ways of increasing the amount of stability in the lives of such children and young people, which they so sorely need over a longer term. Schools and social services departments will need to work closely together—as the best do already—to ensure that that happens. But central government also has a role to play, not only in setting objectives but also, dare I say, by ensuring that resources are available to ensure that looked after children do not miss out because they lack financial support. That is why I intend to contribute to the debate tomorrow on student fees.
Finally, in debates of this kind there is a danger that we offer only generalised expressions of good will. We all know that we must do more than that. Research so usefully collected by the Social Exclusion Unit and other agencies shows that this problem is intractable because the majority of looked after children have been abused or neglected at an influential age. Sadly I do not always remember in detail the tender early years of my own children. I was too busy. However, now I am blessed with seven grandchildren. I think that it is both the vulnerability and capacity for recovery of the youngest children which moved me to put down my name to speak in this debate.
Young children, whether or not they are deprived, need intensive support over a sustained period. The professional services which are required are under huge pressure. I wonder whether the Minister can assure the House that, in addition to setting targets and objectives, the Government will ensure that serious shortfalls in the funding of mainstream and
1048
specialist services will be improved, so that they can be restored to a more adequate level. If we will the end of improving the lives of our looked after children, then we must will the means.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to those already given to my noble friend Lady Andrews for initiating this debate. Current legislation focusing on children in public care reflects, quite rightly, public concern. That concern is expressed in the view that such vulnerable young people are entitled to the best possible support from well qualified and highly motivated professionals in the field. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill, introduced in this House in November 1999, was a milestone along the way to achieving those objectives. Today's debate gives the House an opportunity to evaluate the progress made since that time. Sadly, at least for myself, that Bill passed through the House just before I arrived, so this is the first opportunity I have had to make a contribution on this subject. However, I am sure that it will not be the last.
As ever, I am keenly aware that in this Chamber I am surrounded by what I can describe only as "experts in the field". That is always a chastening experience. Indeed, listening to the other speakers in the debate will certainly prove to be a valuable learning opportunity for me.
It is right to acknowledge previous legislation made prior to 1999 which has transformed the ways in which our society treats its children. I refer in particular to the Children Act 1989, introduced by the previous government. As a magistrate I can confirm the remarkable effect that it has had on our dealings with young people. We take young people's views into consideration, listen to them and respect their preferences.
However, it is to a much earlier part of my life that I turn, a period which has compelled me to contribute to the debate tonight. Quite simply, as a very young child, I was taken into care for several years. The circumstances were not especially unusual. My father was killed in the war. My mother fled the bombing in London, taking me, then a toddler, to the safety of a village in Buckinghamshire. She found work as a cook in a large house. Just two years later, she was diagnosed with TB. In those days the illness was almost a death sentence. The only hope of a cure involved many months of rest in a sanatorium. We had no family and few friends; we could hardly have been more vulnerable.
Yet help for us was in place, from the local social services, from the teachers in my village primary school and from kindly people around us. I was taken into a foster home located in the same village, which was loving and happy. I stayed at the same school, played with the same friends, went to Sunday school and to dancing classes, just as before. Disruption was minimised. To give the story the happy ending that it deserves, a miracle drug called streptomycin was discovered and within months my mother came home cured of TB.

1049
All that took place more than 50 years ago, but I can still close my eyes and become once again that five year-old child, terrified at the prospect of being left totally alone in the world. Who would take care of me? What lay ahead? I have frequently described myself as having been "lucky" to have been fostered in a good home. However, that acknowledges that others were unlucky. Today, I reject that difference. No child should be "unlucky"—and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are not.
When I studied the Ofsted report on raising the achievement of children in public care, along with the other reviews of public responsibilities, chords were struck in my mind. The notion of the corporate parent, with all that the role demands, is subject to very critical appraisal—and quite rightly. The failure of many children in terms of their educational achievement is a challenge to us all. There must be no "twin track" approach; every child must be given the best possible chance, irrespective of home circumstances. I find myself comparing my experience of care—in the same community, being able to attend the same school and so forth—with that of the disjointed fostering experience of so many children. They are moved from area to area, school to school, so that they lose the thread of their young lives.
So I welcome all the measures now in place, which ensure better qualified professionals in social services and in education, enabling young people in care to cope with their emotional and their academic progress. Better vetting of care itself, whether in foster homes or in local authority homes, clearly is essential for the safeguarding of our young people.
As the Ofsted report acknowledges, much has been achieved but there is still much more to be done. It is good work which affects the lives of hundreds of children in care now and will have a profound effect on hundreds more in the future. I hope that this debate will focus all our minds on the positive progress and reinforce our determination to see an even better performance in the future. Our children deserve no less.
Finally, ][ ask the Minister to take back the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House today and to share with us the future plans which will ensure a stronger and better framework for our children in care.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on her speech and on bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. My speech will be focused on a group of people which has something of a magnifying effect on the negative social consequences which can flow from having been placed in care because you have to be and from not having support—that is, those people with hidden disabilities.
choose this group quite simply because, if you happen to be in this group, to get assistance you have to be observed closely before the appropriate steps are taken. It is difficult to deal with the problems of those involved in the group—I am thinking predominantly
1050
of those suffering from dyslexia, dyspraxia and Asperger's syndrome—because the disability does not stand out. If you have not been socialised properly, if you are not getting support at home, if you do not know what is going on, if you are unaware of how you should behave, if you have become very unhappy at what may happen to you next time, if you have been moved from fostering that did not work to a home and care, you probably will not have most of the normal skills. You will have developed a defensive behavioural pattern. This will generally show itself in one of two ways: you will be very disruptive and very negative, or you will be very withdrawn. This means that you will be a person who is very difficult to understand and reach.
The normal way in which the people in the group I am talking about are picked up in our system is that the parents will notice that something is wrong. I have looked at the websites of the people I have mentioned and I have talked to them. They say that what the parent should look for is x number of behavioural changes and other things that are going wrong, if the parent is not there, it does not matter because they will not be noticed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke about the number of people who end up in prison from care. The number of dyslexics—I certainly know about dyslexics—who are in prison is alarmingly high. I believe that the percentage points are roughly compatible with the number in care. There is absolutely no reason why we should find more dyslexics in care than in any other section of the population. Dyslexia runs through all forms of intellectual ability and social background. It was a middle class disease purely because middle class parents banged on the door loudest and earliest.
The same is undoubtedly true of every other disability. Every time you speak to someone they always say, "What the parents should do is go back and find out what they should be doing. They should batter the education authority and the school into doing the right thing". Fortunately, in some of these areas you no longer have to knock as hard as you once did. It is fair to say that we have made considerable progress over the years. Indeed, the previous government and the present one have continued to make progress.
I hope that we now realise the problem, is calculated that something like 10 per cent of the population have dyslexia and that in about 5 per cent of those cases it is a noticeable drawback. Under these circumstances, I would suggest that the proportion may be higher among those in care because the negative effects will be magnified; they will not be seen and they will not be recognised.
The same is true of dyspraxia. Indeed, I have enjoyed learning about dyspraxia—I do not know whether "enjoyed" is the right word—because I have a nephew who suffers from the disability. Symptoms of dyspraxia are generally picked up earlier. The procedural and behavioural problems that identify the condition, together with problems in speech

1051
development, are seen at an earlier age. But in a dysfunctional family, what chance do these children stand?
Having waved a warning flag about a hole in the road, what can we do about the situation? We have got to train social workers and teachers to be able to spot the behavioural problems at an early stage. Once we have worked that miracle, I suggest we go on to something else such as draining the salt out of the Red Sea. There is a real problem in recruiting social workers at the moment, but we must start to address this issue. There is a terrible certainty about the fact that a social worker who notices one of these problems will say, "That is down to your bad environment"—it has happened repeatedly in all these fields—"Let us deal with the bad environment first".
If we train social workers properly, they may be able to cut through to the child concerned and say, "Do not worry. You are not stupid. You are not lazy"—the two standard labels that are attached to people who have problems that are not understood. "We can do something about it. It is merely a matter of changing your learning pattern". Or they can even say, "There are one or two things you simply cannot do".
If these coping strategies are given to a child, a better relationship will be established. Everything we have heard and, I am sure, will hear today, has referred to the parental support relationship being missing. We have to ensure that a support relationship is at least given in this way because it will open up children to support. We will have a chance to help children in this group of people to become a part of the mainstream, even those who are in care.
It is a difficult subject. The only answer is greater training, greater resources and a change of culture and approach. If we do not educate the key workers in charge of these people as part of their responsibility, the disabilities will continue to be missed. They are difficult to spot, particularly on the margins. Those with the most severe problems stand the best chance of being picked up.
I thought of an analogy when I was in the creative environment of the Guests' Bar in your Lordships' House. I was talking to someone about dyslexia generally and I said that it is always the ones with the most severe problems who get the help. I likened it to seeing someone whose car is stopped in the road, where you may stop and at least give him a push to the side or give him a hand. But if you see someone struggling along in second or third gear, you would probably get absolutely furious and end up trying to drive him off the road. That is the kind of situation we have to worry about.
I do not have many solutions rather than the obvious and slightly facile ones that I keep repeating. I suggest that we have to build them into the situation, otherwise the educational attainment of a section of the group I have referred to will never be dealt with because we will simply be doing the wrong thing.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Baroness Andrews for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue and for drawing to our attention what are a set of damning statistics affecting children in care.
I wished to speak in the debate because I believe fundamentally that universities must play their part in addressing the poor opportunities which are open to young people in care. It is horrifying that only one in 100 care leavers go on to university compared to one in three school leavers in the population as a whole. That is a damning indictment for all of us, and I include the work of universities in that.
First, though, I must declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK. I should say at the outset that universities are committed to improving access for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and, of course, that includes young people in care. Universities UK will publish a report later this year which is intended to highlight case studies from across the UK of ways in which universities are reaching out into socially deprived areas to encourage participation. I hope that the report will identify some good examples of young people in residential care and in foster care. As there have been no specific initiatives in this area, I am not at all sure that it will, but I hope that it will. The aim of all the case studies is to encourage the participation of young people from disadvantaged groups.
It is not surprising, given the data on the poor educational attainment that has been identified at GCSE level—documented by my noble friend Lady Andrews—that only a small proportion of looked-after children go to university. In preparing for this debate I looked at the recent Barnardo's report, Better education, better futures. It is a compelling document. Again, it chillingly catalogues the mountain of disadvantage that young people in care have to climb. The report highlights the importance of supporting young people in care throughout their education. It lists the main obstacles that need to be tackled to encourage more people in care to take up studies in further and higher education: the lack of accessible information on post-16 educational provision; the lack of support from social services for those who want to go on to further study; the difficulty in maintaining accommodation during term time and vacations; and, not surprisingly, financial problems. These issues must be addressed if we are to support the particular needs of young people in care and encourage them to take on educational opportunities that they would otherwise simply not contemplate.
Universities have already taken initiatives which I hope will begin to address some of these problems. The New Opportunities for All Concordat—a group linking schools and the FE and HE sectors—hopes to provide such young people with information about the way in which they might study in HE in an attempt to build up their confidence. The "Fair Enough?" project is looking at admissions criteria and widening access through improved potential to

1053
succeed. The Student Debt Project will examine the impact of student debt and term-time working on higher education in the UK.
There is one area where I do not think we have any good practice; namely, collaboration and links with industry and the various foundations that some companies have. To use an example that I know, Lattice Group—formerly British Gas—which includes Transco, is a major company with links all over the country. I declare an interest as a recently appointed non-executive director. Lattice has developed a partnership with National Children's Homes (NCH) to support an IT development with broadband access for children in residential care homes in London and Coventry. It uses the knowledge management and technological expertise of the company in innovative ways, while offering positively vetted website addresses covering a wide range of subjects across all four key stages. It offers help with studying, raising levels of IT literacy and milestones into HE. What is more, the software is being extended to cover access to NCH project workers, carers, guardians, parents and grandparents. Phase two of the project, which is currently being developed, will mean that software can link in with Learn Direct to offer on-line mentoring and the material for specific vocational training. I hope that we can build on this project with the universities.
I emphasise that excellent initiative because it is not only of benefit to young people. It is a project on which we should build, together with the commercial sector, because it is also of benefit to companies, linking into their local labour needs. It is also of benefit to the community, because it raises skills levels and educational aspirations in some of the most disadvantaged youngsters.
Let us remind ourselves of a chilling statistic. Seventy-three per cent of young people from professional backgrounds go on to higher education; 13 per cent of children from unskilled or rural backgrounds go into HE—already a huge difference in the numbers—but only 1 per cent of looked-after children. Even when looked-after young people have the necessary qualifications for HE, it has often been difficult for them to get to university, because local authorities have been keen to discharge them from their care as early as possible—sometimes at 16.
Therefore, I was delighted to see the introduction of the leaving care Act, which makes local authorities responsible for young people of 16 and 17 years of age, whether they are in care or have been discharged from care. So there should at least be less difficulty in staying on at school and negotiating what can be a problematic transfer to university.
That said, we know anecdotally that applying for university at the same time as preparing to leave care can be difficult. While most young people have the security of their family homes as back-up at this time, along with all kinds of practical help and support from parents, care leavers have to cope all alone. Delays in sorting out accommodation and student
1054
loans are much more worrying when you are coping alone. So it is important for staff in care homes and local authorities to believe in the importance of encouragement and raising aspirations.
There are some good examples. I know of three care leavers who worked on temporary contracts in the Department of Health. All three went to university, but sadly two of them dropped out. One can conjecture that not having parents supporting them was a major handicap. We know that financial problems are having an Increased impact on the rates of those staying on at university.
I am not an expert, but in doing the background research for this debate I was horrified at what I learnt. I certainly intend to talk to my colleagues in the universities about how we can do more how we might develop more student mentors to help in this area and more student ambassadors; how to ensure targeted access initiatives which might help in this most deprived area. I shall also make sure that we take advantage of a new study by the Institute of Education. It is a research project to help care leavers to go to university. I am determined that we shall come forward with suggestions for the Social Exclusion Unit, which I believe is due to report in March.
Finally, if the aspirations of all those who have spoken in this debate on behalf of those in care are to become a reality, adequate financial support for students is vital. That support must be targeted at those from under-represented groups. I know that there are more vocal groups, but it must be so targeted. In addition, more needs to be done at an early stage to alert young people and their carers to the lifelong benefits of higher education. It is important to focus on initiatives to encourage the recruitment of under-represented groups to higher education, but also to focus on measures to retain those students, to ensure their progress and to assist them into the labour market on the completion of their studies. As the director of the Buttle Trust has said,
"It is essential that the complex task of supporting care leavers in moving on to university should be properly understood''.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on her masterly portrayal of the overall picture of the education of children in public care. I also apologise for my rushed entry into the Chamber as the noble Baroness rose. I had just been freed from the locked disabled toilet in the nick of time—we nearly had to tear the door down!
I thank the noble Baroness for her help in preparing for this debate. It is a completely new area to me. I thank also the National Children's Bureau; SKILL, of which I am president; IPSEA, of which I am a member, and Mencap for giving me their thinking and much information on the education of children with special educational needs in public care. I shall home in on this area and ask the Minster one or two questions.

1055
It is rather too early to know how the May 2000 guidance is working. I kept hearing references to the need for evaluation and monitoring, the importance of consistent and joined-up delivery of services, a clear understanding of roles, especially where there was cross-regional involvement, and the importance of understanding and responding to the needs of the child.
Section 9 of the guidance deals with children and young people with special educational needs. Section 9.3 deals with their need for,
"the support and advocacy of a vigorous parent—in their case the local authority".
"Vigorous" is a good description. The parent of a child with special educational needs has to be persistent, determined and an optimist to cope with the system, which relies heavily on the parent playing an active part. For example, most requests for reassessment originate from parents. Appeals to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal with regard to the outcome of an assessment are the responsibility and on the initiative of a parent. Checking on the adequacy of statemented provision requires the parent to be present at, and involved in, annual review meetings. It presents a big challenge to social workers in respect of those in local authority care, particularly those who in effect live in residential boarding schools.
IPSEA says that experience leads it to believe that it is rare for social services personnel to take part in the procedures I mentioned although there is little in-depth research on that. In the case of representation at tribunals, its impression seems to be backed up by research undertaken by Neville Harris of Liverpool John Moores University who found that appeals in respect of children in care featured very rarely in SEN tribunal business. There are probably two main reasons. The first, obviously and understandably, is pressure of work and perhaps also the fact that the child placed in a residential school may be seen, reassuringly, as essentially the responsibility of the professionals at that school. Secondly, there is the inescapable conflict of interest in a situation where a professional employed by one wing of the local authority social services department is placed in a conflict position vis-à-vis another local authority professional from the LEA. The problem becomes obvious when you think of the function of the tribunal. Is it reasonable or fair to the child for the same public authority to be making crucial decisions via its education department and to be responsible for initiating appeals against the same decisions via its social services department? I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is nodding agreement.
There might indeed be a human rights issue arising from this point. What would be very helpful is if the Government were to initiate some research into this area to establish the size and nature of the problem and explore the practical solutions; for example, the role of guardian ad litem, because of its independence, may be worth considering as a replacement for the social-worker-as-parent in respect of proceedings arising
1056
from the special educational needs of a child who is in public care. I should welcome the Minister's views on that, but if he cannot give an answer tonight I hope that he will agree to take it away and think about it.
For children and young people with severe learning disabilities in public care there is a great need for the "vigorous parent" and for joined-up provision, particularly for those in distant residential schools. Mencap makes the point that children with very severe learning disabilities tend to stay in public care all their lives, becoming adults in care rather than achieving independence at 18. It is very important that they do manage the transition, achieve adult status and develop to their maximum potential. Where possible the parents' continuing involvement must be encouraged and made easy, but if this is not possible the public authorities should play an active part in the children's overall welfare, health, social needs, training, and work possibilities. It is important that their achievements are recorded whether or not they fall within conventional academic and vocational achievements.
Much of the criticism of special schools by ex-pupils has come from pupils with abilities which were not recognised and developed because there was under-expectation. But much of the criticism of mainstream schools by parents of more severely disabled children has been based on the failure to recognise, foster and record achievements which are important for the child but do not give the school points on a conventional achievement scale.
In the wider sense of education it is important that disabled children in care, particularly if they have not remained part of a wider family network, are helped to develop and maintain relationships and go on to live and perhaps work in whatever environment suits them. For those with very severe learning disabilities, this may be in small groups, sheltered homes, or whatever suits them and whatever they choose.
I turn now to students with learning difficulties and disabilities leaving care. SKILL and the National Children's Bureau have identified three issues which they feel need clarification and attention from the Government and which reflect their and others' concern about the lack of joined-up and consistent delivery in provision both locally and nationally. First, there is the question of divided responsibilities. There is a need to ensure effective collaboration and bridge building between young persons' advisers allocated to young people leaving care under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and Connexions personal advisers, especially for young people with disabilities who have more complex needs. It is a particularly important issue for young people in care in residential schools, especially where a regional boundary has been crossed and where there will be additional issues surrounding the duties of home and host agencies.
Secondly, what can be learned from the experience of the Connexions pilots in relation to care leavers and young people with disabilities; for example, in helping them to understand their choices in relation to housing, education, opportunities, and sources of

1057
income? We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, of the amount of problems facing such young people when moving on. Will the Government evaluate the pilots? I hope that the Minister may be able to give an encouraging answer on this.
Thirdly, and finally, I turn to the question of helping young people up to the age of 25 who have disabilities. Under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 young persons' advisers have a continuing responsibility to care leavers up to the age of 25 whether or not they are in care. SK ILL hopes that Connexions personal advisers will have the same responsibility to disabled people up to the age of 25 whether or not they are in care. I very much hope that the Minister can say something positive on this issue. I look forward to hearing his reply to all of our questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked a lot of very important questions. If the Minister does not have the time to answer all of mine tonight, I should be grateful if he could write to me. We all want to see that the education of children in care works as well as possible. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, how successful it can be. We hope that it enables such young people to become happy and fulfilled adults with much to contribute to society.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for introducing the debate and expressing her concerns so eloquently. Other noble Lords have highlighted a range of issues with great passion and insight. A common theme is that children and young people in care or leaving care face all kinds of difficulties and that the services often do not co-ordinate to meet their needs.
I shall focus mainly on the need to listen to children and young people and take their opinions into account when planning services. Young people have clear views about many of these issues, for example what helps them to relate constructively to school, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said.
Another Barnardo's report on young people's views of care shows that they are concerned about looking after money, employment, services, peer pressure and leisure activities as well as school subjects. Many feel that they do not receive enough advice on health issues and growing up. These concerns and anxieties can all affect performance in school.
Children and young people in whatever context—school, home or care—have multiple needs, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said. They need stability, attention to health, to be talked to and given affection, the encouragement of communication skills, curiosity and literacy. All children have differing abilities or disabilities as discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and early intervention is important.
Why consult young people? As a recent Carnegie report stressed, participation and asking what young people want contributes to self-esteem which in turn influences physical and mental well-being, young
1058
people feeling more in control and more likely to access the information and practise the skills they need to lead successful lives and to be more assertive with services. Consultation 'with young people can also improve the services they comment on or help to plan. It is a two-way benefit. The Children Act 1989 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child both state the need for those in charge of children to establish the wishes and feelings of children. However, that does not always happen.
Guidance on the education of children and young people in public care states:
"Much of what is now known about the impact of care upon education comes from young people who Faye experienced the care system. They know what care feels like from the Inside. Like other children they also know what interests, engages and motivates them, and what undermines their motivation".
The recent Ofsted report on raising achievement of children in public care—this has been referred to several times—has a section on the views of young people, their teachers and carers. Young people identified quite clearly which factors affected their achievement. These included schools where the history of the young person is known, a teacher chosen by the young person who can act as a counsellor and keep confidences—confidentiality is a key issue—no attachment of stigma and the wish to be treated as any other young person with no allowances for bad behaviour, continuity of support from a social worker who is interested in schoolwork, a commitment: from the carer to attend school events, support from the carer for homework and school activities, remaining in the home area rather than being moved from the school and sent away from friends and access to facilities available to young people who live at home, including a computer.
The National Children's Bureau, in its helpful summary relating to the education of children in public care, acknowledges the effects of children's pre-care experiences but also draws attention to failures in the care system itself, including the organisation of systems around the child, the failure of departments to work together and the need for adequate skills in carers, social workers and teachers to support children. The failures of those systems can result in broken schooling, low self-esteem, low expectations and poor continuity of care; and all that will affect achievement in school.
The Education of Looked after Children project within the Department of Health highlights guidance for social workers and foster carers. These encourage social workers and foster carers to,
"take an active interest in young people's educational progress, champion their educational needs, celebrate their successes and ensure that they have access to the full range of educational opportunities".
That is what young people want.
The NSPCC recognises that the new Quality Protects plans do help to address the needs of children in care but so much is dependent on the local authority culture and communications between schools, LEAs and social service departments. I, too, would like reassurance on Quality Protects.

1059
There is surely a triangle of effect here: the care system, the school and the child. The child is in the middle of all this but sometimes the child is the last person to be consulted, if he or she is consulted at all, about what is appropriate education and welfare. There is good evidence that young people resent this lack of consultation and involvement and so resent those who make decisions for them. If this is how they feel, little wonder that they may be disaffected by what school has to offer.
As one pupil in the Barnardo survey said:
"I left school last year. First year you say, 'Look, I don't like this, I don't like that, I want something done about it'. Second year, nothing's done about it, third year, fourth year and I'm leaving school by fifth year and they've done nothing and they wonder why we don't like school?".
What chance of achievement if that is the case? School tutors and special support for young people in care were mentioned positively as encouraging dialogue and motivation. Another pupil in the survey said:
"I think school mentors are quite good because if you're having a bad time you can explain to your mentor and your mentor will have a word with the teacher".
Young people in all circumstances need support at some time and confidentiality is a key issue.
It is encouraging that the Government have set up the Children and Young People's Unit which will monitor the impact of cross-government guidance, lead the development of objectives for services and develop a unified strategy for children. It is also encouraging to see the vigour and energy with which so many children's organisations have expressed their concerns and will clearly not allow the needs of children and the need to involve them to slip from the agenda. I am grateful to those organisations for supporting me in my work on this issue.
There are, of course, good and bad experiences of care, as my noble friend Lady Billingham said. Some young people in care succeed very well. In the Who Cares Trust report on the messages young people bring from care, one said,
"I settled down to school every day and passed 10 GCSEs".
But another said,
"I have no qualifications and I face an uncertain future".
It is worth noting that 50 per cent of the 2,000 children questioned in the report felt that being in care had improved their school performance. But what were their expectations?
The Social Exclusion Unit—it was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Andrews—is carrying out a project to investigate how the educational attainment of children might be improved. This involves a series of questions, some of which will be put to children. Questions on the learning environment include: "What aspects of school have the strongest influence on the educational attainment of children in care?"; "How effective are pastoral support services?"; and "What training and support do teachers receive and need in supporting children in care?" It will be interesting to learn how children respond to those questions and what examples of good practice emerge.
1060
Consultations with young people by many young people's organisations make clear that young people do have practical ideas about ways of improving systems which affect their lives. They can, and should, contribute to the decision-making process. They are, after all, the ones who know best what makes systems supportive and what helps or hinders achievement. Do we consult them enough?
8.25 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I join with my fellow Peers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for initiating the debate. I appreciated her overview of the subject. I have appreciated her advice in the past on the issue of vulnerable children in care. If I may say so, she does a tremendous job with regard to children in care and I hope that we shall hear from her on many occasions.
I pay tribute to the Government's attention to children in care during the previous Parliament. There has been earlier reference to the Bills involved. I have an interest in this area as patron of Voice for the Child in Care which provides advocacy services for children in care.
It is a timely debate because we are now in the middle of Parents Week. Many of the young people about whom we speak have not had good experience of parenting. I attended a seminar run by the National Family and Parenting Institute established by the Government. Dr Eia Asen of the Marlborough Family Services in London said that his experience was of families in poverty with several generations of dysfunction. The grandmother, the mother and the children all hurt one another and the family fails to move forward. We must intervene in the most effective way possible to break that pattern. Not only may the children of this generation grow up to go to prison but also their children may do so. Although I cannot give the figure off the top of my head, the number of fathers in prison is significant.
I shall concentrate on residential social care workers and on how the children for whom they care may become models for good education. I shall concentrate on residential care even though only 12 to 15 per cent of looked-after children are in residential care. It is the Government's policy to encourage children to stay within their families as long as possible. That is good for the majority of children. However, those severely damaged before arriving in care are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable children.
Professor Sonia Jackson was kind enough to write to me on today's debate. She emphasised that we must raise the educational standards of the carers if we want children to succeed in education. My father grew up with a French governess. When travelling abroad as children, we would hear our father speak French fluently. All my siblings have sought to learn a foreign language. My older half-sister speaks French fluently. I shall not comment on my other siblings' achievements. I have endeavoured to speak French. My only regret about the timing of this evening's debate is that it clashes with my class at the Institute Francais.

1061
When visiting a hostel, I overheard one of the residents, a young person of 17 or 18, saying to one of the volunteers, "You're always learning". I looked into this, and apparently the volunteer, when he was not engaged in making beds, opening locked doors or helping in food preparation, would take the Encyclopaedia Britannica from the shelves and read it. He would also ask the young people from Eritrea or Ethiopia about their background or learn a bit of their language. We would like children in care to see that sort of example.
I recently spoke to the manager of a children's home with many years' experience. She said that many of her staff were semi-literate and that she has to use agency staff more and more. These young people stay for a few months, leave abruptly and are replaced by other agency staff. They often have very little education.
From all that we have heard tonight, we know that those children often have serious difficulties. Your Lordships may have listened at the weekend to Arthur Ashe being interviewed by Professor Anthony Clare about his life. Arthur Ashe's mother died when he was six. As a consequence, he withdrew into his books and into playing tennis. At the end of the interview, he was asked what he expected when he died. Ashe had spent a lot of time visiting crematoriums and seemed to be fairly interested in death. He said that he expected to see his mother. When he was asked, "What would you ask your mother if you saw her?" He said, "I would not ask her anything. I would just want her to hold me."
Many of the children whom we are discussing have lost contact with their parents. They have had bad experiences, such as having a hand held over a gas ring, or suffering sexual abuse by a parent. Their parents may have been killed in a conflict far away, or they may know that their family is being bombarded elsewhere in the world.
The staff who work with these children need to be emotionally literate. One mental health nurse said that staff were not adequately equipped and were helpless to the needs of these children. I know from working with such children that it can be the most stressful experience if one does not understand what is happening. I remember Buffy House hostel at Centrepoint, which is for medium-support-needs children who are homeless and have been through many hostels. These young people come from difficult backgrounds. The staff at that hostel are supported by a psychotherapist who visits once a week and who has introduced psychological concepts and helped them in the work that they do. That hostel had the lowest sickness rate in the whole of Centrepoint's operation. The manager began life there with no qualifications whatever. Her family comes from Ethiopia and the last time I saw her she had just returned from visiting them there. She achieved a degree and an MSc in psychology. She is now directing the Cumberlow community, consisting of several children's homes.
I welcome so much of what the Government have done, such as the introduction of an NVQ3 for residential care workers. That will certainly sort out some of the problems of literacy, or lack of it, among
1062
workers. I welcome the fact that Sir William lilting will develop a new residential care qualification and the concentration and outcomes for children, which Quality Protects has introduced.
However, to make a significant difference, one must encourage more graduates to enter and remain in residential care work. Professor Sonia Jackson said that on the continent most people in residential care have a degree and further professional qualifications. In Germany 58 per cent of looked after children achieve the Abitur—the equivalent of A-levels. In this country, no record is kept of those figures because they are so minimal.
There needs to be a clearer career progression for residential care staff. There should be more support for training and better remuneration. A shopping mall opened in north-west England and staff left a residential care home because they received £1.50 an hour more for working in a shop and doing regular hours than for working in the care system. The entry level must be akin to that for nurses and teachers. They should be allowed time to study and not become bound up in paperwork, although we understand why paperwork is needed. These workers often have their own children and they need time to study and develop.
I have two questions to ask the Government. Will they consider funding the training programme of voluntary organisations which run children's homes and look after foster carers? There are some good examples of training programmes, but they are short of money. What are the Government doing I o increase incentives for graduates to enter residential care work with children and to remain in that work?
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for initiating this extremely timely debate. We have had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, covering many different issues, but we have raised all the most important ones.
I shall start with the statistics. There are 58,000 children in public care where local authorities act as so-called corporate parents. Only one in three of those children gets any GCSEs at any grade; only one in 20 gets five GCSEs with grades A to C, which is 5 per cent rather than the 50 per cent average in the country generally. Children in care are six times more likely to be truants than other children. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said that only 1 per cent go on to university.
Among our rough sleepers, 33 per cent of them have been in care, as have 25 per cent of the prison population. Despite the fact that local authorities have the role of corporate parent, the Times Educational Supplement two years ago revealed that two-thirds of councils had no idea of the test scores of those in their care and two-fifths of them did not know whether any of those children achieved any GCSE passes.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said, it is a staggering set of figures of under-achievement. It is also a shocking set of statistics and

1063
shows a complete dereliction of duty on the part of a great many people. These children are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are in care because their own family relationships have collapsed. They have often been traumatised and it is vital that we give them the most that we can.
Having said that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, explained, a great deal has changed in the past two to three years, and we must thank the Government for that. New guidance was issued in May 2000. Each child in care must have a personal education plan. Each school must have a designated teacher who is responsible for acting as an advocate or mentor to the child and to liaise with the social services and others. There will be a limit of 20 days in which local authorities must find an educational placement for these children.
It is shocking that those children can be excluded from a school and have no education whatsoever for a year or more. Twenty days is now the limit for a new educational placement to be made. Local authorities are required to set up established routines for keeping in touch with those involved—the schools, the social workers, the foster parents and the health officials—and keep them informed of developments. Targets have been set for educational attainment. There must be personal education plans for each child. The target for this year, which I think was not achieved, was for 50 per cent of such children to gain at least one GCSE at grades A to G. By 2003, the target will be 75 per cent.
These new practices are beginning to have an impact. Several of your Lordships have mentioned the Ofsted report produced in the spring entitled Raising Achievement of Children in Public Care. It contains a touching story of a girl from Bradford referred to as "G". It says:
"G had been in care for six years and in that time had experienced five foster placements and periods in children's homes. She was very aware of her own difficulties but said that she could at last see a future. A teacher within the school acted as part-time counsellor and G reported frequent contact over the past three years. The counsellor has helped her to establish herself in a stable foster placement, had supported her through an abortion and two suicide attempts, had stayed firmly beside her through periods of rage and despair. In Year 11"—
which was the GCSE year—
"the counsellor was ensuring that all was in place for G to take GCSEs with predicted grade C results. The young woman expressed her gratitude to the counsellor; without the stability provided by the school and the regular contact with a listening adult, the outcomes could have been very different".
That shows what a difference good practice can make. However, it is often difficult to fit the different pieces of the jigsaws into place. We need, to use that hackneyed phrase, joined-up thinking, but it is not always easy to get. I spoke at some length to one of the managers in charge of care for children in my county of Surrey. He talked about a new creative scheme that has been running in Surrey for the past 12 months which illustrates good practice. The High Ashurst project is an active learning programme that involves formal and social education of young people aged 14 to 16. It works intensively with six young people at any
1064
one time. The programme is individually tailored to meet the needs of young people who have multiple complex needs and have either been permanently excluded from mainstream education or cannot cope in such an environment. Under the Connexions service, they would fall into the higher need levels of 3 to 4. One of the key features of the programme is that young people are fully involved in the design of their own programmes. That picks up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about the importance of talking to the young people. Those programmes are reviewed on a daily basis.
The service was initially established as a pilot through the Connexions start-up funding, which again shows how some of the different programmes that we have been talking about are rolling through. Due to the success of the scheme, it is hoped that it will be picked up by the Learning and Skills Council, with the European Social Fund also providing some finance.
Let us hope that the project goes forward, but it provides for only six children out of the 600 that Surrey has to cope with. Many of those children are in foster homes, some of which are very stable, but many problems are still presented to the local authority. Four issues in particular arose from my conversation. The first is the culture of blame and the morale of the social workers. Many social workers working with children in care, and particularly in residential homes, feel that over the past 10 or 20 years they have been blamed and blamed again for the failures that have occurred. They recognise that on occasions they fail, but they feel that the failures are also failures of society, because the young people are so vulnerable and come from such traumatised backgrounds. They are highly disturbed young people with enormous behavioural and emotional difficulties. They often need the one-to-one help and guidance that the Ashurst programme can provide.
Secondly, there are problems of recruitment and retention, particularly in areas around London, the Home Counties and the South-East. Housing is so expensive that it is very difficult to recruit good social workers in Surrey and to keep them in the children's service. The Ofsted report that I mentioned instances case loads of 17 to one and often higher. There is enormous stress among social workers. When one leaves, a colleague has to cover for them. That means that children do not get the consistent help from one individual that they need. That came through in the story that I told about the girl in Bradford. There are often lots of different individuals who deal with the children, struggling to cope with enormous case loads. They cannot give the children the attention that they really need.
Thirdly, there are problems in getting the psychiatric help that the children need. They are not classed as mentally ill by the National Health Service, yet they are undoubtedly not mentally well, because they have enormous emotional and behavioural problems. They are not getting the psychiatric help that they need because the National Health Service says that they are untreatable. That poses enormous difficulties and puts all the burden on the social

1065
workers and those in schools to cope with the problems. They cannot look to the help from the National Health Service that we need to bring in with our joined-up thinking. That poses yet another problem, because resources are needed. The National Health Service does not have the necessary resources any more than social services departments or schools do.
That leads to the final problem of school placements. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, mentioned the real conflict of interest between the social services authorities and the education services. The children may have been excluded from schools on a number of occasions and exhausted the range of schools in their locality. They are then taxied miles across Surrey to schools right out of their home environment, which is not necessarily the right way to solve the problem. There are also increasing numbers of foundation schools or specialist schools that these children cannot attend. Schools that are popular and good are full up and the children cannot be placed in them. The schools that are not full already have a disproportionate number of those with special educational needs and emotional and behavioural difficulties. That poses a great many problems.
From these Benches we endorse many of the Government's new initiatives. We also endorse the request of the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Darcy de Knayth, for a re-examination of the concept of corporate parenting. We call for the establishment in this country of a children's commissioner, just as there is in Wales, to bang heads together and get things moving on occasions and to secure the joined-up thinking that we need. We ask the Government to consider the whole issue of the training and remuneration of foster parents, just as we also echo the thoughts of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in calling for better qualifications for those working in residential homes with children and for greater opportunities for training there.
Lastly, but not least, we ask the Government not simply to blame local authorities for the failures of their social services departments and LEAs or to blame health authorities. The Government must ensure that those bodies have enough resources to do the job properly. Part of the failure of joined-up thinking comes from competition for resources. There are not enough resources in the health service and social services to provide what they ought to be providing. That is a real problem. If we wish the end, we should also will the means.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for introducing this debate with a speech of such genuine concern for the needs of children. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it has been an excellent debate.
Meeting the educational needs of every child is a subject of enormous importance. Yet adequate provision for their education presents real challenges.
1066
Many of these youngsters face frequent changes of location. Many had experienced difficulties with their families, and corporate parental responsibility in the form of the local authority presents a unique situation. All those things can affect a child's ability to learn, concentrate and behave. Their progression through the school system is subject to conditions very different from those experienced by children living full time with their natural families.
Recent figures suggest that those conditions do affect children's educational achievement. When measured against national averages, the educational attainment of children in public care looks poor. Seventy-five per cent leave school with no qualifications, compared with only 6 per cent who live with their families full time. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned two notable exceptions: Cheshire and Kensington & Chelsea. l am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, will be pleased to hear that the latter has a very good number going on to university.
Disruption and instability are critical factors in educational under-achievement. Pressure on foster homes and a lack of appropriate children's homes can create difficulties for the placing authority. As a result, some children are moved to foster agencies away from their original area. Children and carers often assume that "moving on" is inevitable. Such a sense of uncertainty can lead to a degree of disinterest in education on the part of the child. Moving on can mean leaving friends, trusted carers and teachers. Often, moves take place regardless of educational commitments and add to the pressure of examinations.
The education of children who live at home is determined and monitored largely by their teachers and parents. For children in public care, the situation is far more complex. The local authority has a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of each child in public care. The social services, as the placing authority and as the service responsible for designating a social worker to each child, should be closely linked with the local education authority. The LEA is responsible for ensuring a school place for each child and for monitoring progress, as well as issuing a statement of special educational needs where required.
There is often a lack of understanding between education authorities and social services. Several noble Lords have made that point tonight. One manifestation of it is the apparent reluctance of social workers and schools to share information. That may be due to reasons of confidentiality. Some children are in schools where the head teacher, or the named teacher, does not know that the child is in a foster placement or a temporary placement in a children's home.
Interestingly, children themselves have emphasised the importance of regular contact with a social worker who has a real interest in educational achievement. Presumably, that can be realised only where a social worker has a good understanding of the relevant education system and is in close contact with the school.

1067
The importance of understanding and support from a child's school cannot be overstated. Where a teacher has been appointed to handle all matters relating to children in public care, it has been successful. The teacher has access to all information relating to a child: where he or she is living, and the identities of the carer and the social worker. That information is updated regularly, even if the school placement remains the same. Difficulties caused by ignorance or misunderstanding can be resolved only by effective communication between local authorities and schools.
The complex system of responsibility in public care can also affect children who have special educational needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, early identification is vital. It is most likely to be the parents or the teachers who identify such difficulties. They are able to do so because of their familiarity with the child. Some children in public care, sadly, are not identified simply because they lack that continuous contact. The shortage of social workers in nearly every local authority visited by the Ofsted inspectors, coupled with their heavy caseload of up to 17 children, means that genuine familiarity and a close relationship between child and social worker are rare indeed.
Yet there is another dimension to this issue. In an article commissioned by the Who Cares Trust, the author describes how, until recently, problems were attributed to a child's traumatic childhood rather than to any possible educational difficulty. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in a very thought-provoking speech.
The difficulties at school experienced by some children are a result of emotional abuse, low self-esteem or insecurity. But many, in addition to a difficult start in life, have a specific learning difficulty of some kind. Dyslexia, dyspraxia and other SpLDs have specific symptoms that are not necessarily characteristic of emotional disturbance. Dyslexia is manifested in both abilities and difficulties. Once identified, appropriate educational plans can be put into place.
In the best children's homes, the children are part of a family and the care workers have a commitment to ensuring school attendance, supervised homework and support for school events. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield would agree with that. However, many homes cater for a wide age range, different abilities and different behaviour patterns, and that can affect children's attitudes significantly.
In such circumstances, it is perhaps unsurprising that the difficulties are not picked up as rapidly as they might otherwise be. Problems arise for children in public care who are approaching the age of 16. Until recently, young people have usually been encouraged to move out of care into semi-independent residences on, or soon after, their 16th birthday. But, if they plan to continue beyond GCSE, it seems extraordinary that they should be encouraged to leave behind the framework of support that is so necessary for academic achievement.
1068
However, I understand that some local authorities are dealing with that issue. The appointment of the young persons' adviser is helping 16 or 17 year-olds leaving care—there are 5,000 each year—by ensuring that they receive the best opportunity to secure their futures. Every young person needs to be supported until it can be demonstrated that he is able to sustain himself within further education or in employment.
Ofsted inspectors have paid particular tribute to,
"examples of carers and teachers who on their own initiative have pressed for improvements for individual children. These children benefited from their efforts but it should not be a matter of luck whether the children encounter such a supporter in their school or care situation".
The difficulties experienced by children in public care largely revolve around the substitution of the parent or guardian by the corporate parent. This is emphasised in almost every report on the education of these children. Many authorities have been successful in devising strategies to improve the quality of education for children in care, but to ensure that every child experiences these benefits we should continue to review the needs of children in public care.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, like many others I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has initiated a timely and important debate. I should like to respond robustly to the very many interesting and important comments made by Members of the House, setting out briefly why it matters as an issue, and to comment not only on what the Government are doing (as noble Lords would expect) but also on why more needs to be done. I shall pick up some of the comments that have been made and feed those into the very serious process of reflection that the Government will be taking part in over the next few months.
Why this subject matters has been set out clearly in the debate. The Government have noticed a slight improvement: now only 63 per cent of young people leave care with no formal qualifications, but we can take no comfort whatsoever from that figure. It is disastrous and appalling for those people and for society.
The consequences of poor education are particularly serious, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and others. Let me nail down those consequences relatively rapidly. Fifty per cent of those who leave care are unemployed; they are nine times more likely to be homeless and, finally and most significantly, 26 per cent of the prison population have been in care at some stage.
As we know, poor education weakens life chances and increases the an individual's likelihood of having a miserable quality of life. That is morally significant and of concern to us generally in government, but it is also extremely expensive in terms of its economic and social costs. Let us reflect for a moment: if we were Utopian and could reduce the proportion of those in prison who have been in care to the average for the population generally, we would reduce our prison population by a quarter and our criminal costs by a

1069
quarter. We are talking in terms of billions of pounds of public money and a massive amount of social misery on both sides of the criminal experience.
We have talked a little bit, perhaps not sufficiently as yet, about some of the causes: low expectation, a disruption in the pattern of experience and education, lack of continuity and support, frequent care placements, and difficulty in securing suitable places; the story goes on. Noble Lords have added to the list; and there are plenty of others. It is not difficult to find some of the reasons for what causes that tendency to failure.
Perhaps I may switch to what the Government are trying to do. I am very grateful for the acknowledgement from many parts of the House of the seriousness and commitment of the Government to this endeavour. If we are serious about social exclusion, which I believe we are, we have to focus on this problem, perhaps above all others.
There are probably six limbs to the target. The first is prevention. Noble Lords are well aware of the importance of early intervention—the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, mentioned that—and of how essential the Sure Start programme is to this, in trying to tackle child poverty at its roots even before the child is born. That is clearly a massive programme of work which time does not allow me to go into.
Secondly, the Quality Protects initiative is absolutely central. Noble Lords will be disappointed to know that I cannot commit the Chancellor beyond March 2004, but the funding is there until 2004. If, as we hope, success and achievement on this most serious of problems can be demonstrated, no doubt there will be persuasive arguments as to why it should continue after that. As to the level of funding, £885 million is going in over five years. That is very significant funding. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked whether it was making significant progress. Yes, I think that it is, but more still needs to be done.
We should not forget adoption and the push to try to get more children adopted. Those figures are rising, but they will never rise to the level that will crack the problem by itself.
I turn now to the DfES/DH Guidance on the Education of Young People in Public Care. Noble Lords have mentioned the push for all schools to have a designated teacher; for all children in care to have personal education plans; and the need to secure suitable educational provision within 20 days. As part of supporting that, implementation advisers have been set up, drawn from the best local authorities, to try to retail the good practice as fast as possible around the country, as many noble Lords have mentioned.
I could mention many other matters, but I refer next to the performance assessment of social services departments. That has not been mentioned, although the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was right in saying how crucial it is that we know what is happening, that we know where there is poor performance and that we stimulate people to do something about it. The Government are committed to rolling out performance assessment of local authority social
1070
services departments to improve child protection so that we can identify where performance is good and where it is bad. We "incentivise" improvement and we support the process of improvement through, for example, the Performance Fund and the social care institutes for excellence.
One of the most significant consequences of the performance assessment process will be to raise the political significance of looked-after children in many local authorities. This is not the stuff that wins or loses elections. I suspect that if one asked many leaders, good leaders, of local authorities, they would struggle to say how many children they have looked after in their authorities or what they are doing about it. I hope that the performance assessment programme will put an end to that.
That is what the Government are doing, but it is quite clearly not sufficient given the scale of the problem and the importance of solving it. So perhaps I may start to set out not solutions but some thoughts for further inquiry over the next few months that have been stimulated by the quality of the debate and the contributions offered by noble Lords from all parts of the House. This is also the product of some very interesting discussions with officials in the two departments and with the Social Exclusion Unit.
First, it is crucial that we are clear what works; in other words, that we have some evidence of where things appear to work better than not, and why.
The Ofsted publication of April 2001 on the educational achievement of children in care was extremely thought-provoking and a good basis. Secondly, the National Federation for Educational Research will complete its study on what we can learn from care practice. Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, reminded us, when we are shaping future policy, we need more frequently and systematically to listen to young people. Finally and most usefully, we are given an opportunity to put what we have heard in the debate into practice by the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. It is undertaking a serious study in conjunction with the two main departments and it will report in May 2002.
In the time available to me I shall not be able to respond in detail to all the interesting questions raised and suggestions made in the debate. However, I guarantee that the Government will look seriously at all the suggestions as part of the review process and that I shall respond in writing to specific questions which were raised.
If we are clearer about what works, the next challenge is to ensure that the practice is implemented across local authorities and through government where appropriate. Perhaps I may suggest from what I have heard during the debate and from our studies what may matter most. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Astor of Hever, mentioned the word "stability". Common sense says—and it is reinforced by the research evidence—that if you are constantly moved in your experiences, in education and in support, the chances

1071
of being able to learn well are reduced and the emotional disturbance will be increased. Therefore, placement in the area from which the child originated appears to be fundamentally important.
There are many reasons why that is difficult and I shall return to them. A stable care placement looks to be fundamentally important. Children should not move from foster home to foster home or from children's home to children's home. A stable educational experience is also important. Children should stay in the same school as far as possible throughout their care and educational experiences. It is also important to have the same social worker throughout—a social worker who knows one, is committed to one and is one's champion. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, put this better than I can—there should be high expectations from the foster home or care home and those expectations should be reinforced in practice, day in and day out, by someone asking, "Are you doing your homework? How are you doing?", signalling that someone notices and cares about how your educational practice is working out. That should be turned where necessary into advocacy so that the system is challenged, as all of us have challenged the system on behalf of our children when we felt it was failing them.
Therefore, stability in all those respects appears to be fundamental to progress. Yet that is not the practice which we are delivering in many situations. Noble Lords have pointed out why it is not being delivered: because we cannot get the social workers; or the foster parents do not have the mindset, experience or skill; or we can get foster parents in Kent or Norfolk but not in Southwark so we shift 12 year-old black girls into a completely alien environment, out of touch with their homes, friends and so forth. No wonder people fail.
If stability in those environments appears to us in government to be central to success, we must no longer offer up the reasons why we cannot provide it; we must find solutions. Often they will need to be radical in order to make it possible to increase the proportion of children in care who receive a more stable educational and care experience. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for stimulating the debate. It has reinforced our determination to ensure that the Social Exclusion Unit study grapples successfully with many of the key problems.
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I began by saying that it was a privilege to introduce the debate. As it has progressed, I have been deeply impressed not only by the personal recollections, knowledge and experiences which have been opened up to us today, but by the hard work that has been done on research. I have also been deeply impressed by the way in which the voices and experiences of the children have come forward in the debate. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords.
I want also to thank the Minister for his open and frank statement about the Government's intention and for the seriousness with which he addressed the
1072
major issues of detail that have been raised. He spoke with conviction, frankness and without a trace of complacency when he acknowledged that we have more to do. At the end of such a debate, that is the best position to be in. He offered us the challenge of continuing to try to persuade him on several important issues. As he said, he is faced with a wealth of questions and suggestions. I am sure that each of us will try to keep him on his toes.
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Religious Liberty
9.14 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the escalation of violations of religious liberty in many parts of the world and whether they will consider measures similar to those adopted by the United States Congress.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who will contribute to what is sadly a timely debate.
Religious freedom, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is so significant that many people are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their faith. However, more than 2 billion people are estimated to be suffering from restrictions to religious freedom. Many millions endure persecution that ranges from harassment, intimidation and discrimination to imprisonment, torture and martyrdom.
The causes of religious intolerance are diverse: religious, ideological, political, social and economic. Broadly, we can identify three types of ideology that are responsible for most contemporary religious persecution. The first is atheistic communism. Despite the end of the Cold War, several communist regimes persist, and they all restrict religious liberty. Examples include China, Vietnam, Laos and North Korea. In China, the state permits religious practice only in state-controlled organisations, thus controlling their leadership, meetings and teaching. Those who refuse to comply pay a high price. Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, the Falun Gong and Christians are suffering oppression. Tens of millions are believed to be suffering harassment, fines, detention, forced labour, "re-education", imprisonment and torture.
In Vietnam, many suffer for their faith. In April 1999, the government cracked down—again—on the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, with the arrest, harassment and intimidation of monks. A Buddhist monk, 57 year-old Thich Huyen Quang, was arrested and given excruciating electric shocks that left him with long-term after-effects. However, he still spoke out. He said:
"Just as the bird on the verge of death sings its most poignant song, so I, an old monk on the threshold of departure from this world, cannot tell a lie: the Party cannot keep on persisting in policies that drive our people to poverty, and repress religions".
In North Korea, the plight of religious believers is especially grim. A Christian Solidarity Worldwide team went to the North Korean border area and obtained details of the treatment meted out to Christians and others who are perceived to be a threat to the regime. That regime promotes the Juche ideology, which is a mixture of atheism and the virtual deification of the leader, Kim Jong I1. Anyone who does not worship him is interned in concentration camps, where Christians are often given the most dangerous tasks and their children are put in cages—within sight but out of reach. Atrocities are committed daily. On one occasion, a guard reportedly poured molten iron over a group of Christians to punish them for refusing to renounce their faith.
The second category of religious persecution is associated with militant religious extremism. India is a contemporary example. Militant Hindu groups, some of which have close connections with the authorities, have attacked and killed members of religious minorities, such as Sikhs, Muslims and Christians.
The third category of contemporary religious persecution is linked with the ideology of violent Islamism, which must be clearly distinguished from the religion of Islam, in order to forestall the development of Islamophobia and a backlash against the vast majority of peaceable Muslims.
Islamism is an aggressive ideology that is committed to vanquishing other faiths, which are seen as being incompatible with its own version of Islam. It is associated with violence and terrorism, as in Sudan, Indonesia Afghanistan and, in recent weeks, the United States.
In Sudan, the National Islamic Front, which is an Islamist regime, took power by military coup in 1989 and declared a jihad in its most militaristic form against all who oppose it, including moderate Muslims and traditional believers as well as Christians. The toll of suffering from war-related causes exceeds 2 million dead and 5 million displaced. I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford will say more on that topic, for which I am grateful.
Since 11th September, attention has focused on the Islamist Taliban regime. Its record of religious intolerance is notorious. Earlier this year, Hindus were required to wear a strip of yellow cloth to identify them, which echoes the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. Eight western aid workers are currently under threat of death for allegedly trying to teach Christianity, and more than 50 Afghan national colleagues are detained for failing to report them. That case raises the general principle of symmetry of respect for human rights, including religious liberty. People who come to the Britain rightly expect their freedoms to be protected. However, in many of those people's countries, comparable rights, such as the freedom to build places of worship, are not accorded to others. Examples include Saudi Arabia, where Christians have virtually no religious freedom of any kind.
I turn briefly to Indonesia. I recently saw in the Moluccas the tragic aftermath of religious conflict between Muslims and Christians, who had lived
1074
peaceably together. Both communities have suffered. But now, more than 2,000 Lasker Jihad warriors have poured into the region—many were from the Middle East and Afghanistan—with the intention of driving Christians away from that part of Indonesia.
I could continue the litany of modern violations of religious freedom. They represent one of the most overlooked erosions of freedom. The United Nations has dedicated a convention, a treaty, a body, a special rapporteur, a day, a week, three decades and a world conference to racial discrimation but has dedicated very little to religious discrimination other than a special rapporteur.
The United States has demonstrated its concern. In 1998 Congress established the Commission on International Religious Freedom to monitor religious freedom in other countries and to advise the President, the Secretary of State and Congress on how best to promote it. The appointed commissioners include leaders from different faiths and experts on international law, religious freedom and human rights. They travel extensively to investigate violations of religious liberty.
The State Department also has its own Office of International Religious Freedom, headed by an ambassador-at-large. This office can designate countries of particular concern where gross violations of religious freedom occur; or other categories such as "particularly severe violators of religious freedom". The American Government can then apply a range of political and economic pressures.
At present "countries of particular concern" are Burma, China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan. The Taliban regime is designated a particularly severe violator of religious liberty. The commission has recommended adding Turkmenistan, North Korea, Laos and Saudi Arabia to the list of countries of particular concern.
Both the Office of International Religious Freedom and the Commission on International Religious Freedom produce comprehensive reports which have a high reputation. Some of their recommendations have been acted upon. Therefore there is a case for Her Majesty's Government to give religious freedom a higher priority in foreign policy.
Perhaps I may offer some ideas for consideration: for example, the establishment of an office for religious freedom, the appointment of an envoy for religious freedom to investigate cases of alleged religious persecution and to prepare briefings for government departments and parliamentary committees, the monitoring of HMG-sponsored aid to ensure that its distribution does not preclude any people on the grounds of religion; or giving greater financial commitment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Human Rights Fund for increased funding for human rights initiatives and indigenous NGOs working to promote and protect religious freedom, or perhaps giving FCO legal and technical assistance for governments such as those in the former Soviet Union, preparing legislation dealing with religious registration to assist them in developing the principles and policies of civil society, or requiring

1075
British embassies to report on religious persecution in countries where violations occur; or the promotion of a more coherent EU response to violations of religious liberty comparable to the agreed position on the death penalty; or, finally, the establishment of a religious liberty commission similar to that in the United States.
I conclude by emphasising that many millions of people are suffering from religious intolerance and persecution which are the primary causes of most of the conflicts, oppression and man-made disasters in the world today. The terrible events of 11th September brought these tragedies to our own doorstep. There is urgent need to act now to monitor and check trends which could develop into further destruction of life and liberty. Nothing can bring back lives already lost, but we can learn from history and try to prevent comparable tragedies in the future.
I finish with the words of a Buddhist monk in Vietnam, who speaks more eloquently than I can, on behalf of all those suffering from violation of freedom of religion and who look to us who live in freedom to use our freedom to help them in their hour of need. He says:
"… in Vietnam today, Vietnamese citizens have the choice between only two alternatives: either to go to prison or to toe the Party line. Those who toe the Party line must abandon their identity. They have mouths but cannot speak, have brains but cannot think, have hearts but cannot love their people or their country as they choose … Those who choose prison or reeducation camp may think and speak freely—but only to themselves. What kind of freedom is this, where human dignity is totally denied?"
9.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Her question raises a number of important and sensitive issues at this time, with both the global and national context in mind.
The right to choose and to practise one's religion is fundamental. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that the enjoyment of religious freedom has also proven to be one of the most elusive and fragile of all human rights down the centuries. In 1612, for example, Thomas Helwys, founding father of the Baptist movement, wrote of the need to safeguard the freedom of the creature and the creator:
"Let them be heretikes, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it apperteynes not to earthly powers to punish them in the least measure".
The right of religious freedom has been incorporated more firmly into UK law since the autumn of 2000 through the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the declaration on freedom of thought, conscience and religion—reads as follows:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance".
The Churches strongly support this assertion of the right to freedom of religion and belief for reasons deeply rooted in a Christian understanding of the
1076
dignity of the human person and community. But as the noble Baroness has indicated, we do not have an equivalent of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, which seeks to monitor the abuses of religious freedom in different parts of the world. In recent years in the Sudan, for example, there have been—these figures have already been quoted—2 million dead and 5 million displaced by war, a toll of anguish that exceeds that of Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia combined. The National Islamic Front regime continues to hold power by military force in a reign of ruthless oppression and terror. Its victims include moderate Muslims as well as Christian and traditional believers. It targets and slaughters innocent people, carries off women and children into slavery and manipulates humanitarian aid.
The NIF has been indicted by the United Nations Security Council for its terrorist activities; it is known to harbour terrorist training camps; and it is accused of complicity with terrorist activities such as the bombing of the United States embassy in Nairobi. Therefore, it should not command any respect or support from the international community.
I believe that the British Government must respond more effectively and robustly to the violations of human and religious rights by the NIF. At present the Government's position is one of critical dialogue which is widely seen by Sudanese people inside and out of the Sudan as long on dialogue and short on effective criticism. I believe, for example, that the Government should respect the spirit of the UN Security Council sanctions, such as restrictions on invitations to representatives of the NIF regime and not giving them red-carpet treatment. The Government should restrain from encouraging trade with the NIF and they should withdraw the DTI publication that implicitly encourages investment in the Sudan in ways that help the NIF. Furthermore, the British Government should explain why they have allowed the sale of dual-purpose supplies, capable of civilian or military use, to the Sudan with no end-user accountability.
I believe that it is time for all those who have any concern for peace and justice to stand up for the victims in Sudan today and do everything in their power to bring an end to this largely forgotten, yet the world's greatest, contemporary manmade tragedy before the toll of suffering, death and destruction reaches even greater proportions.
We belong to one world, but in raising concern about the escalation of violations of religious liberty in the Sudan and many parts of the globe, we would do well to exercise greater vigilance in our own country. One of the key issues is that of identity. For many people in Britain and Ireland today religion is one of the most important aspects of their identity. To build truly inclusive societies means enabling people of all religious faiths and beliefs to share fully as citizens in social, economic and cultural life. There is now evidence to show that significant groups of people feel that they cannot yet do this because of the unfair treatment that they experience on the grounds of their religion or belief. Respecting the identity of and not

1077
demonising, those whose beliefs are different from our own is vitally important in our multi-faith, multicultural society.
I think of incidents in my own diocese, which covers Essex and part of East London, involving mindless vandalism at mosques in Southend and Chelmsford. Although there have not been similar attacks in East London because of the much larger number of Muslims—there is strength in numbers—there have been humiliating incidents in which the hejabs which cover the faces of Muslim women have been pulled off. In another part of the country a teenage Hindu girl suffered a fractured skull when a gang of Muslim youths with hammers and axes rampaged through her school.
Finally, I should like to touch on the anxieties felt by some of our fellow Jewish citizens in view of the heightened focus on Israel since 11th September. Only this week Jo Wagerman, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, expressed her worries about the growth of anti-Semitism since the New York attacks:
"What is noticeable for those of us with our roots in the Jewish community, but our branches in the wider British community, is a very disturbing, knee-jerk anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism coming out. It isn't attacks in the street; it's the chattering classes: it's the dinner parties; it's in schools and in conversations".
Legislation by itself can be largely ineffective in countering the violations of religious liberty in this country or elsewhere unless it is backed up by education, the encouragement of good practice and the continuing development of positive inter-faith relations; for example, the Encounter Youth Exchange Programme which brings together young people from different national, religious and cultural backgrounds, as in London in past weeks when young Jewish, Muslim and Christian people met. But to aid that whole process of education, good practice and partnership, I urge Her Majesty's Government to consider measures similar to those adopted by the United States Congress.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is quite right to draw our attention to religious liberty and freedom of conscience. I join with all other night-watchmen in thanking the noble Baroness for this opportunity to debate the intolerance that is all too common today. Despite the end of the cold war and the break -up of the Soviet Union, we are still far from reaching mutual respect and harmonious relations between all secular and religious groups.
In this House yesterday we discussed internally displaced people in the United Kingdom; those expelled, often for sectarian reasons, from Northern Ireland. There are still some children who even now need police escorts to get to school.
Today, we should reflect on attacks in Britain on mosques, synagogues and churches. The slaughter in New York and Washington can in no way justify attacks in our streets on people whose clothing shows
1078
their religious identity. Interfaith dialogue and cooperation is urgently needed now. We can develop it in this country. I am in full agreement with the sentiments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.
Overseas, aggressive intolerance often takes the form of destroying religious buildings and sometimes also their congregations. One recalls Stalin in Russia or Ceaucescu in Romania, while current examples include mosques in India, Bosnia and Macedonia, as well as churches, for example in the Sudan and Indonesia. Alarm bells, should start ringing as soon as ideology comes to power or insinuates itself among religious believers. Here I find myself strongly in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
We need to consider how intolerance and ideology can be modified and reduced by both domestic and foreign policy. If our policy in the world is to have moral and ethical content, it must surely be concerned with basic human rights, among which religious liberty and freedom of conscience should be central.
I illustrate this proposition by looking at examples drawn, first, from communist and former communist countries and, secondly, from the Islamic world. In both China and the former Soviet Union, there is a hang over from earlier periods whereby governments still insist that religious groups must be registered. From that they deduce that unregistered groups must of their nature be subversive or at least constitute dangerous cults. In China this results in persecution, imprisonment, forced labour and some abuse of psychiatric hospitals. The chief sufferers are of course unregistered Christians, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and the Falun Gong. In Russia it leads to problems for the Salvation Army—for example, in the city of Moscow, where the case of registration or non-registration is now sub judice—and to difficulties for many other minority religions which have been and still are reported by the Keston Institute.
Will the Government, in both bilateral and multilateral discussions, work to convince China and Russia that registration is unnecessary? Reliance instead should be placed on the normal criminal law concerning public order, incitement, conspiracy and such matters.
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making clear today that the current campaign in Afghanistan is in no way a campaign against Islam or against Muslims. That is an important clarification.
In the Islamic world we find that the Baha'i are usually regarded with deep suspicion because their founder came from a Muslim family and many of their members are former Muslims. In particular in Iran they have suffered persecution and discrimination. Apostacy—leaving Islam to join another religion—can have dangerous consequences in several countries that have, or aspire to have, an Islamic constitution. Other problems arise in several states when attempts are made to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims. We have recently seen severe loss of life and property destruction through intercommunal riots in Nigeria, where the Sharia question has been aggravated by recent world events.

1079
Islam is and always has been a missionary faith. For that reason, it is constantly gaining new members, both in Britain and elsewhere. I trust that it will come to accept that sometimes it will also lose members to other faiths. If we are to live in mutual respect, such give and take is of the essence.
Will the Government raise all the issues which I have mentioned concerning Islam whenever they have the opportunity? Will they consult with institutions such as the Conference of Islamic States and the Commonwealth in order to achieve peaceful solutions? Will they continue to raise these matters with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations?
At home, will the Government take into account the benefits and advantages of integrated cross-denominational education—of which I have seen a good deal in practice in Northern Ireland—when they consider proposals and applications for new religious schools in England? If such new schools can be developed on an inter-faith or inter-denominational basis, they could become seed beds for better cooperation in Britain. Will the Government also encourage grant-making bodies such as the lottery boards, the Millennium Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and others, to support inter-faith dialogue, in particular when that is sponsored by voluntary organisations? Those are some of the ways in which home policy can reinforce foreign policy and make it more credible.
I hope that, when he comes to reply, the noble Lord will be able to assure the House that regular consultations will take place between the Home Office and the Foreign Office on these matters.
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for initiating this debate. Her speech has been both wide ranging and profound. I shall confine myself to relevant developments in Russia. For my knowledge of those I owe much to the admirable Keston Institute, which has reported for so long on the situation there and on religious persecution. I may also have an advantage in that I have served both in Vietnam during the Vietnam War and in Russia when it was still the Soviet Union. I shall also discuss briefly what is taking place in what the Russians call their "near abroad"; that is, the states of Central Asia, which once formed part of the union.
Both Russia and Vietnam were militantly communist and religion was persecuted. I fear that nothing has changed in Vietnam, where both the Buddhist and the Catholic faiths continue to be persecuted. When I served in Hanoi, the Catholic cathedral was opened once a year to allow the regime to give media coverage to an Easter service, as though that were a normal proceeding. In fact, the building served as a grain store for 364 days of the year. Now I imagine that they do not feel the need to make such cynical gestures.
1080
In Russia in my day and throughout the communist era, only a very brave handful of men and women practised their religion. Perhaps they went once or twice to one of the very few churches of the Orthodox faith, possessed a crucifix or a Bible. For all those acts, they often paid with 20 years or life in the gulags, the infamous camps which few survived. In those days, and until perestroika under Gorbachev, the full force of the KGB was put into eradicating religion, while at the same time manipulating the Orthodox church as a most useful propaganda tool abroad in such circles as the World Council of Churches by placing young KGB officers in the church as priests. To this day, the Orthodox church is an honourable exception, a faithful organ of the state in Russia.
In his letter to the Soviet leaders in 1990, Solzhenitsyn wrote:
"Your dearest wish is for our state structures and our ideological system never to change, to remain as they are for centuries. But history is not like that".
And, indeed, at the height of the anti-dissident campaign, another admirable dissident, Lydia Chukovskaya, prophesied that, one day, there would be squares in Moscow named after Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov.
For a while after the Berlin Wall came down, after Yeltsin saved Russia from a KGB coup, everyone thought that there would be total religious freedom in Russia and, indeed, such religious dissidents from the Gulag at Gleb Yakunin actually became members of the Duma. But the power of the nomenklatura, who had always ruled Russia, survived, and after a few years when religions of all denominations—Catholics, Baptists, Muslims—were all free to worship and even to proselytize, the 1997 law was enacted which effectively left only the Orthodox Church that freedom. The rest had to secure permission for such basic things as funding and finding a building in which to worship or for bringing in a Bible and religious literature. They had to be registered in order to do their work and they were under surveillance. They still are.
Under President Putin, a former KGB officer of strong authoritarian tendencies, life for Christians in Russia is again becoming hard. They are bound by a hundred petty regulations and are often now regarded as potential enemies of the state. This year an American Protestant, after eight years working there, was expelled "as a matter of national security", and foreign missionaries are suspected by religious affairs officials, so called, of trying to weaken Russia by exploiting other alien spiritual values.
In the countries of the near abroad, especially Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, there is pervasive state control of religious literature—and this includes foreign Islamic literature—conducted by the committee for religious affairs. Article 19 of the 1998 changes to the religious law forbids the religious groups to import any religious publication unless they are registered religious bodies. But to gain that status they must have registered communities in eight of the country's regions. So far only six groups have achieved this status.

1081
Even if they secure permission, they can import only one book for each member of the religious group and must pay heavy customs dues. Books in Russian are allowed, books in Uzbek are not. The committee is obstructive and often raids homes to confiscate religious literature.
I had innocently thought that the coming of the Internet would mean that there could be no closed frontiers, but it is reported that e-mails are scrutinised and those containing suspect religious words such as "God", "Church" or "Pray" are returned undelivered with the comment "message error". Freedom of religion is seriously at risk and to worship is becoming dangerous.
I have spoken on this matter because it is essential that our Government recognise that the tide in Russia and the near abroad is turning against religious freedom. Trofimchuk, appointed by President Putin to head the Kremlin's council for co-operating with religious organisations, wants Russian state policy to put spiritual security on the same plane as national security, and he regards foreign missionaries as emissaries of their country acting against the interests of Russia. As is not unusual in Russia, like the USSR before it, the 1997 law says all the right, virtuous things about freedom of conscience, but it is in fact as arbitrary in its exercise of power as it ever was.
I am concerned lest in our need for President Putin's support in the present crisis, and indeed for that of the Central Asian states, we should allow ourselves to be manoeuvred into condoning, and even appearing to support, deeply authoritarian and anti-religious positions. Putin's position over Chechnya, for instance, raises considerable problems since one of the most important and delicate areas of our co-operation with Russia, and of our future relationship with many Islamic countries, concerns our own attitude to religion. We must tread carefully. We shall be despised if we tacitly play down Christianity; we shall be respected if we make it clear that, while respecting other faiths, we cannot condone or support militant attacks on the followers of one religion by those of another or by the state. If we are persuaded to accept such behaviour for "reasons of state", we shall be betraying many simple and decent people, who ask only for freedom to practise their religion and their faith peacefully.
Those who survived the persecution of the Soviet era and those still suffering in China, in Africa, in Vietnam, in Indonesia, must not be betrayed by a general feeling in the West that vague human rights are the same as faith. Osip Mandelstam, the great Russian poet murdered by Stalin, wrote of the connection between the loss of inner freedom and the abandonment of Christianity. Nadezhda, his wife, spoke presciently to Anna Akhmatova about the shadow of the future over a world until recent times still Christian. We are careful to respect other faiths, let us not fail to value our own. It will be a serious political mistake—dealing as we are with people of strong and sometimes even fanatical beliefs—if we do not have a well-defined position of positive belief in the tenets of our own faith.
1082
I understand that the FCO embraces religious policy and reporting within the rubric of human rights. I support the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that there could be real value in the creation of a roving ambassador to deal specifically with international religious freedom. I suspect that he or she would be seriously overworked, but it would send a message to both the oppressed and the oppressors and could contribute very usefully to the briefing of Ministers entering upon negotiation in areas where religious freedom is an issue, as it is today in Africa—notably in Nigeria and the Sudan—and in Asia, as well as in China and Russia.
Once, our aid was linked to contracts. We have ended that policy. It would be my hope, however, that we could link it with a withdrawal of aid, or a withholding of it, where religious persecution exists and nothing is done about it. I hope, too, that the Human Rights Fund can be markedly increased, specifically to help the victims of religious persecution from whatever quarter. Finally, I hope that the Foreign Office may feel an irresistible urge to give some money to the Keston Institute.
9.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Question concerning the Government's response,
"to the escalation of violations of religious liberty in many parts of the world".
Having lived in Uganda under Idi Amin in the early 1970s, I can remember the shock of fear, but also my feeling of powerlessness, when a car carrying children home from school was ambushed by Amin's bandits and the children were hurled out of the car, including my five year-old daughter. It was not long after that Janani Luwum, whose image is now on the front of Westminster Abbey, 100 yards from here, was murdered, possibly by Amin's own hand. I recall the powerlessness that we felt then.
In those years, I also had the great privilege of teaching young Sudanese in an African theological seminary. I saw at first hand the ravages and sufferings of the southern Sudanese: the Dinkas, the Azandes and all the rest. I saw the destruction of their homes, the affliction of the nomadic life, and the loss and injury to their children and families. The noble Baroness has been tireless in the cause of the southern Sudanese, as she is now in that of the religious communities in Indonesia. I support her totally in that work.
It is, however, on the second part of the Question that I want to offer some thoughts, and perhaps a word of reflective caution. The noble Baroness asks whether the Government,
"will consider measures similar to those adopted by the United States Congress"
that is, through its Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring.
These measures by the United States Congress include a system whereby economic and diplomatic sanctions can be imposed on nations where clear

1083
violations of religious liberty are recorded. Under United States law, therefore, sanctions can now be instigated where there is,
"widespread and ongoing persecution of persons because of their membership in or affiliation with a religion or religious denomination, whether officially recognised or otherwise, when such persecution includes abduction, enslavement, killing, forced mass resettlement, rape or crucifixion or other forms of torture".
But recent history has taught us that the imposition of sanctions does not necessarily guarantee any improvement in conditions for members of persecuted minorities within that country. I experienced that myself when I was resident for some years in Uganda. Indeed, sanctions may even tend to increase community polarisation and international tension.
While I do not totally exclude sanctions as a possible response in some situations, it is vital to set such action within the wider context of international relations, a context which also recognises the great importance of religious identity. I dare to say that in my view on the whole the United States legislation fails to do this. But may I point out that religious communities themselves, independent of governments, can in some places play a vital role in the building of confidence and understanding between their different traditions?
One thinks, for instance, of the Crusades from Europe. One wonders whether those Crusaders would have conducted themselves with such fervour if their instigators had been more concerned with the teaching of the Gospels than with the preservation of Christian relics. In Wolverhampton, in my own diocese partnership, friendship, dialogue and inter-faith networks have achieved a great deal. Governments, too, can play a role by supporting programmes of education, dialogue, reconciliation and confidence building.
After the millions of pounds invested in military operations in the Balkans, is it not perhaps possible that an equal investment is now required to help the peoples of that region to discover a security which is not based on their identity as Muslim, Catholic or Orthodox, but rather on knowing that Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox can and should live a shared identity as reconciled people of faith?
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has a well-earned reputation for defending the rights of Christians in Sudan. But dare I point out that the complexities of Sudan themselves remind us that violations of religious liberties are rarely simply a religious issue? They are so often wider than that. The Sudanese Christian boy who is enslaved and his uncle who is crucified are not only Christian, they are also black Africans and the inhabitants of grazing land which others wish to exploit for oil. The Buddhist whose shop is burned down in Jakarta is not only a Buddhist, he is also ethnically Chinese and economically successful in a community where poverty is a daily experience for many. In both those situations the imposition of sanctions for the violation of liberty can be only a risk-laden beginning. There are also issues here of economics, ethnicity, education and community building all requiring urgent attention.
1084
At this time when the eyes of the world are focused on Afghanistan is it not important that we seek to defend religious liberty but even more importantly that we do it in a way which avoids further polarisation, maybe unforeseen, and that we build, and seek to build, understanding and co-operation? Dare I add, with great respect, that I believe it is for our own Government, not the American Government, to determine our own response both to this issue and also to the other agonies of our world?
9.58 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for not only allowing us to discuss this important subject but also for having come forward with ground breaking suggestions for action both nationally and internationally.
The other day I was gratified to learn that the prestigious World Economic Forum in Davos will to a large extent devote its next session in February to the question of the fight against intolerance and the interfaith discourse. The suggestions made by the noble Baroness should also be widely disseminated in the world's press.
When Vice President Cheney warned us a few days ago that the war against terrorism might last a lifetime, he expressed the view of many thoughtful observers that this is a struggle sui generis, widely differing from the rather linear last two world wars or the more episodic recent campaigns in south-east Asia or the Balkans. In this war theatres of operations and alliances may shift and explosions or implosions in obvious and unexpected danger zones may erupt opening ever fresh fronts. But in this new scourge of mankind we face a battle of Muslim extremism: Islamism fighting mercilessly against the world of what it considers to be the "infidel" and its own moderate mainstream ranks. Copts are being persecuted in Egypt, the earliest breeding ground for the Muslim brotherhood, and in the Sudan. In Nigeria, only weeks ago, religious fanatics and common criminals massacred hundreds of helpless Christians in the city of Jos. The catalogue of persecution and atrocities is much more copious.
The tragedy is that these persecutions are propelled by inflammatory sermons in the mosques and hate-inducing learning materials in schools, not to speak of press and television. They all feed on one another. If we seriously wish to break the cycle of prescribed intolerance and hate leading to terrorist action we must focus on the breeding grounds: the classroom and the pulpit. We have, alas, abundant evidence of their output. In sampling the past few weeks' Friday sermons broadcast by the Palestinian Authority Television in Gaza, we find that the faithful were commanded by Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi in these words:
"This war between us and the Jews will continue to escalate until we vanquish them and enter Jerusalem as conquerors, enter Jaffa as conquerors. We are not merely expecting a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital but an Islamic caliphate".

1085
Later Sheikh Madhi said:
"Those who die not for the sake of Islam will end up in the fires of hell".
When the most senior Islamic authority of the whole region, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Akram Sabri, was questioned recently in an interview as to why mothers cry with joy when they hear about their sons' death, he answered:
"They willingly sacrifice their offspring for the sake of freedom. The mother is participating in the great reward of the jihad to liberate Al Aqsa".
He continued:
"I talked to a young man, who said, 'I want to marry the black-eyed beautiful women of heaven'. The next day he became a martyr. I ant sure his mother was filled with joy about his heavenly marriage".
That Holocaust denial, with medieval horror tales of the blood libel, are the daily fare of lectures in school and prayer houses is only too well known; but the chiming in by political leadership with proclamations of implacable hatred may explain why, despite all public protests to the contrary, the real will for peace is lacking so widely in many circles in the Islamic world. In Syria, where the highly centralised Baath Government have been in power for a generation, the systematic teaching of hate and contempt for the Jewish and disdain for the Christian faith is waged with great intensity. At a meeting in Damascus last week with a delegation from the British Royal College of Defence Studies, the Minister for War, General Tlass, said that the Mossad planned the ramming of the two hijacked airliners into the World Trade Centre towers as part of a Jewish conspiracy. He told the British visitors that the Mossad had given thousands of Jewish employees of the World Trade Centre advance warning not to go to work that day. A manual from the Ministry of Education prescribes courses for all grades to instil deep hatred for all things Jewish and contempt for the Jewish religion—a contempt which President Bashir Assad expressed in the presence of the Pope.
If I again raise the question of those school books, and am still awaiting a reply from noble Lords on the Front Bench, it is because I believe that we are in a questionable moral position. If we wish to forge an alliance against evil, we must not neglect to address ourselves to its springs and roots and use our influence. If this coalition is to survive the first round—the search for Osama bin Laden and the fight against the Taliban—those whom we accept or even embrace as road companions should be given a clear choice of pausing, reflecting and making appropriate amends—preferably system changes. If they do not do so, the inexorable logic and dynamics of events will lead inevitably to a brutal and bloody collision course. Surely our Government, who have so far steadily and credibly vowed to conduct an ethical foreign policy, could use their clout and break a lance for the respect of religious freedom. That means initiating or taking part in some form of international action against governments who flout this freedom with callous disregard and consistent brutality.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, nobody has a better right to speak of violations of religious liberty than the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She has faced danger and great discomfort in her work to support the oppressed people of Sudan and we are grateful to her for introducing this short debate.
My noble friend Lord Avebury would, in the normal course of events, have replied to this debate on behalf of my party, but unfortunately his accident on his way to the House some three weeks ago has turned out to be more serious than was originally thought. Although he is making a good recovery, it will be a few weeks before he is able to take his place in your Lordships' House again.
I speak from a somewhat unusual viewpoint because I have no religious belief, although I have a mixed Jewish-Anglican background. I very much respect religious beliefs and have many friends who are believers, including ministers of religion in both the Christian and Jewish faiths. Two personal friends sit on the Bishops' Bench in your Lordships' House.
I believe that religion has done a great deal of good in the course of history, but it has done quite a lot of harm, too. There have been far too many wars of religion; we have not had many wars of scepticism. In England in the Middle Ages, the Christian community was responsible for the murder and expulsion of the Jews. In the 16th century Protestants burned Catholics and vice versa. Appalling atrocities were committed in Ireland by Cromwell, who was, ironically, a friend of the Jews and permitted them to return to England. Until well into the 19th century we discriminated in law against Catholics, Jews and Nonconformists.
Religion tends to create intolerance too often, especially among people who believe that the Torah, the Bible or the Koran is the literal word of God and cannot be questioned or modified. It is true, too, that much of the worst intolerance has come from those who are members of secular creeds, such as Marxism. We saw the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. I remember many years ago being in Smolensk and wanting to see the cathedral. Intourist arranged a guide to take me there. She was a Soviet woman who was unquestionably a sister of Rosa Klebb. Towards the end of my visit, she asked whether I believed in God. I hummed and hawed and said that I did not. She asked why I did not stay in the Soviet Union. She clearly thought that unbelievers in Britain were subject to the same persecution that believers suffered in the USSR.
The end of Communism in many countries has meant that secular persecution is less widespread. The situation in Russia for non-orthodox groups is still far from perfect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, but at least it is better than it was 30 or 40 years ago. The situation in most of eastern Europe is very much better.
A high proportion of violation of religious liberty flows, as it always has, from persecution of one faith by another. All religions should question their own attitude to others. We have seen the persecution of the

1087
Baha'is in Iran, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. There have been campaigns by Christian fundamentalists in the USA against those who do not share their beliefs about abortion. We have seen Muslim attacks on those who have abandoned the Muslim faith; we have seen Hindu attacks on Christians and Muslims; and we have seen Protestants and Catholics hating each other in Northern Ireland.
Freedom of religion is an essential human right, protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, equivalent provisions in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and again stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I have some reservations about setting up a separate government commission on international religious freedom, or creating a special government envoy, as in the USA. Freedom of religion is, of course, a central part of the structure of human rights, but that structure also includes freedom of speech, freedom of association and many other essential rights, such as the right to family life and the right to participate in free elections.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office shows concern for human rights. It has just published a most interesting and valuable annual report on that subject. It does not always put human rights as high up the agenda as some of us would wish, but it undoubtedly now takes human rights seriously. It should continue to look at human rights together. It is inappropriate for a government department to set up a separate commission to deal specifically with religious liberty. If members of faiths on their own initiative set up an independent inter-faith group to report on violations of religious liberty, that would be welcome, but the initiative should come from them, not from the Government.
I shall finish with a brief story about my wife. She attended a school run by the Church Missionary Society—admittedly this was some years ago. When she was about 15, the headmistress told the girls at a school assembly, "Next term we have a Muslim girl coming to the school and you must all try to convert her". At that point, my wife got up and said, "How do we know that we are right and she is wrong". She says that that is the bravest thing that she has ever done. She was nearly expelled as a result, although she ultimately became the head girl of the school.
There is no answer to my wife's question. None of us can be certain that we are right and that members of other faiths or none are wrong. That is the attitude that secular governments should take to religions and that members of one faith should take to those of another. If that spirit can be pressed forward, we will see a reduction in violations of religious liberty.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing what she rightly said is a timely debate. Her speech was very moving, as one would expect from someone who
1088
cherishes and works tirelessly for human rights and religious liberty. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on his stamina in speaking in and listening to three debates, one after another.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said, violations of religious liberty are one of the most overlooked erosions of freedom and, sadly, they have become much more numerous over recent years.
My noble friend Lady Cox started her speech by emphasising the importance of religious liberty. The right to choose and practise one's religion should be a fundamental one, but, tragically, it has proved to be one of the most elusive and fragile of all human rights through the centuries. A figure of more than 1 million people in prison for their faith is deeply shocking. My noble friend set out the underlying causes of religious intolerance and gave the House examples of countries that restrict religious liberty or where religious persecution is associated with militant religious extremism.
The interim report of the UN Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, dated July this year, mentions religious intolerance and discrimination in a number of other countries as well. I was particularly disturbed to read that Malaysia—a country that I am especially fond of—now apparently imprisons people for converting from Islam to Christianity and refusing to repent and return to Islam. I hope that the examples given will not be repeated in that country.
As my noble friend Lady Cox said, India continues to cause concern. Religious minorities continue to be subjected to unprovoked attacks in certain parts of the country. Figures released recently by the Indian Government show that there were over 400 recorded attacks on Christians alone in the past two years and that more than 30 people were killed. It is estimated that many other attacks go unreported. One Indian human rights organisation calculated that the true figure is nearly twice as large. Recent incidents include a nun who, in August, was shot in the face by four Hindu militants in Madhya Pradesh state, and a priest who suffered serious injuries after being attacked by more than 40 Hindu militants near Bombay.
The growing menace of militant Hindu groups, who are not representative of Hindu opinion as a whole in India, is of grave concern. I wonder whether the Government will press the Indian Government to curb such groups and to cut the links between the leading member of the coalition government, the BJP, and some of these shadowy extremist organisations.
In Nigeria, the situation continues to be worrying, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. A number of northern states have implemented Sharia law and a number of others are considering doing so, too. Christians and non-Muslims in those states feel isolated and vulnerable. My noble friend Lady Park gave the House a fascinating insight into religious intolerance in Russia and the "New Abroad". The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, mentioned Syria, and

1089
the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded us of the religious intolerance between Catholics and Protestants on our own doorstep.
Can the Minister tell the House what is the Government's response to the rapporteur's conclusions and recommendations? I was somewhat heartened by certain aspects of the rapporteur's comments. While intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief continue in many parts of the world, there were some positive situations and improvements. My noble friend Lady Cox referred to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which includes leaders from different faiths. Can the Minister explain the Government's views on consultation with non-governmental organisations, including religious bodies? What steps will the Government take to continue dialogue on international matters with such organisations?
In this country, we are concerned about reports of crimes motivated by religious hate. It is fortunate that no one was hurt in the recent incendiary attack on a mosque in Edinburgh. We on these Benches are extremely sympathetic to the aims of the legislation to combat religious hatred. However, there needs to be a balance between protecting the rights of religious groups and maintaining freedom of debate and free speech.
Before legislation is rushed through, a serious discussion must take place between different religious groups and, indeed, those without religious conviction on how legislation can reconcile those two aims. There is a very real risk that poorly drafted legislation will impinge on freedoms of expression.
I look forward to the Minister's response to the many questions that he has received. In particular, I endorse the question raised by my noble friend Lady Cox on British embassies in countries where religious violations occur. I should very much like to see the embassies include those violations in their annual reports.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, this has indeed been an extraordinarily well informed and wide ranging debate. Obviously I have been taking notes as I have been going along. The countries referred to have included China, Vietnam, North Korea, India, the Sudan, Russia, Uganda, Egypt, Nigeria, Syria, Northern Ireland, Malaysia, and I may have missed one or two. I have to say to your Lordships that 12 minutes to respond to all those countries' problems is beyond the capacity of the Government Front Bench. However, I shall do the very best I can to deal with some of the issues raised. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on raising this issue. It is one on which I know she campaigns tirelessly.
I shall refer to certain speeches as I go through the various comments that I want to make, but perhaps I may be allowed a little prejudice of my own and refer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, who happens to be my own right reverend Prelate. He spoke astonishingly movingly on the basis of his experience in Uganda.
1090
Our starting point is familiar. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of though!. conscience and religion".
However, as we have heard today, reality can fall tragically short of the standards set down in international law. Despite improvements made in a number of countries, many believe that the world-wide trend is towards increased discrimination against minorities. The Government are committed to upholding the values that underpin our own security and prosperity—values of human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms. That includes, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the right to change one's religion, which is obviously fundamental. We unreservedly condemn the persecution of individuals because of their faith, wherever they are and whatever religion they practise.
At the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 2001, all European Union member states cosponsored a resolution to work to eliminate all forms of religious intolerance. Intolerance is not the monopoly of any particular state or religion or indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested, the monopoly of any particular point in history. It can occur with monotonous geographic regularity and historically with wearying regularity.
Following the terrorist attacks on 11th September it has become clear that, regrettably, there are some people in Britain who have sought to stir up hatred against members of religious groups, especially Muslims, a point to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred. As a result the Government are considering proposals for legislation that will make it a criminal offence to incite hatred against members of religious groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, quite rightly stressed that we must be very careful how that is phrased and how it is dealt with, and obviously it must be properly scrutinised. Even my limited experience of your Lordships' House tells me that there will not be any lack of scrutiny when the legislation comes to be considered by this House.
In parallel with everything that goes on here at home, we will continue to work actively abroad to promote understanding and tolerance. I can reassure your Lordships that our missions overseas are working closely with local non-governmental organisations—the importance of NGOs was again a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I wholly endorse that—to achieve specific human rights objectives in many countries of the world.
One example of the practical work that they are engaged in is an initiative in the southern Philippines—one country that was not mentioned by anyone this evening—to increase understanding, respect and tolerance amongst local religious groups as an essential first step towards resolving conflicts there.

1091
In all of our actions we work closely with the European Union, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to some of the measures taken by the United States in combating violations of religious liberty. That matter was also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. We share with the United States a common commitment to universal human rights standards. But the approach of our two Governments inevitably differs, given our different constitutional structures. The noble Baroness suggested the establishment of an envoy for religious freedom and a commission with representatives of different faith communities. This Government greatly value dialogue with those outside government and have worked hard to strengthen it.
For that reason, Ministers and officials regularly discuss human rights concerns in a range of countries with non-governmental groups. For example, as part of our preparations for the 2001 United Nations Commission on Human Rights, my good honourable friend, John Battle, the then FCO Minister with responsibility for human rights, held detailed discussions with UK-based NGOs. Furthermore, officials at the FCO's Africa department met staff from the office of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford before his visit to Nigeria. I can also tell the House that arrangements are in hand to hold the next meeting of the FCO's contact group on religious freedom in the near future. That contact group aims to enrich the foreign policy debate through discussion with NGOs and religious organisations.
We believe that the correct approach for this country is to reinforce the existing mechanisms which we have when dealing with the issues which we all agree are important. I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield in saying that ultimately it must be our government of whichever political persuasion who make decisions which we think are right for our country in the light of our particular circumstances and the traditions of our foreign policy.
Our approach is to treat religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy. Human rights are inter-related and interdependent, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, stressed. In practice, violations of the right of freedom of religion are often accompanied by violations of other rights; for instance, of freedom of speech and association, freedom from torture and the right to a fair trial. Protecting and promoting freedom of religion is most effective when it is done in the context of the promotion and protection of other human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, stressed that in particular in the context of the Middle East.
Therefore, we emphasise that human rights are everyone's business. That is why we have made human rights an essential element of training for policy staff,
1092
including ambassadors and staff serving overseas as entry clearance officers or managers. All decision-makers in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate receive training on the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1999 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We have developed human rights strategies to promote human rights in many countries overseas, so we can target our efforts where they have most effect. With advice from our embassies overseas and the people working in them, we must of course ensure that we tailor our contacts and discussions to the particular needs of the particular states, including all those referred to in today's debate. We are expanding our network of human rights advisers to our missions overseas. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, may be pleased to know that we are already increasing funding for the FCO's Human Rights Project Fund for the next financial year.
Aid and international development were mentioned by a number of speakers—indeed, several noble Lords who have contributed to today's debate have been most active in the international development legislation currently going through this House. The strategy of the Department for International Development on realising human rights for poor people makes it clear that in order to eliminate poverty, development should promote inclusive societies based on the values of equality and nondiscrimination and the promotion of all human rights. That means that British development programmes support the inclusion of all groups, whatever their religious persuasion or cultural background.
The Government were pleased to publish their fourth annual report on human rights on 17th September as a demonstration of our openness to scrutiny. The report sets out some of the action that we have taken to promote religious freedoms in, for instance, Turkmenistan, Pakistan and China. The European Union also produces an annual report on human rights, which highlights some of the work that has been carried out to promote human rights, including freedom of religion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the need to monitor international religious laws. European Union members and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe regularly consider new legislation on religious registration. Relevant issues of concern were raised by several noble Lords this evening. Where appropriate, we remind governments of the need to comply with their international obligations and to uphold freedom of religion. In some cases, we offer technical assistance. For example, the UK funded the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights—an institution of the OSCE—in its discussions with the Government, parliamentarians and NGOs in Kazakhstan. That resulted in a number of changes to their new draft law on religious organisations, to bring it closer into line with OSCE

1093
standards. The UK participated in an OSCE seminar on freedom of religion and belief in June this year, which considered, among other issues, the registration of religious groups.
We will continue to use our influence in the world to promote human rights, including religious freedom, and to confront oppression and human suffering wherever it appears. We defend human rights for
1094
others because those are the values that we demand for ourselves and which are integral to the kind of society in which we all want to live.
In conclusion, the Government continue to take very seriously indeed the issues that have been raised in this debate and the fundamental principle of religious freedom that underpins them.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Provisional IRA: Alleged Security Force Collusion in the Irish Republic
  Provisional IRA: Alleged Security Force Collusion in the Irish Republic
  Provisional IRA: Creation
  Provisional IRA: Creation
  Northern Ireland: Deaths since 1969 as a Result of the Security Situation
  Northern Ireland: Deaths since 1969 as a Result of the Security Situation
  Republic of Ireland: Arms Dumps
  Republic of Ireland: Arms Dumps
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment Policy
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment Policy
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Written Answers
  Written Answers
  Yvonne Ridley: Release
  Yvonne Ridley: Release
  EU Common Position on Burma
  EU Common Position on Burma
  Armed Forces: Retention of Medical Officers
  Armed Forces: Retention of Medical Officers
  Armed Forces: Healthcare
  Armed Forces: Healthcare
  Operational Welfare Package: Personnel on Exercise Saif Sareea II
  Operational Welfare Package: Personnel on Exercise Saif Sareea II
  Radar Data: Retention
  Radar Data: Retention
  Race Relations Act 1976: Section 71 Orders
  Race Relations Act 1976: Section 71 Orders
  Passenger Aircraft: Evasive Action
  Passenger Aircraft: Evasive Action
  Railtrack: Thameslink 2000 Costs
  Railtrack: Thameslink 2000 Costs
  M6: Lighting
  M6: Lighting
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr Alun Evans
  Mr Alun Evans
  National Football Stadium
  National Football Stadium
  Historical Manuscripts Commission: Annual Review 2000–01
  Historical Manuscripts Commission: Annual Review 2000–01
  Import Inspections
  Import Inspections
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Cost to Public Funds
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Cost to Public Funds
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccine Tests
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccine Tests
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Foreign Veterinarians
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Foreign Veterinarians
  Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food
  Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food
  Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship Framework Curriculum
  Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship Framework Curriculum