Sitting of 16 April 2002

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

    India
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What assessment he has made of the situation regarding cross-border terrorist incursions into India. [45516]
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What recent steps he has taken to encourage the UN to supervise both sides of the line of control in Kashmir. [45522]
    Simon Hughes: What initiatives Her Majesty's Government are undertaking to ensure peace in the Indian sub-continent. [45528]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): In our view, only a political dialogue, not violence and terrorism, will bring a solution to Kashmir. Unfortunately, military mobilisations on both sides of the line of control remain high. On the communal violence in the Indian state of Gujarat, we are deeply concerned about the deaths and injuries on both sides of the religious divide. We have been in regular contact with the Government of India about that, and indeed about Kashmir. They have strongly condemned the violence in Gujarat, and have given assurances, which I welcome, that they will take action to bring to justice the perpetrators of the attack.
    On Sri Lanka, the news is much happier, and I am glad to be able to report to the House that following the good offices of the Government of Norway, in which we have been participating, a ceasefire has now been declared between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam terrorist organisation. We look forward to that developing into a full-scale peace process.
    Mr. Dismore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in January, after many terrorist attacks in India, the Indian Government requested the extradition from Pakistan of 20 suspected major terrorist leaders, including Azhal Masood, the prime suspect for the December attack on the Indian Parliament, Athar Ibrahim, the main suspect for the Indian airlines IC-814 hijacking, and Dawood Ibrahim, the underworld don behind a series of bomb attacks in
    440
    Mumbai? Will my right hon. Friend join the USA in pressurising Pakistan to arrest those highly dangerous individuals and either put them on trial in Pakistan or extradite them to India for trial there?
    Mr. Straw: It is incumbent on all members of the United Nations, including the Governments of Pakistan and India, fully to implement the requirements of UN Security Council resolution 1373 on countering terrorism. Like the United States, we have been engaged in discussions with the Government of Pakistan about their meeting their obligations in respect of countering terrorism. We believe that they need either to bring those suspects to trial—or certainly those 15 who appear on the Interpol list—or hand them over to the Government of India.
    Mr. Prentice: My right hon. Friend will know that the line of control extends for 450 miles, yet there are only 45 UN military observers—one for every 10 miles of territory. Why cannot we urge the UN to increase the number of military observers in that area, which could easily become a tinderbox leading to a third world war?
    Mr. Straw: I do not think that there is any problem about urging the UN, but there is a difficulty in getting bilateral agreement to the role of observers on both sides of the line. My hon. Friend will know that observers are currently situated only on the Pakistani side of the line of control. As I have made clear, we consider that the Kashmir dispute is, in essence, a bilateral dispute, but the international community, including the United Kingdom Government, remains ready to assist in that. Looking to the future, there may well be a role for observers, under the auspices of the UN, better to enforce a proper peace.
    Simon Hughes: On Sri Lanka, following the Secretary of State's welcome recognition of the major breakthrough achieved, largely through Norway but also through the good offices of many other countries, will Her Majesty's Government urge not only the Prime Minister and Government but the President of Sri Lanka to take what must be the best opportunity for peace and an end to the terrible killing that the country has had for 20 years or more? Will the Government, in the context of the Commonwealth and the region, offer all assistance, both on the constitutional agenda, so that self-governance can be achieved within acceptable terms, and on the redevelopment agenda, which will clearly be vital if the northern half of Sri Lanka is to play its full part in the economy of that country and of the region?
    Mr. Straw: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. I place on record our appreciation of the work that he has undertaken over many years to try to bring the sides together and the attention that he has paid to the issue of Sri Lanka.
    Since we are to discuss the middle east later this afternoon, I say to the House that it is a terrible commentary on what has happened in Sri Lanka that, by any analysis, more people—60,000—have been killed in terrorist outrages and in the ensuing military action in Sri Lanka than have been killed in the middle east. I applaud the work of the new Government of Sri Lanka and the

    441
    statesmanship at last being shown by the LTTE. The Government and the Commonwealth stand ready to assist in every way we can.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Foreign Secretary will know that later this year in the state of Jammu and Kashmir there are to be local state elections. Will he take this opportunity to place on record our Government's support for the Indian Government's continuing desire to maintain the secular tradition of democracy in that country? Will he also put on notice those who, by sponsoring cross-border terrorism, would seek to destabilise the area in the run-up to those elections?
    Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been unequivocal in condemning all forms of terrorism, not least cross-border terrorism across the line of control. As for the prospective elections on the Indian side of the line of control, in Jammu and Kashmir, we look forward to those elections being held, but it is crucial—I believe that the Indian Government understand this—that they are held in a climate of peace and security and with proper facilities for external monitors.

    Iraq
    Mr. Greg Pope: What recent discussions he has had with the US Administration about Iraq. [45517]
    Ms Meg Munn: What recent discussions he has had with the US administration about Iraq. [45523]
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: What recent discussions he has had with the United Nations Security Council concerning weapons inspectors visiting Iraq. [45524]
    Mr. David Chaytor: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the United States in respect of Iraq. [45527]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): My ministerial colleagues and I regularly discuss Iraq with the United States and our other Security Council counterparts. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush during his visit to Crawford, Texas slightly more than a week ago.
    Iraq is in clear breach of nine separate UN Security Council resolutions, not least but not exclusively in respect of the threat posed by its weapons of mass destruction. The clear obligation on Iraq is to readmit UN weapons inspections without delay and without conditions.
    Mr. Pope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Iraq is a cause of not only regional instability but global instability; that it is right that UN weapons inspectors be allowed free and unfettered access to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; and that if that access is denied and
    442
    that denial continues, we, the international community, have the right under existing UN resolutions to take action?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is correct to point out the extreme danger posed by Saddam Hussein's failure to meet the obligations of the UN Security Council resolutions, to abandon his development of weapons of mass destruction, and to ensure that there is proper inspection of what he has or has not done. My hon. Friend tempts me to comment on issues of international law, but I shall resist and say simply that, in our judgment, views about compliance with international law need to be taken in the circumstances at the time.
    My hon. Friend has raised questions about military action. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last week, no decisions about military action have been made—nor, may I add, are such decisions, if they are to be made at all, likely to be made for some time.
    Ms Munn: Have there been any discussions with the US Administration of the Israel-Palestine situation, which is of great concern and which threatens the stability of the whole region?
    Mr. Straw: Indeed there have been continuous discussions between the United States and us. The middle east and the Arab-Israeli conflict formed the centrepiece of the discussions at Crawford. On Sunday I spoke at some length with US Secretary of State Colin Powell about precisely that situation and his work to secure a peace.
    Mr. Djanogly: There has recently been press comment that the US Government asked the CIA to investigate the chief UN weapons inspector in relation to the last round of weapons investigations in Iraq. Does the Foreign Secretary care to comment on that and on the likelihood, if inspectors are allowed back into Iraq, of a new round of inspections being successful?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman invites me to comment on a report about alleged action taken by a foreign Government, the US Government. My reply is, no thanks.
    On the more significant issue—the possibility of Saddam Hussein readmitting weapons inspectors—we and the United Nations continue to press the Government of Iraq to readmit weapons inspectors. However, the outlook is bleak in respect of compliance by Saddam Hussein. That is best illustrated by the fact that the Government of Iraq began to engage in a process of dialogue under the auspices of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan; a further meeting was due to take place a few days ago, but the Government of Iraq decided unilaterally to pull out.
    Our message to Saddam Hussein is clear: if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear from weapons inspections. The view of the international community is also clear—he must readmit weapons inspectors, otherwise he will be seen by the whole world to be in the clearest possible breach of international obligations.
    Mr. Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend think that there is a relationship between the issue of weapons

    443
    inspections in Iraq and the issue of the Palestinian state? Does he think that recognising that relationship could be the way forward to resolve both problems?
    Mr. Straw: Of course I recognise the fact that there are political connections between the two issues. Nobody more than Saddam Hussein would like the question of his failure to comply with international obligations to be intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict; of course I am aware of that. However, there is no reason on account of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Israel and the occupied territories for Saddam Hussein to fail to comply with his obligations. It is also a matter of record that the victims, internally and externally, of Saddam Hussein's crimes and aggression have almost exclusively been fellow Muslims—fellow Muslims whom he gassed in the south of Iran during the Iraq-Iran war and fellow Muslims whom he gassed in the north of Iraq during the Kurdistan civil war.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As neither the charter of the United Nations, nor indeed any other principle of international law, nor even the ceasefire resolutions which affect Iraq, authorise regime change, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, unlike others, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to replace Saddam Hussein through the use of military action?
    Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained our position when he said that in practice regime change has been a means to an end of securing a proper peace settlement, human rights and the enforcement of international obligations in countries such as Kosovo, Serbia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. We regard Saddam Hussein as, first, quite detestable and despicable on the basis of his record; I do not think that that is an issue. Secondly, he is in the clearest possible breach of international obligations. Thirdly, by his development of weapons of mass destruction, he poses a severe threat to the rest of the world, which has been acknowledged by the international community so, fourthly—I emphasise that no decisions whatever have been taken—to secure his compliance with those international obligations it may be necessary to see an end to that regime, but always in the context of international law.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), if the Foreign Secretary will not confirm that Paul Wolfowitz directed the CIA to subvert the position of chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, will he confirm that ironically the CIA found that Mr. Blix was guilty of nothing more than acting within the parameters set for him?
    Mr. Straw: I am responsible for a great deal, but happily I am responsible neither for Mr. Wolfowitz nor the CIA.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: But is it not obvious, as the Foreign Secretary said, that Iraq represents an enormous clear and present danger, not only to neighbouring countries in the middle east and the Muslim population to which he referred, but very much to this
    444
    country and western Europe? Will he, as far as he can, cause to be published detailed evidence of the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Is not this country right to be enormously grateful to the United States of America for being prepared to take the necessary action to defend our interests just as much as its own?
    Mr. Straw: So far as the evidence is concerned, almost all the evidence on Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction is already available and published. I have, and am happy to make available to all right hon. and hon. Members, details of United Nations reports on weapons inspections, human rights abuses and the development of nuclear weapons. They are already available on the website.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Publish them then; print them.
    Mr. Straw: They have already been published. I am happy to ensure that they are further published in an easily accessible form—in other words on paper, not on a website—and to place them in the Library.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State say whether he intends to publish the dossier that was in the news a few weeks ago containing the evidence of mass destruction? I understand that that is not the dossier that he has been waving about at the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that this document is not the dossier, but most of the dossier to which she referred is drawn from such documents and other sources. No one should be in the least doubt about Iraq's flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. We do not have to wait for the publication of a dossier, which is held up only by difficulties in determining whether intelligence should be made public. We do not have to wait for such a dossier to read documents such as this and hundreds of pages more of the clearest evidence of Iraq's violation of its international obligations, in respect both of weapons of mass destruction and of its violation of the human rights of its neighbours and its own citizens.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in March 1999 a UN humanitarian panel of experts recommended a number of modifications to the sanctions on Iraq, which it thought might lead to incremental improvements in the internal humanitarian situation? One of those recommendations was to authorise foreign investment in Iraq's non-military export industries. Why is that recommendation absent from the Government's smart sanctions proposal, under which all exports from Iraq other than oil will be banned?
    Mr. Straw: I am indeed aware of that recommendation. It is one that we, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, have been following up ever since. We want to see the so-called more focused smart sanctions in place. We have wanted to see them in place for well over a year and a half. Why have they been held up? The sanctions, which would apply only to defence materiel and weapons of mass destruction, rather than to

    445
    the whole gamut of imports into Iraq, are held up because of Iraq, and because of its efforts—diplomatic efforts up to now—to persuade in particular one permanent member of the Security Council, Russia, not to vote in favour.
    I am pleased to say that, following our diplomatic efforts and those of the United States, Russia agreed to the principle of a goods review list at the end of November. The final process of negotiation is currently taking place, and I hope and believe that it will be possible to have the new regime of sanctions in place by the end of May, but it is the Government of Iraq who are opposing it, because they know that they will be denied a propaganda weapon, claiming—inaccurately—that all their imports are subject to and therefore controlled by sanctions. Also, they know that the more focused system of sanctions will be more effective at stopping defence materiel going into that country.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If we start a war with Iraq and if, in line with the speculations of the Defence Secretary on the Dimbleby programme on 24 March, we were subsequently to launch a pre-emptive nuclear first strike against the Iraqi people, with probable collateral damage in neighbouring countries, does my right hon. Friend believe that that would be a moral or sane way of seeking to bring peace to the middle east and the rest of the world?
    Mr. Straw: There were two big ifs in my hon. Friend's question. His remarks were a parody of what my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said on that programme. There is no suggestion of the use of nuclear weapons in that theatre. My hon. Friend is right to say that there would be some collateral damage from a nuclear strike on Iraq, and that is not remotely on the agenda. I am aware of the speculation, but in all the military action in which this country has ever been involved under this Administration and, I believe, under previous Administrations, we have been careful, cautious and proportionate in the use of military action, as we should be, and it must be obvious to the entire House and the country that the current President of the United States has shown similar care and proportionality in the decisions that he has made about military action.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What recent discussions he has had with members of the Commonwealth on Zimbabwe. [45518]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed Zimbabwe with leaders of the Commonwealth, including John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, at meetings last week.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Are not the continued lawlessness and brutal behaviour of the ZANU-PF thugs whom Robert Mugabe controls testimony to the dithering diplomacy of this Government and the utter failure of their so-called ethical foreign policy to bring about democratic change in Zimbabwe? Would not Her Majesty's Government be better using their time in supporting the interests of British
    446
    subjects in Zimbabwe and democratic forces there, instead of selling British subjects down the river with regard to Gibraltar?
    Mr. MacShane: If the hon Gentleman can catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he can ask a question about Gibraltar later—I thought that the main question was about Zimbabwe.
    I might draw some comparisons with the constant support for the apartheid regime of South Africa given by the Conservative party when it was in government, and contrast that support with the international coalition encompassing the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United States, which has put a diplomatic ring around Zimbabwe in terms of sanctions, the travel ban and support for democratic forces there. This Government can be proud of the international coalition that they have put together to put effective pressure on Zimbabwe, in contrast with the Conservative party's love affair with the apartheid regime in South Africa.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will recognise that not only the political system but the economy in Zimbabwe is in a critical situation. What assessment has been made of the possible effect on the population of that poor country if sanctions are to apply in any rigid way? We certainly do not want it to be the people of that country who suffer as a result of their Government.
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which explains why the sanctions are carefully targeted at the elite of Zimbabwe and their interests overseas. Humanitarian and other aid still flows to Zimbabwe, but it is distributed not by the Government of the undemocratic Mugabe regime but by responsible non-governmental organisations.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister list the specific sanctions that the Foreign Office wants imposed on Mugabe and his wretched Government?
    Mr. MacShane: I have already mentioned the travel ban, other sanctions involving trade and commerce, the ban on any bilateral contacts with Zimbabwe and the financial sanctions imposed on the Zimbabwe elite. As I said, they encompass not only this country but the United States, other Commonwealth countries and the European Union. Yesterday, New Zealand imposed similar sanctions on Zimbabwe, and at the General Affairs Council meeting yesterday it was decided that there would be a moratorium on bilateral ministerial contacts with Zimbabwe. So the pressure is mounting steadily, but it is aimed at the elite, not at the suffering people of Zimbabwe.
    Ms Oona King: Does the Minister agree that the decision of the Commonwealth troika, including Presidents Obasanjo of Nigeria and Mbeki of South Africa, to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth following the appalling human rights abuses that went on there in the run-up to the general election shows that Africans are starting to put their house in order with regard to NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development? Will he assure me that we will start to put our house in order by securing significant extra

    447
    funds at the forthcoming G8 meeting for Africa—a continent where 40 per cent. of children still have no access to education?
    Mr. MacShane: As my hon. Friend says, one of the heartening aspects of the Zimbabwe crisis has been the leadership on offer from Africa. It is Africans who have made it clear to Mr. Mugabe that his regime is unacceptable. I am pleased that it is this Government who have increased overseas aid by 45 per cent., that it is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor who has put forward proposals for a $50 billion development fund and that it is our Prime Minister who is taking the lead internationally in arguing against the agricultural protectionism that does so much damage to the export hopes of the poor farmers and peasants of Africa.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister agree that it is important that the growing crisis in Zimbabwe is not driven on to the back burner because of the crisis in the middle east and other problems in the world? Does he accept that the harassment, killing and other problems that arose during the election campaign have worsened since the election there? Will the Government ensure that the Commonwealth and the civilised world seek to bring stability to Zimbabwe, which remains a country with as great a potential as that of any in Africa? We want to help the people and to get rid of the Government.
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman's commitment and courage on this issue during the 1980s is well known to the House. If there is one overwhelming case for regime change in the world it is in Zimbabwe. The new focus on Africa, led by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, will be discussed at the G8 summit in Canada, then at the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg later this summer, and Zimbabwe will be a key element in those discussions.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the continuing oppression of human rights. Speaking as a former journalist, I have to say that the arrest and detention of Geoff Nyrota, the very brave editor of the "Zimbabwe Daily News" is the latest in a long list of cases of unacceptable harassment of the media. It adds to the other crimes for which Mugabe and ZANU-PF are responsible.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Given the virtually universal condemnation of the completely unfair and non-democratic manner in which the elections were run, and the chaos that has followed, with 70 per cent. unemployment and 116 per cent. inflation, what steps are the Government taking to bolster the democratic process in other parts of Africa—such as Sierra Leone, where elections take place on 14 May—and what steps are being taken to help the benighted population of Zimbabwe who are suffering from Mugabe's misrule?
    Mr. MacShane: We continue to support all the democratic forces in Zimbabwe. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy does excellent work in promoting democracy in other parts of Africa, as do the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office through its conflict prevention fund.
    448
    The funds for human rights projects that I announced a couple of days ago will increase the Foreign Office's presence and spending in Africa in order to help all the continent's democratic institutions and parties.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: I start by congratulating the Minister on his diplomatic triumph in relation to Venezuela last week.
    Is not it a matter of grave concern to the Government that despite all the brave words that we have heard from the Dispatch Box, since the election the situation in Zimbabwe has worsened and Mugabe has got stronger, not weaker? Is not it of particular concern that these acts are increasingly being targeted at members of the opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, and their families? There were 205 separate incidents of torture against them in the last week of March and their children are being violently and deliberately denied much-needed food aid. Does the Minister agree that the only acceptable way forward is to have a rerun of the presidential elections on a fair and scrutinised basis? What are the Government doing to bring that about?
    Mr. MacShane: I am tempted to send the right hon. Gentleman to Harare to persuade Mr. Mugabe to have free and fair elections. Of course the entire international community wants proper, fair elections in Zimbabwe. The right hon. Gentleman will soon celebrate his first year in his present office, yet he has not put forward one concrete proposal for solving any of Zimbabwe's problems. The Government put together the international coalition, took the lead on sanctions and helped to persuade Commonwealth leaders to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth. Working multilaterally with our partners in the United States, the Commonwealth and Europe is the way forward. That, not hot air and waffle at the Dispatch Box, is the way to get democracy in Zimbabwe.

    International Coalition against Terrorism
    Ms Bridget Prentice: If he will make a statement on the state of the international coalition against terrorism. [45519]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The international coalition remains strong. Governments all over the world have taken steps in compliance with United Nations resolution 1373 to tackle terrorism. Afghanistan has been liberated from the Taliban and much of the al-Qaeda network has been destroyed. However, all Governments can and should do more to address terrorism and the conditions that cause it.
    Ms Prentice: During his visit to the middle east, is Secretary of State Powell not only holding discussions about the disaster between Israel and Palestine, but reminding our coalition partners of their responsibility to tackle international terrorism?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. That message is constantly conveyed, not only by the American Secretary of State but by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that although the IRA is officially on ceasefire, it continues to represent an international terrorist threat? One has only to consider what happened in Colombia and elsewhere. Will the hon. Gentleman speak to his counterpart in America to ensure that the IRA is fully proscribed there?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The IRA remains a proscribed organisation under section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Since 11 September, we have received excellent co-operation from the United States authorities on the matter, and we expect that to continue.
    Jeremy Corbyn: What quantity of depleted-uranium weapons were used in the conflict in Afghanistan by British or American forces? What is the latest estimate of the number of civilians who died during the bombing campaign?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am not aware of any depleted uranium used by British forces in Afghanistan. I cannot speak on behalf of another country. My hon. Friend should treat with extreme caution the claims of civilian casualties made by the Taliban, whose unreliability was shown throughout the campaign. They tried to weave a tissue of lies in their press conferences in Pakistan.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister agree that the horrific events that are unfolding in Jenin seriously threaten the continued existence of the coalition against terrorism? Does he further agree that one of the first actions of the International Criminal Court should be to launch a full investigation into possible war crimes in that territory and bring the perpetrators to justice?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that the International Criminal Court does not operate retrospectively and it will therefore not be able to take the action that he would like. However, I agree that recent action by the Israeli defence force in the occupied territories has been unhelpful in the global campaign against terrorism. We share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the worrying reports from Jenin and expect the Israeli Government to grant immediate access to all international non-governmental organisations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, so that a full investigation can take place. We shall have to wait and see about any action after that.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: May I remind my hon. Friend that, arising out of coalition action in Afghanistan, a handful of British citizens have been detained for many weeks in Camp X-ray in Cuba by one of our coalition partners? Their status has not been determined, no charges have been brought and there seems no prospect of a trial with any jurisdiction that we
    450
    would recognise. The first duty in the exercise of British power is to defend the lives and liberties of British citizens, no matter how misguided they may have been.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I accept some of what my hon. Friend says, but he should not forget that the detainees could face extremely serious charges. He is wrong to suggest that the Americans have not defined their status; they have. On two visits to Guantanamo Bay by British officials, they were perfectly satisfied that the detainees were being treated in accordance with international human rights norms.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Following the answer that the Minister gave a moment ago, what is his latest assessment of the locations to which al-Qaeda terrorists might now have dispersed? In particular, given that Yemen is probably one of the easiest countries in which such people can hide, what discussions has he had with the United States about the co-operation being given to the international coalition by President Ali Abdullah Saleh?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Although we have had a great deal of success in destroying the al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan, we are still extremely worried about the networks that persist in parts of Afghanistan, across the border in Pakistan and in a number of other countries including Yemen and Somalia. We are satisfied with the co-operation that we have been receiving from the Yemeni Government. Indeed, many Governments around the world have got their act together in the wake of 11 September, and are doing extremely important work to counter the terrorism threat.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Would my hon. Friend like to reflect on the likely reaction of our Arab friends in the international coalition when they see American Secretary of State Colin Powell delaying a meeting with Chairman Arafat because of one suicide bombing, which, regrettably, killed six people, while on the same day sharing a platform with Prime Minister Sharon at the same time as Israeli troops were in the refugee camps murdering hundreds of people? If we are going to hold this international coalition together, must we not be clear that we condemn Israeli state terrorism just as strongly as we condemn suicide bombing?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I have to tell my hon. Friend that there is no such thing as state terrorism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] In international law, there is no such thing. I have already told my hon. Friend that we are extremely concerned about reports of what went on in Jenin, but he is wrong to be critical of Colin Powell's mission. That mission should be welcomed on both sides of the House as a vital and timely contribution to a peace process in the middle east that we should all support.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I should say to the Minister that most Members of the House can recognise state terrorism when they see it or read about it.
    So that we may estimate the strength, breadth and endurance of the international coalition against terrorism, will the Minister tell us which of its members—with the

    451
    exception of the United States and Britain—would support military action against Iraq without a new specific motion of the Security Council of the United Nations?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The whole international community, led by the United Nations, has made specific demands on Iraq for it to comply with its obligations under numerous UN resolutions, when it was in breach of the ceasefire agreement reached after the Gulf war. I am not going to speculate on which nations might be willing to take possible military' action, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they all feel as strongly as we do about the need for Iraq to comply.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Robert Walter: What recent discussions he has had with Spain on Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [45520]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): There have been regular discussions over recent months. A further ministerial meeting under the Brussels process will be held in the coming months.
    Mr. Walter: The House and the people of Gibraltar would like to know what is the Government's bottom line in these discussions? What will be the future status of the citizens of Gibraltar? Will they be British subjects or Spanish nationals?
    Peter Hain: Our bottom line is very clear, and has been repeated to the House on a number of occasions. The people of Gibraltar will remain British subjects if they choose to do so, and they will have our full support in doing so. We have absolutely no intention of handing Gibraltar over to Spain. That is a non-starter—another bottom line. In addition, we will retain our full control over the military base on the Rock, which is of key strategic importance to us. That is another bottom line.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If the people of Gibraltar reject the treaty that has been put before them on joint sovereignty, can we ensure that the heads of agreement that will have been signed by the Spanish and British Governments will be withdrawn once and for all?
    Peter Hain: There has been no agreement signed between our two Governments, and we are still seeking to explore whether we can reach agreement. If the people of Gibraltar in a referendum reject any proposal put to them—in other words, that agreement, because the whole package would have to be put to them—then that is the end of it. Let me just say to my hon. Friend something that applies to him and to the other critics of what we are trying to do—which, incidentally, despite all the moans and groans from the Opposition, is carrying on exactly what the Conservatives were doing in their 18 years of Government in seeking a resolution to the Gibraltar dispute. What has happened since my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and I have sought to move matters forward is that a series of
    452
    advances have been made. One is that, since 22 March, a second channel has been opened on the border between Gibraltar and Spain.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Ah!
    Peter Hain: The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) says, "Ah!", but what that has done is reduce the border delays about which Gibraltarians have consistently complained. The average delay for each person crossing used to be of between 30 and 90 minutes, but that has been reduced to around 10 minutes. That is a result of our talking to the Government of Spain, making progress and seeking agreement to relieve the harassment and aggravation that the people of Gibraltar have suffered.
    This Government have talked and negotiated and achieved something, whereas the previous Conservative Government achieved nothing in 18 years. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) that he ought at least to applaud that advance.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: May I take the Minister back to the beginning of that very long answer? In reply to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), he said that, if the people of Gibraltar rejected any agreement, that would be the end of "it". What is "it"? Would that mean that the agreement would be torn up by the British Government and that there would be nothing left on the table? Anything else would just not do.
    Peter Hain: I do not know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Wait for it. I do not know whether the Government of whom the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and some of his colleagues were members used to tear up agreements that they had reached with foreign Governments, or pretend that those agreements did not exist. Of course, once agreements have been reached they cannot simply be airbrushed away, but this agreement cannot be implemented because the people of Gibraltar will have the final say in a referendum.
    Moreover, if we come to the point of reaching agreement—and I do not know whether we will or not—it is our intention that this House will be the first to hear about it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will seek to make a statement to the House, if and when we reach an agreement.
    Andrew Mackinlay: On the last day before the summer recess, I bet!
    Peter Hain: I enjoy the interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), but he is wrong in this case. The House will be sitting. Over the past six to nine months, the Government have kept the House informed on this matter. We have had debates and answered questions, and we will continue to do so.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pension arrangements in Gibraltar may be in contravention of EU law? What liabilities might the Government incur as a result?
    Peter Hain: We are very concerned about this matter because, despite our warnings, the Government of

    453
    Gibraltar have been indulging in what we think may be discriminatory pensions practices. I have had to write to the Chief Minister explaining that. The European Commission at present is investigating these potentially illegal practices.
    What is important—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will listen for a moment, the House will wish to know that a bill of £77 million could fall on the taxpayers of Britain if, as a result of this scam, the Government of Gibraltar do not pick up responsibility and accept their obligations. So far, they have resisted—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to you, Mr. Mackay, that you must be quiet. You have asked a question, and the Minister is entitled to reply.
    Peter Hain: I do not think that the House will support British taxpayers picking up a bill for a pensions scam that is down to the Government of Gibraltar. That Government must pick it up, and we will ensure that they do so.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister realise that there is widespread unease throughout the House at the way in which he is conducting these negotiations? Can he not accept that most people believe that the negotiations should not have begun before the pressures applied by Spain had been removed? In addition, his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was both ambivalent and disturbing. Will he please give the House a categorical assurance that there will be no change to the status of Gibraltar or its citizens, unless and until the majority of those citizens wish there to be a change?
    Peter Hain: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about pensions and noticed that he used the word "scam". Does he really think it fair that a Government or people should be traduced in this House without any representation? Whatever our views on this, we are all acting on a surrogacy basis. Such people are not represented in this House although they are in other jurisdictions—in the United States, Spain, France and the Netherlands: they have no access to their Foreign Minister, their Prime Minister or those who traduce them in this place, and I think that that is very bad. I hope that the Minister will consider granting representation in this place to overseas territories. What does he say to that?
    Peter Hain: My answer to that is no, Mr. Speaker. Can I say again to my hon. Friend—it is a point that I will repeat briefly—that the only way to solve a dispute like this is to talk about it and negotiate? That is what we are doing and what we are seeking to do, and the end will be decided by the people of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Further to the answer that the Minister gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), can I ask him a very precise question? Can he give an unequivocal guarantee to the House today that every element of any agreement arrived at with the Spanish Government on the future of Gibraltar,
    454
    including those of principle relating to sovereignty, will be put in its entirety to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum, and that any elements of any such agreement, including those relating to sovereignty, that are not endorsed by the people of Gibraltar would then be deemed null and void as if they had not been made?
    Peter Hain: We will put the agreement in full to the people of Gibraltar—the agreement in full. [HON. MEMBERS: "And then?"] Well, if the people of Gibraltar reject it, it cannot be implemented. I am not going to take lectures from the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). This is a group of Tories who, nearly 30 years ago, we now learn from The Sunday Telegraph, tried to give Gibraltar away to Spain. The Tory Government were wrong then; the people of Gibraltar should not trust the Tories now any more than they should have trusted them then. The Tories were wrong then to try and give Gibraltar away; they are wrong now to try and stop us negotiating a deal which, for 18 years, they tried to negotiate when in government. Now that they are in opposition, they are indulging in shabby opportunism.
    Mr. Ancram: We always know that the Minister is losing when he retreats into history, particularly when that history predates the time when his party was committed to withdrawal from the European Union.
    The people of Gibraltar will not be fobbed off by the sort of weasel words that we have heard today, and nor will we. Let me make it clear that an incoming Conservative Government would not feel bound by any agreement that has not received a democratic and free endorsement from the people of Gibraltar. Let me say, too, in relation to what we heard from Barcelona, that just because the Government can apparently be bought by any political donor, that should not lead the Minister to believe that the people of Gibraltar can be bribed into selling their heritage, their history and their sovereignty. They cannot, they will not and they are right.
    Peter Hain: This is jumped-up rhetoric, frankly, from a member of a party which tried for 18 years, as we have tried for the past nine months or so, to seek a resolution of this dispute—to give the people of Gibraltar a better future, to give the people of Gibraltar an end to the aggravation and harassment that they have had from Spain for decade after decade and to try and end this 300-year dispute. We will seek to do that, despite the cheap criticisms and attacks that the right hon. Gentleman makes on us, and the people of Gibraltar, in the end, will have a better deal as a result.

    New Partnership for Africa's Development
    Hugh Bayley: What recent discussions he has had with African leaders about the New Partnership for Africa's Development. [45525]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The New Partnership for Africa's Development is a subject of frequent discussion with Africa's leaders. It was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Africa in January, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and by

    455
    Baroness Amos, the Minister for Africa, in her capacity as the Prime Minister's personal representative for the G8 Africa plan.
    Hugh Bayley: I congratulate the Government on supporting that initiative right from the start. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we increase the volume of trade between Africa and the Quad countries—the United States, Canada, Japan and the EU—there is no prospect whatever of NEPAD delivering what is needed? Is he aware that the value of agricultural subsidies in the Quad countries is greater than the entire gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa? Unless we cut those subsidies, the region has no real prospect of exporting the one commodity it has to export—agricultural produce. Will my hon. Friend tell me what the Government are doing both in this country and in the EU Council of Ministers to cut agricultural subsidies in Europe?
    Mr. MacShane: Not only is my hon. Friend right, but even before becoming a Member of this place he had one of the most distinguished records on this issue. Subsidies of $1 billion a day are paid to protect the northern markets, mainly of the European Union and the United States. The Prime Minister has taken a lead, criticising subsidies on both sides of the Atlantic. My hon. Friend is right: no amount of aid, however much we increase it, can remotely match the need for increased trade and commerce and more open borders, both in the EU, and in the US and the other leading northern countries that he mentioned.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Given the lack of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe, what role does the hon. Gentleman perceive for both NEPAD and countries such as ours in ensuring that, by contrast, the impending elections in two extremely fractured African countries—Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—are indeed free and fair? What mechanisms will be put in place to help to ensure that?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman raises important points, although I should be reluctant to ask NEPAD to shoulder all the problems of Africa. Its discussions are principally about economic development. We firmly believe that the more that trade and commerce are open, the richer countries will become and the more their political processes will be stable and democratic. We shall continue to insist on the tightest monitoring of the elections in the two countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that, last night, the meeting of the all-party great lakes region and genocide prevention group, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), heard very disturbing evidence, especially from Church people, about genocide in the Congo? Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Government are watching that carefully and are using their influence to the full?
    Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited the DRC and the great lakes region in January with his French counterpart. We are working closely, especially with the French, who have a greater
    456
    colonial heritage in that area than us, to put an end to the massacres—I think that is the correct word—that are causing such damage and anguish there. It is a constant preoccupation and we need active policy engagement with Africa—a political policy to try to secure the international rule of law as well as an aid policy.
    Mr. David Lammy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the events in Afghanistan, one of the reasons why the G8 should make a bigger engagement with Africa, with serious resource implications, is that two failed states—the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia—pose a big threat to the African continent?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. That is why, at the G8 meeting in Canada later this spring, the issue of Africa will be addressed. It has been very much put on the agenda owing to the active support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We want to improve the quality and the quantity of aid to Africa, but above all we want to allow Africa to trade and to become more attractive to direct foreign investment. It is through economic growth that the people of Africa can build a better future.

    UK-Japan Bilateral Relations
    David Wright: If he will make a statement on UK-Japan bilateral relations. [45526]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Japan is strong. On the global level, Japan is a key ally in our efforts to ensure global prosperity and security and to promote democracy and the rule of law worldwide. On the economic level, over 1,000 Japanese companies operate in this country, creating over 80,000 manufacturing jobs and many thousands of jobs in the service sector.
    David Wright: My hon. Friend will be aware that Japanese investment in Telford has been significant in recent years. Indeed, the United Kingdom is a bridgehead for Japanese investment into Europe. Has my hon. Friend had any discussion with his counterparts in the Japanese Government about the Government's position on the euro?
    Mr. MacShane: Telford is such a popular area for Japanese inward investment that. I am advised, people can get sake on tap there. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the euro issue, but Japanese inward investors continue to place their confidence in Britain. Some 46 per cent. of all investment in the European Union is in the United Kingdom and the sterling-euro exchange rate is only one of a number of factors, but if ever the Conservative party's total opposition to Europe and the euro were to be perceived as the British Government's position, that would have a disastrous impact on all inward investment into the United Kingdom.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any indication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he intends to make a statement on the Wanless report, in view of the fact that his terms of reference require Mr. Wanless to report by April 2002?
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that it has been widely trailed that the Chancellor's plans for health spending will be included in his Budget statement tomorrow. Would it not have been appropriate for the House to have sight of the final Wanless report well in advance of the Budget? Indeed, can we not conclude from the non-appearance or postponement of the Wanless report's publication that the Chancellor's idea of a debate on those issues is to start it in the morning and shut it down just a few hours later?
Mr. Speaker: I have not been notified of any such statement, but I inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that written Question 5, which deals with that matter, will be answered this afternoon.

Selective Schools (Transitional Arrangements)
3.32 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish that a maximum of five per cent. of pupils can be selected, by aptitude or ability, for admission to any state secondary school; to specify the period of time in which, and the means by which, those schools currently exceeding this percentage will be required to reduce their selective intake to five per cent.; to specify the criteria for such selection and the means by which schools should conduct assessments; and for connected purposes.
My Bill proposes a change—an improvement—to the current policy on selection that will have widespread support among the overwhelming majority of parents throughout the country. Of course, I do not make my recommendations lightly—I am seeking to improve policy. I call in my support what the head of the No. 10 policy unit said in a recent speech. I quote from the transcript:
"It was sometimes said that third-way politics meant that the difference between left and right had ceased to exist. This was absolutely not the case; yet nor was the third way exclusive of new and as yet unformulated strategies. Other ways—a fourth way, even a fifth way—could well be invented."
Therefore, my Bill offers the fourth way to deal with the contentious and divisive issue of selective admissions policies in secondary education.
First, it is important to recognise that three current forms of permitted selection to state secondary schools are of most concern: selection by religious affiliation, selection by aptitude and selection by ability. As the question of religious affiliation in faith schools has been widely debated in recent weeks, my Bill deals purely with selection by aptitude and by ability.
In respect of ability, there are currently more than 160 selective schools in England, spread across more than 30 local authorities. Although those local authorities with wholly selective policies are largely, although not entirely, concentrated in the south-east of England, almost one quarter of all English local education authorities are still affected by selection to a greater or lesser degree. It is also important to remember that, in addition to the vast majority of English local education authorities, both Scotland and Wales have rejected selection. It is significant that the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently considering the recommendation of the Burns report to end selection in Northern Ireland.
In respect of selection by aptitude, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, a school which considers itself to have a specialism is entitled to select pupils on the basis of aptitude up to a maximum of 10 per cent. of the intake for a given year. Subsequently, the programme of specialist schools has been significantly developed to the point at which the Government now propose that half of all schools should be designated as specialist schools. However, only a small minority of those schools have chosen to exercise the option to select.
The concerns about selection have been debated for many years and can be summarised as follows. In respect of selection by ability, for every one grammar school there must be, by definition, three secondary modern schools to take those pupils who have failed the 11-plus examination. It is no coincidence that those local

459
authorities with wholly selective admissions policies tend to have greater numbers of schools in serious difficulties and poorer overall levels of performance than equivalent local authorities with comprehensive systems. It is also significant that the most recent research on selective systems by both the university of York and the National Foundation for Educational Research indicates that the most able pupils performed at least as well, if not better, in comprehensive schools as in selective schools. In those local authorities with partially selective systems, the price of selection is paid by those schools that, although notionally comprehensive, are so heavily creamed by selection that they can never hope to be in a position to attract the critical mass of highly motivated pupils that is necessary to raise performance levels across the school or to compete on a level playing field with schools that have a genuinely comprehensive intake.
In addition, concerns about the impact of selection by ability focus on the very possibility of being able to identify ability accurately at the age of 11. In the House alone, there are many individuals of high ability who slipped through the 11-plus net and whose talent was only revealed many years later. Across the country, there are millions of such people. That represents a waste of talent on a massive scale that the nation can no longer afford.
In respect of selection by aptitude, similar concerns arise. How many parents, on looking back at their children's development, could have accurately predicted their aptitudes and interests at the age of 11? How many teachers can assess such aptitudes accurately? The main examining boards do not recognise any objective tests for aptitude. It has been said that the distinction between aptitude and ability is that aptitude is seen as a measure of potential, but the question must be asked: what is the nature of that potential? Is it potential ability or potential something else? The concern is that selection by aptitude could be exploited as a means of selection by ability by the back door. The fact that, to date, few schools have chosen to select by aptitude suggests that the majority are well aware of the difficulties of both definition and assessment.
The central issue for any Government committed to increasing equality of opportunity and reducing social exclusion should therefore be the impact of educational selection at 11 on these twin objectives: how we can best develop equality of status for all our schools while maintaining diversity of ethos and continuing to drive up standards and raise performance levels for all our children? This is where my Bill can assist. It proposes a maximum of 5 per cent. of pupils who can be selected and suggests a transitional period of three years in which the reduction to that figure can take place. However, the precise threshold for selection and the time scale of the transition are clearly matters of detail that are subject to negotiation.
While gradually reducing—but not abolishing—selection by ability and aptitude, the Bill will gradually reduce differentials of status between schools because all schools would become more comprehensive in their intake. As few specialist schools have chosen to select by aptitude, the gradual reduction from 10 to 5 per cent. should cause little difficulty. Some grammar schools claim that their examination performance indicates a superior level of education and the reduction would enable us to test that hypothesis.
460
The gradual redistribution of pupils would ensure that all schools start to acquire the critical mass of able and motivated pupils that is so necessary. The process would reduce the extent to which allocation to a school determines a child's progress and life chances. It would significantly enhance equality of educational opportunity and reduce levels of social exclusion as the educational apartheid of the English system is gradually dismantled.
The first way of dealing with selection was to have a grammar school in every town. The second was to try to abolish every grammar school in the country. The third way has been to introduce the concept of selection by aptitude and to establish a system of parental ballots, but that is unworkable. My Bill proposes the fourth way. It recognises that the remarkable success of British primary schools has been due entirely to comprehensive education; that the startling increase in the proportion of young people going to university has been largely the result of the extension of comprehensive education; that the significant improvements in GCSE results in recent years have been achieved largely by comprehensive schools; and that many parts of England retain a highly divisive system of secondary education that works against equality of opportunity, reinforces social exclusion and constrains levels of achievement.
The Bill proposes a gradual transition to a new 5 per cent. maximum on selection by ability or aptitude; it proposes a period of three years during which the transition should take place; it would ensure minimum disruption to pupils, staff and their schools; it would require greater transparency in the mechanisms of selection; and it would bring about the most radical extension of educational opportunity that this country has seen for a generation. I commend the Bill to the House.
3.42 pm
Chris Grayling: I oppose what I believe is an ill-thought-out and damaging proposal. I fear that it will do nothing to raise educational standards in this country, and I very much hope that the House will join me in opposing the motion to introduce a Bill that would reduce the threshold for selection in our schools.
The Bill is not simply an attack on grammar schools; it is an attack on many state schools across the country. It is an attack on those state schools that select, for local reasons, a small proportion of their intake—currently, they are allowed to select up to 10 or 15 per cent. of that intake. The Bill is also an attack on state schools that are building up specialisations that can help them to achieve excellence in their chosen field, or it is an attack on schools that have already successfully built up such a specialisation. For example, city technology colleges have done much to improve technological skills in recent years.
The Bill has been proposed by a Labour Member, but it flies in the face of the Education Bill and the principles that lie behind it that have taken up so much parliamentary time in the past few months. This Bill goes against the powers to innovate that are set out in the Education Bill and against the city academies that will be set up under it. How can those schools find the children whom they need to achieve excellence in their areas of specialism if they have no ability to select by aptitude? How can a technology college or an arts college achieve excellence if it cannot give places to the pupils with particular skills in technology or the arts?

461
I know that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is a long-standing and principled opponent of grammar schools. I understand that and accept his point of view, but I think that he is wrong. I suspect that, ultimately, opposition to grammar schools lies at the heart of the Bill. I admire his determination, but disagree fundamentally with his objective. He misses the point that opponents of grammar schools so often miss—selection still exists in every part of this country, but in too many places it is selection by estate agent, not by skill. In today's Britain the chances are that, if someone is born on the wrong side of town, they will end up in a school that is less good than if they had been born on the right side.
I went to a grammar school and I had friends from all walks of life. Grammar schools in many great towns in the north of England, such as Bury, were built as centres of educational excellence. They attracted pupils from all areas—the deprived as well as the good. They provided a way out of deprived areas for many of their pupils, and they took pupils regardless of background. In my view, it is tragic that some of those great schools—such as Manchester grammar school—are no longer a part of our state education system.
The difficulty with the grammar school issue was that we tried to tackle the problems that undoubtedly existed by dumbing down our best schools, rather than by creating excellence in other schools, as the Germans did. Even now, the reality is that a selective school system can make a major contribution. Many London boroughs have a selective system, but the non-selective schools still do better than their peers in nearby comprehensive boroughs.
At the end of last year, the Office for Standards in Education highlighted the fact that, in its view, comprehensive schools do not know how to identify gifted and talented pupils, or to teach them properly. Recent research by the National Foundation for Educational Research, to which the hon. Member for Bury, North referred, reinforced the benefits that selective education can offer. It found that, for pupils of average and above average ability, grammar schools do a much better job than comprehensives. It rightly adds the caveat, which we need to bear in mind, that
"selective LEAs need to find ways of supporting those children who narrowly fail to achieve grammar school places."
We certainly need to discuss how to ensure that pupils do not miss out once and for all at the age of 11. However, dealing with that issue correctly does not mean that we have to throw the baby out with the bath water and get rid of grammar schools altogether.
The conclusion of the NFER's research is absolutely clear:
"Comprehensive authorities may wish to consider whether it is somehow possible to replicate the 'grammar school effect' in a…different context."
That wholehearted endorsement from an independent and highly respected research body shows that grammar schools offer something that the comprehensive system too often fails to deliver. We will not sort out the problems in our education system by chopping the legs off grammar schools, instead of investing in other schools to ensure that they can deliver the same educational benefits as grammar schools.
462
If we are to deal with this country's education problems, the last thing we should do is once again tackle the issue of selection. It is the wrong issue at the wrong moment. It is true that big problems exist in our education system. Any head teacher will mention over-regulation and the endless initiatives and reforms that they face. Why on earth should we choose to impose on head teachers already overburdened with reform yet another change? They want less change, not more. They want a period of stability to get to grips with the task already in hand, not a new set of responsibilities.
As a result of Government changes associated with the introduction of the Learning and Skills Council, a school in my constituency has a £50,000 funding shortfall for its sixth form. In the next few weeks, it faces the prospect of making a teacher redundant to meet that gap, unless the funds can be found by the LEA or the Government. That school selects 15 per cent. of its intake for local, strategic reasons. The last thing on earth that its head teacher needs is to be confronted with the task of reshaping her admissions processes and reorganising the way the school admits pupils, rather than getting to grips with the real problems on her doorstep.
On teacher shortages, many teachers are leaving the profession not because selection exists, but because—as one local head teacher said—they want to get out and get a life. A recent report, produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the Government, shows that they are overburdened by a work load that causes many to work in excess of 50 hours a week. They are also leaving because the lack of discipline in our schools is getting out of hand, and they feel that the Government are not giving them the necessary support to deal with that issue.
The Bill flies in the face of the recent Education Bill. It would engender reforms that are unwanted by head teachers, who already have to deal with too much change. It would undermine some of our best schools while doing nothing to raise standards. It does not deserve to be introduced and I call on the House to oppose it.
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 163, Noes 112.

Division No. 211]

[3.50 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Allan, Richard

Allen, Graham

Challen, Colin

Atherton, Ms Candy

Chaytor, David

Austin, John

Chidgey, David

Bailey, Adrian

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Barrett, John

Clwyd, Ann

Begg, Miss Anne

Connarty, Michael

Beith. Rt Hon A J

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bennett, Andrew

Corbyn, Jeremy

Best, Harold

Corston, Jean

Borrow, David

Cotter, Brian

Brennan, Kevin

Cousins, Jim

Bruce, Malcolm

Cox, Tom

Burden, Richard

Crausby, David

Burgon, Colin

Cruddas, Jon

Burnham, Andy

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Cummings, John

463

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

David, Wayne

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Davidson, Ian

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Dean, Mrs Janet

Martlew, Eric

Dhanda, Parmjit

Meale, Alan

Dismore, Andrew

Mole, Chris

Donohoe, Brian H

Moore, Michael

Doughty, Sue

Mullin, Chris

Drown, Ms Julia

Munn, Ms Meg

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Oaten, Mark

Edwards, Huw

O'Hara, Edward

Efford, Clive

Owen, Albert

Fisher, Mark

Pickthall, Colin

Flynn, Paul

Pike, Peter

Follett, Barbara

Plaskitt, James

Foster, Don (Bath)

Pound, Stephen

Galloway, George

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Gardiner, Barry

Price, Adam

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Pugh, Dr John

Gibson, Dr Ian

Purchase, Ken

Goggins, Paul

Rapson, Syd

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Ruane, Chris

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Ruddock, Joan

Harvey, Nick

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Heath, David

Sanders, Adrian

Hendrick, Mark

Sarwar, Mohammad

Holmes, Paul

Savidge, Malcolm

Hopkins, Kelvin

Sawford, Phil

Humble, Mrs Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Shaw, Jonathan

Illsley, Eric

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Singh, Marsha

Jenkins, Brian

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Stunell, Andrew

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Keetch, Paul

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

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

Thurso, John

Trickett, Jon

Khabra, Piara S

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Kidney, David

Tyler, Paul

Kilfoyle, Peter

Tynan, Bill

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Kirkwood, Archy

Walley, Ms Joan

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Webb, Steve

Lamb, Norman

White, Brian

Lepper, David

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Willis, Phil

Linton, Martin

Wood, Mike

Lloyd, Tony

Woodward, Shaun

Llwyd, Elfyn

Worthington, Tony

Lucas, Ian

Wright, David (Telford)

McCafferty, Chris

Younger-Ross, Richard

McDonnell, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

McWalter, Tony

Lynne Jones and

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dr. Stephen Ladyman.

NOES

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Brady, Graham

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brazier, Julian

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Bacon, Richard

Burns, Simon

Baron, John

Burnside, David

Bellingham, Henry

Burt, Alistair

Bercow, John

Butterfill, John

Blunt, Crispin

Cameron, David

Boswell, Tim

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

464

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

May, Mrs Theresa

Mercer, Patrick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Collins, Tim

Moss, Malcolm

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Djanogly, Jonathan

Norman, Archie

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Ottaway, Richard

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Page, Richard

Flight, Howard

Paterson, Owen

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Pickles, Eric

Francois, Mark

Prisk, Mark

Gale, Roger

Randall, John

Gibb, Nick

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robathan, Andrew

Gray, James

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Grayling, Chris

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Greenway, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Rosindell, Andrew

Hague, Rt Hon William

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hammond, Philip

Selous, Andrew

Hayes, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Hendry, Charles

Simmonds, Mark

Hermon, Lady

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Hoban, Mark

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Spink, Bob

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Spring, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Streeter, Gary

Jenkin, Bernard

Swayne, Desmond

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Syms, Robert

Key, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Trend, Michael

Lansley, Andrew

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Letwin, Oliver

Tyrie, Andrew

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Viggers, Peter

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Walter, Robert

Lidington, David

Waterson, Nigel

Loughton, Tim

Whittingdale, John

Luff, Peter

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Wiggin, Bill

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Wilshire, David

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Malins, Humfrey

Maples, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Mates, Michael

Michael Fabricant and

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Mr. George Osborne.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Chaytor, Andrew Bennett, Valerie Davey, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Glenda Jackson, Lynne Jones, Dr. Stephen Ladyman, Mr. Tony Lloyd and Mr. Chris Mullin.

Selective Schools (Transitional Arrangements)
  SELECTIVE SCHOOLS (TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS)
  Mr. David Chaytor accordingly presented a Bill to establish that a maximum of five per cent of pupils can be selected, by aptitude or ability, for admission to any state secondary school; to specify the period of time in which, and the means by which, those schools currently exceeding this percentage will be required to reduce their selective intake to five per cent.; to specify the criteria for such selection and the means by which schools should conduct assessments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 121].

The Middle East
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]
Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the main business, to the many hon. Members who have approached the Chair to ask whether they will be called to speak in the debate I can say only that this is one of those days on which they will just have to wait and see.
4.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): This is the first full-day debate on the middle east in Government time for some years, and it comes not a moment too soon. The conflict there is now more fragile and more dangerous than it has been for decades. Understandably, that conflict provokes great passion and partisanship, but through you, Mr. Speaker, I make one plea: that whatever our different perspectives, we use this occasion for a sober and serious examination of the issues, and above all apply ourselves to assisting both sides to move towards a peaceful solution.
The prospect of peace in the middle east hangs by a thread. There are three fundamental truths about the situation. First, neither side has a monopoly of right or of wrong. Secondly, the peoples of the area have to live together. Thirdly, neither side can achieve lasting security through force, but can do so only by having the courage to compromise.
Since the intifada began, at least 1,300 Palestinians and more than 450 Israelis have been killed; thousands more on both sides have been injured. In recent weeks, we have seen a spiral of violence following a spate of suicide bombings and the Israeli incursions into the west bank, in which many more have lost their lives and many, many more have been injured. The situation on the ground is fluid and critical. The Israeli defence force, I understand, has withdrawn today from Qalqilya, but they remain in Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and a number of other towns. On the diplomatic front, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is currently meeting Israeli Prime Minister Sharon. The House will also wish to know that the military attaché of Her Majesty's Government is now in Jenin making his own assessment; if I have a report before the winding-up speeches, I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the House.
Like everyone in the House, I have found the continuing reports of deaths and damage, caused in Israel by suicide bombings and other terrorism and in the occupied territories by Israeli military action, deeply disturbing. I am profoundly concerned about the scenes of widespread destruction of densely populated refugee camps. We are doing all that we can to obtain an authoritative account of the conduct of the Israeli operation—that is why the military attaché is there at the moment—and its consequences. As a long-standing friend of Israel, I have to say that such scenes can only be harmful to Israel's reputation abroad.
There have been allegations of misconduct by the Israeli forces during the operation. Last week, on my instructions, our ambassador in Tel Aviv raised our concern with Prime Minister Sharon's office. I have twice spoken in the past few days to Israeli Foreign Minister
466
Shimon Peres about that and demanded that Israel allow the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies immediate access to the affected areas, including Jenin. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who was in Jenin last week with the United Nations. Many in the House will have heard her vivid account of the situation with great alarm.
We are in constant contact with our ambassador in Tel Aviv and the consul-general in Jerusalem. I want to pay tribute to their efforts. Our staff, often at considerable personal risk, have worked tirelessly to discharge their consular responsibilities to the British nationals living and working in the west bank in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and have helped to ensure that we can fulfil our general humanitarian obligations to relieve the suffering there.
As some hon. Members will know, many of the locally engaged staff working for the British consul-general in Jerusalem are Palestinian. I have met and talked to those Palestinian staff, and have great admiration for them. In normal times, they suffer extraordinary inconvenience to get to and from work; each journey often takes them two or three hours, as they have to go through five or six different checkpoints, taking separate taxis between them. During the current Israeli defence force operations, many of our staff have been trapped in their own homes for weeks, while some have relations who have been killed or injured in the violence.
Throughout this period, Her Majesty's Government have called on the Israelis to pull their forces back, and to act in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions and the requirements of international humanitarian law. We have consistently called on the Palestinians to do everything in their power to halt the terrorist attacks. Both sides must now step back and start talking.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government did not support the resolution tabled yesterday in Geneva, in which the United Nations Commission on Human Rights called for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from the west bank?
Mr. Straw: I am happy to do so, and shall place the text of the resolution in the Library. The simple fact of the matter is that the resolution was completely unbalanced, which is why Germany and the United Kingdom decided to oppose it. Many European countries that voted for the resolution made oral statements of objection to part of its content. I happen to think that it was a cleaner approach simply to vote against it.
Both sides must now step back and start talking. The conflict can no longer be managed; it must be resolved. So today I want to tell the House what we and the international community are doing and should do to help reduce the dreadful violence, and to bring both sides back to the negotiating table and towards a settlement. I want to use this opportunity to set out some of the elements that will have to form part of any framework for a peaceful future in the middle east.
The immediate causes of the present conflict go back to the collapse of the Camp David and Taba talks, and to the eruption of the intifada in September 2000, but of course the underlying causes of the conflict go very much

467
deeper. We in the United Kingdom bear some more contemporary responsibility for the current situation. It was a predecessor of mine as Foreign Secretary, A. J. Balfour, who in 1917 promised a national home in Palestine for the Jewish people.
The holocaust, which was commemorated in Israel last week, and which we commemorated in this country in January, acted to reinforce the determination of Jewish leaders to create their own state of Israel. Fifty-four years ago tomorrow that state was formally declared.
For most of the five and a half decades since, Israel's very existence went unrecognised by all Arab states. Only in 1979, after three wars, did Egypt sign a peace treaty with Israel, recovering its territory occupied in 1967. In 1991, the Madrid conference launched an international effort to conclude a comprehensive settlement.
Parallel diplomacy by Norway and the United States gave birth in 1993 to the Oslo process—an imaginative effort to bring about Israeli-Palestinian peace through a phased approach. The Palestinian Authority was established and helped to develop into an embryonic state administration, with substantial European Union and bilateral United Kingdom financial support. But crucial issues were left unresolved or ambiguous by the Oslo process, including the future of the settlements, borders, Palestinian statehood, Jerusalem and refugees. The murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was a grievous blow to the peace process. Accelerated settlement building and extremist violence thereafter undermined confidence on both sides.
In 2000 there was a further moment of hope when the Israeli and Palestinian leaders met at Camp David, and later when negotiators met at Taba in the new year 2001. By then, however, the intifada had broken out. Since then, the region has been gripped in a spiral of violence, not least through the terrifying horror of the suicide bomb. We all need to understand that it is almost impossible to imagine the agony of ordinary Israeli citizens as they sift through the wreckage of yet another supermarket, nightclub or bus, looking for the remains of their loved ones.
No less hard for us to imagine is the fear of ordinary Palestinians as they cower in the ruins of their homes, not knowing the fate of their friends and family in the next village, and not knowing where the next shell may land. Victims of terror on one side; victims of occupation on the other.
There are 3.5 million Palestinians, many of them living in desperate circumstances in east Jerusalem, the west bank and the Gaza strip. There are 6.5 million Israelis, including 1 million Israeli Arabs. Their only future in the west bank, in Gaza and in Israel is living together.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out in his statement six days ago, there can be no military victory for either side in this conflict. The international community cannot stand by and watch as the parties fight each other to a standstill. The world has to act before irreparable damage is done to the cause of peace and the hopes of future generations.
The first priority must he to stop the spiral of violence and reprisal, and to persuade both sides to accept a ceasefire. That is the focus of the current mission to the middle east by US Secretary of State Colin Powell. The UN Secretary-General, the EU presidency and the Russian Federation gave Secretary Powell their full backing when
468
they met him in Madrid last week, as did all EU Foreign Ministers at our meeting in Luxembourg yesterday. Of course, Secretary Powell has our full backing and support. As a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations and a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom has been actively involved. As the House knows, the middle east dominated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's discussions with President Bush at Crawford just over a week ago.
Secretary of State Powell's task is an incredibly delicate one. It is vital that it should not be disrupted or undermined. However, our role is not only diplomatic. We are already major providers of aid to the Palestinian Authority and to those in the occupied territories. The amount of aid will double during this financial year compared with the amount provided two years ago. We have also made it clear that we stand ready to take part in monitoring the parties' compliance with their obligations, starting with the ceasefire and continuing as the process develops.
Helen Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the emergency aid that the Government can offer to help in the traumatic situation following the destruction of the refugee camp at Jenin and at other places?
Mr. Straw: We stand ready to provide considerable emergency aid. We discussed the provision of aid bilaterally and multilaterally through the European Union at the EU Foreign Ministers General Affairs Council meeting yesterday. The problem at the moment is not finding the money to pay for humanitarian aid, but ensuring that the aid gets through. That is where we have been directing our efforts.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Last week, the Prime Minister was pretty dismissive when he was asked by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) about the case for sanctions. Given the events and developments of the past week, is the Foreign Secretary prepared to reconsider the case for sanctions? Usually, when a country is in flagrant violation of United Nations resolutions, sanctions are one of the first measures to be considered to ensure enforcement and withdrawal.
Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not believe that that would be an appropriate course for us to take at this time. I believe that the whole effort of the United Kingdom and the international community needs to be directed at securing a pathway to peace, as I shall explain.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way. The House will have heard his reply to the question about sanctions. Will he at least give the House an assurance today that there will be no arms exports to Israel and that no new licences will be granted for parts for equipment that has already been exported? Will he urge the United States to do the same?
Mr. Straw: We discussed that matter yesterday in the General Affairs Council. We did not decide on an arms embargo, but we concluded that the European code of

469
conduct—a common position followed by all European Union members—ought rigorously to be applied to those exports as to others.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend at any rate give the House an assurance that the Government will make it clear to the Israeli Government that military equipment supplied by Britain on condition that it would not be used for internal order purposes will not be used to suppress Palestinians?
Mr. Straw: I have already made that clear and have answered a number of questions about the matter. I deeply regret the fact that our very good military attaché discovered a little while ago that armoured personnel carriers built in Israel, but on the chassis of tanks exported from the United Kingdom—it has to be said that they were exported 40 years ago—were being used in the occupied territories. We took up the matter immediately with the Government of Israel and I reported it to the House on the day on which I found out about it. We have followed it up and I gave the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) a detailed answer about it yesterday. We had received undertakings from the Government of Israel that such exports would not be used in the occupied territories, but, as I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman yesterday in my answer, as a result of what I regard as unsatisfactory answers from the Government of Israel to our inquiries, we can no longer make decisions about arms exports to Israel on the basis of those undertakings.
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I mentioned him, but then I must get on.
Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for this passage of his speech and for the answers that he provided yesterday. Should we take those answers and what he has just said to mean that he is no longer prepared to rely on the assurances of the Israeli Government as regards the use to which any arms exports may be put?
Mr. Straw: I gave a detailed and carefully drafted answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The words are clear, but it is extremely important that there should be the greatest certainty here. Under the consolidated European Union criteria, by which we abide carefully, we would not export anything that could be used for internal repression or for external aggression. That remains the basis of our policy. I am happy to ensure that copies of the consolidated criteria are drawn to the House's attention.
If I may, I shall now make progress. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to contribute.
Progress on peace, when it happens, will come slowly through small, reciprocal steps. However, the confidence to agree and to implement those first steps will not be found on either side unless they are seen to be in a clear political context. To generate any momentum, we have to maintain at every stage a political perspective alongside the necessary concerns over security.
470
One of the terrible twists of the past few months is that each moment of hope—after Tenet; after the Bush and Powell speeches in November; after the Arafat speech on 16 December—has been followed by renewed outbreaks of violence, assassinations and suicide bombings, destroying, at least temporarily, the political climate for peace and playing into the hands of those on both sides whose preference is only to pursue their aims through military and terrorist means, not through compromise. The cruel irony of the situation in the middle east is that even as the parties have moved further apart, international opinion has moved further together towards a consensus about the framework of a lasting political solution.
We must all understand that there has to be more than a process: there has to be a destination. There is now a near-universal acceptance that that destination has to be the existence of two states—a state of Israel and a viable state of Palestine. That was the message of United Nations Security Council resolution 1397, which was passed unanimously last month. It is the basis of the peace plan put forward by Crown Prince Abdullah, which received backing from the Arab summit in Beirut last month.
Moreover, crucially, it is the policy of the United States. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 10 November, President Bush went further than any of his predecessors in expressing his support for Palestinian statehood. He said:
"We are working toward a day when two states, Israel and Palestine, live peacefully together within secure and recognised borders as called for by the Security Council resolutions."
We have to keep that vision of peace firmly in view and to impress upon the parties that we expect them to work towards the same objective.
The "two-state solution" means what it says: two viable, secure, territorially sovereign and democratic states of Israel and Palestine, mutually recognised and committed to peaceful co-existence within agreed borders. Let us be clear that Palestine should have the usual characteristics of statehood: the necessary institutions and rights, including responsibility for its internal security; the freedom to conclude treaties; and freedom of internal movement of goods, services and people and of economic policy. We understand that precise borders would have to be negotiated, but Israel would have to withdraw in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
As I said a few minutes ago, one problem with the Oslo process was that it left some key issues unresolved, especially in respect of Jerusalem, settlements and refugees. Those issues are, however, so central both to the conflict and to its solution that they have to be addressed. At Camp David and at Taba, discussion was on the basis that the capitals on both sides would be based in Jerusalem. I believe that the parties should proceed on that basis.
On settlements, we have repeatedly called for Israel to withdraw. The settlements are contrary to international law, and all settlement activity must immediately be frozen. Again, Camp David and Taba provided the framework for handling those in the long-term future.
On refugees, I welcome the recent statement by Arab leaders that, provided there is a just outcome on this issue, they are prepared to accommodate Israel's fundamental concerns.
Mr. John Maples: The Foreign Secretary is outlining a solution that we would all,

471
of course, welcome. After Chairman Arafat's comprehensive rejection of Barak's offer at Camp David, and of the Clinton-Barak offer at Taba, however, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that Chairman Arafat would accept any such deal at all?
Mr. Straw: My first concern is that the House and the Government should decide what we think is right. That is what I am setting out. There are many stories about exactly what happened at Camp David and Taba, and there is much to be said on both sides. When I made a similar point about what happened at Camp David to a Palestinian leader last week, he said, "Well, we only got 80 per cent. of what we wanted at Camp David. We got 95 per cent. at Taba, which proves to us that we were right to resist at Camp David. But, at Taba, it was too late." Those are points that the Palestinians make, but there is much to be said on both sides. My concern, however, is not to crawl over the entrails of Camp David, Taba or any other dismal sequence of failed peace approaches, but to build oil what positively has been achieved—little though that is—and to seek to set out not just a time scale for a settlement but some sense of a final destination.
Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
Mr. John Taylor rose—
Mr. Straw: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
Mr. Ross: On refugees, I find it strange that we should rely on an accommodation between the Arab states in relation to Israel's concerns when, throughout most of my right hon. Friend's speech, he has referred to international law. International law is quite clear on this matter. Resolution 194 establishes the principle of the right of return and the right of individual Palestinians to decide on that. It is not for the Arab states to decide on that. It is not even up to President Arafat to decide on it. Can my right hon. Friend clarify this matter?
Mr. Straw: Of course, we have to take full account of international resolutions, although resolution 1397—the most recent substantive one—recalls resolutions 242 and 338 in particular, rather than the one to which my hon. Friend referred. We also have to take account of where we are, and it is President Arafat of the Palestinian Authority who would he the key negotiator on the Palestinian side, for as long as he occupies that position. He has said that he accepts that there has to be some accommodation of the issue of refugees. If we are to seek a solution to this terrible conflict, that has to be the case.
Mr. John Taylor rose—
Mr. Straw: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been desperate to intervene, so I shall give way.
Mr. Taylor: I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary. I take him back to the passage in his speech about the creation of two states. I would like to ask him whether, in his mind, there is any danger of a tragic repetition of history. Was it not the discharge of the League of Nations' British mandate that produced two
472
States—Israel and Transjordan, as it was then called? Why did that not work? Why might the next move work, if that one did not?
Mr. Straw: There is a separate, and perhaps more academic, debate to be had about why the Balfour declaration did not work. Happily he was not a member of my party. [HON. MEMBERS: "It included Attlee."] It was not Attlee; this was in 1917. I am talking about the Balfour declaration, not the mandate.
One of the many problems is that of raised expectations on both sides, partly through the use of diplomacy for the moment—rather than diplomacy for the long term—which cannot be fulfilled. However, it is my judgment that only through a two-state solution will we ever achieve a resolution of this conflict. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) must bear it in mind that these communities must live side by side, or not at all. People who go to the occupied territories see very densely populated settlements that share water and other facilities. There is no future for the territories, or for Israel, unless they can reach an accommodation.
The attitude of other states in the region has to be a vital part of a lasting solution. Peace in the middle east will have to be comprehensive and include full treaties between Israel, Lebanon and Syria.
Arab states said at their Beirut summit that they were ready to extend the hand of peace to Israel, if Israel would end the occupation of Arab territories captured in 1967. It is vital that the Arab leaders make that commitment believable. As a peace process develops, they must make strong efforts to quell incitement, to support moderation and, above all, to cut off funds to the extremists. They must aim to isolate those extremists, not glorify them. That includes dealing with the radical organisations in their midst that oppose any sort of peace agreement.
It must also be understood from the beginning that the aim has to be to achieve a genuine end to the conflict, settling all issues and ending all claims. Any such agreement would have to he underpinned by a UN Security Council resolution, and, if necessary, an international force to oversee the phased withdrawal of Israeli troops to the new border would need to be provided. Moreover, the international community has to stand ready to provide financial support for a settlement.
A state of Palestine would begin its life in very difficult circumstances. The violence of the past 18 months, and especially the current invasion of the west bank, have done immense damage to the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure. Many of the facilities provided by the EU and Arab countries have been wrecked.
We and our partners in the EU are now ready to help rehabilitate the Palestinian Authority and to help rebuild its infrastructure, but this must be on the explicit expectation that there are no further Israeli incursions. We cannot go on picking up the pieces.
A trust fund, under the auspices of the World Bank or the UN Development Programme, could channel resources to where they were needed. However, to return to a point that I made a moment ago, the two states would have a common interest in each other's stability, security

473
and prosperity. There would have to be maximum openness in their economic relations, for their futures are inextricably linked.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I have taken many interventions, and many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
It is because of this mutual dependence that the more extreme solutions suggested recently—such as reoccupation, unilateral separation, and the forced transfer of Palestinian populations—could never deliver a sustainable peace. That can come only through negotiation and agreement. There is no sane alternative to a two-state solution and a broad vision of the sort that I have set out today.
I last visited Israel and the occupied territories two months ago. I have two abiding memories of that visit. One is of meeting a young Israeli volunteer at the main ambulance station in west Jerusalem. He was killed two weeks later by a sniper bullet while he was patrolling a checkpoint as a reserve soldier.
The other memory is of the faces of four young girls in Ramallah whom I saw as I drove in for a meeting with a representative of the Palestinian Authority. The girls were peering from a doorway. They were being held back for safety by their mother, but they were seeking a response from me to their waves.
When we talk about a secure Israel, we mean an end to wasted young lives, such as the life of the young Israeli volunteer. When we talk about a viable Palestinian state, we are talking about a future for those girls in which they do not have to live with the horrors that we have all seen on our television screens.
Mr. John Smith rose—
Mr. Straw: Those children and young people—everybody in Israel and the occupied territories—need peace. The world wants peace. Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat have a responsibility to deliver it. The passions and hatreds that are aroused by the Arab-Israeli conflict are so strong and so visceral that many on either side cannot bring themselves even to acknowledge that there is another side to the issue. Yet it is only through such an acknowledgement, only through negotiation and compromise that either side can achieve what it wants.
Only compromise can deliver a secure state of Israel, alongside a viable state of Palestine, whose citizens enjoy the same safety and freedom of movement and of life as those of any other state. Only through compromise and mutual recognition of needs and aspirations can the people of the region break out of the cycle of violence and reprisal and ensure that the future is not sacrificed to the grievances of the past.
4.35 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: Over these past few weeks we have watched a tragedy of enormous proportions unfolding in the middle east. Not only has it brutalised the peoples of that region but it now threatens a wider conflagration that could end up burning us all.
474
Five weeks ago, at the start of this latest escalation, I was in the middle east with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). As we drove through that beautiful landscape down from Jerusalem to the River Jordan on our way to Amman, the body of a Palestinian was being carried, amid militant chants, to its burial. Not far away, the body of an Israeli soldier was being taken with military honours to its burial place. These were only the first of the funerals that day—each a victim of the other. Today, there are many, many more.
It is easy to claim that violence in the middle east is nothing new. That does not make the despair any less deep, the dangers any less grave or the need to find an answer any less urgent. That is why I welcome today's debate.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have in the past, in this context, drawn on the experiences in Northern Ireland. We must be careful—the two situations are materially and geopolitically very different. The nature of the terrorist threat and the response required are also different. I do not believe that we serve either process by drawing the analogy too closely. However, some general lessons can be learned, particularly on breaking an apparent impasse.
One of the first things that I learned in Northern Ireland is that there is nothing less helpful than third parties hurling accusations from the sidelines, giving moralistic lectures or veiled threats from a safe distance, or seeking to intervene in areas where they have no locus. Such actions entrench intransigence rather than resolving it.
We all share the horror at the current violence, but indulging in accusation and counter-accusation will not end it. We can bathe in outrage and become bogged down in it or we can learn the lessons of the situation and move forward. We need to know the truth. For that reason, I welcome the fact that the International Red Cross will investigate what happened, particularly in Jenin, and also the news given us by the Foreign Secretary that our military attaché is also in Jenin and that he will report to us in due course.
I also welcome Secretary of State Colin Powell's current courageous efforts to involve all the regional powers in a resumption of dialogue and a search for a genuine settlement. He is looking for them to identify those areas upon which the search for a settlement can positively proceed. I hope that everybody in this House will wish him well. He knows, however, as we do, that a lasting settlement cannot be achieved without genuine agreement by the parties themselves, and that genuine agreement cannot be secured under duress. One of the facts of history is that too many of today's burning territorial disputes, possibly including this one, were born out of imposed settlements, and I believe that that must be avoided on this occasion.
I learned also that it is unhelpful to be partisan. We have to break free of the political zero-sum game in which we are either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli but cannot be both. I am an unashamed friend of Israel but, equally, I have long been a supporter of Palestinian rights. I recognise the fears, aspirations and emotions that inspire both sides. Funnily enough, those fears and aspirations often mirror each other.
We have to be even-handed; we must be unequivocally clear in our condemnation of acts of terrorism and about the need to eradicate them at their roots. Equally,

475
however, we must never dilute our criticism of military actions by Israel that overstep the mark, of the violation of human rights or of the humiliation and harassment of innocent citizens. Where those practices are established we must denounce them, too, without equivocation.
The strongest lesson that t learned was never to give up hope. I learned that, however dark the horizon, there can always be steps back from the abyss to the negotiating table. Those steps are neither quick nor easy but they carry hope, and hope is at a premium in the middle east at the moment.
The first step is to maintain dialogue. As the Foreign Secretary said, there can be no final military solution to the problem on either side. However hostile the political climate and however fierce the fighting, each side must keep talking. That talk may be at an extremely basic level; it can be about the most rudimentary issues, but it must maintain contact. The current proposal for a regional conference at ministerial level could offer an opportunity. It does not matter how unpromising it appears initially—it could be the thin strand from which the substantial rope of real negotiation can eventually be woven.
When I visited Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres in February, low-level contacts were being maintained, despite growing violence. I was very sorry that those contacts were broken; they need to be resumed—even before a ceasefire, or indeed before an Israeli withdrawal takes place.
Mike Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman referred to low-level contacts. Will he draw attention to the fact that people in the religious communities, on both sides, have been trying for many months quietly to build dialogue? The same thing is happening in this country between Jews, Christians and Muslims who are working hard to maintain dialogue to reduce the tensions that might arise in our own society.
Mr. Ancram: I pay tribute to those who try to maintain dialogue. I have always believed that dialogue is the way out of an impasse of this kind and I certainly hope that dialogue will continue. However, there must be direct dialogue between the parties to the conflict, and that can take place at an extremely low and insignificant level without losing its value.
The second step is the gradual building of confidence. Generations of hatred and mistrust will make that a long haul. It needs the backdrop of United Nations resolution 1397 and of the generally accepted concept of two states west of the River Jordan: the state of Israel and an independent, viable Palestinian state, both recognising the reality and legitimacy of the other and both secure in their respective boundaries. Within that, the building of confidence can begin.
It must start with the most basic problem—fear. There is fear of violence and destruction in the short term, followed by the longer-term fear of domination and dispossession. The answer to both lies in security. In the short term, Israel must cease its present incursions into the territory of the Palestinian Authority and must withdraw. As a democracy, it should respond fully and publicly to the serious accusations being laid against it about the conduct of those incursions.
476
Equally, it is vital that the terrorist suicide bombings and the carnage of innocent Israelis that results must also be ended. Israel has a right to demand that, if she cannot pursue and apprehend those who instigate, equip and train the terrorist suicide bombers, they will be restrained by other means. When I talked to Yasser Arafat in February he seemed to be firmly in denial as to his responsibility for Palestinian violence, either in Israel or on the west bank, so if he is not prepared to restrain the bombers, other means must be found.
Michael Fabricant: Has my right hon. Friend read the report produced by the BBC monitoring station at Caversham, which shows clearly that during the past year Chairman Arafat has encouraged both a jihad against the state of Israel and suicide bombings?
Mr. Ancram: I have seen several reports to that effect and I have also seen the evidence of arms shipments earlier in the conflict from Iran to the Palestinian Authority.
The important point is that Israel should receive the guarantee of security that she has a right to expect, and if Yasser Arafat cannot deliver it, another means must be found. It must, therefore, be valid to ask what action can be taken by other Arab states to constrain the terrorism and to guarantee Israel the security for her citizens that she has a duty to provide. Will the Foreign Secretary or the Minister who responds to the debate give us information about any discussions that may have been held in that regard?
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Of course everyone deplores suicide bombings, but can the right hon. Gentleman explain how Yasser Arafat is currently expected to exercise any form of control when he is under siege in Ramallah, when the Palestinian Authority's communications have been destroyed and when his own security forces have been killed, taken prisoner or dispersed? What can he do positively, given the current circumstances?
Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand what I have been saying. I was saying that, if Yasser Arafat cannot exercise such control because he does not want to or because he is unable to, another means to do so has to be found. Without mutual security, the confidence to make progress is unlikely to occur. That lesson has been learned in other conflicts, and we have to learn it here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Ancram: I shall give way once more on that point and then move on.
Mr. Tony Clarke: On 28 March, Chairman Arafat clearly said in Arabic:
"On this occasion, I would like once again to reiterate our condemnation of yesterday's operation in Netanya, in which a number of innocent Israeli civilians were killed and wounded. This operation constitutes a deviation from our policy and a violation of our national human values."
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why Chairman Arafat said that?
Mr. Ancram: I read what Chairman Arafat has said, but I come back to the same point: both sides to the conflict

477
need in the end to believe that they are secure if talks are to proceed. Such mutual security measures providing both sides with freedom from present violence would be a crucial step forward. It would, for a start, reinstate the Tenet proposals and Mitchell recommendations, leading to a ceasefire and resumed negotiations. If that path is to re-emerge, there are further steps to be considered, because confidence in the long-term stability and security of the two states must be established.
Mr. Salmond: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman rightly bemoaned the evidence of Iranian arms shipments to Palestinians. A few minutes before, the Foreign Secretary said that he had no confidence in the Israeli Government's explanation of the use to which United Kingdom arms are being put. In that light, and in view of the right hon. Gentleman's even-handed approach, would he now like to call for the cessation of United Kingdom arms exports to the state of Israel?
Mr. Ancram: I have not had the opportunity to read the exact words that the Foreign Secretary used in his answer, but from what he told the House—obviously, I shall study his words carefully—I would say that we would adhere to that position as well.
In establishing confidence, Israel would need to reaffirm that it accepts an independent, viable Palestinian state west of the Jordan; and the international community would need to underwrite it. At the same time, the Arab states would need formally to accept the right of the state of Israel to exist and their willingness to normalise relations with it.
The Saudi proposals in the name of Prince Abdullah, to which the Foreign Secretary referred, provide a gateway to that end, but if they are to work, they would have to recruit to their standard those who currently are Israel's most implacable foes: Syria, with its sponsorship of Hamas; Iran, with its sponsorship of Hezbollah, its vocal incitement of suicide bombers and its inflammatory talk of uprooting Israel from the region; and Iraq, with its weapons of mass destruction and its total hostility to Israel.
We need to be realistic. So long as those countries and regimes remain committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and have the ability to deliver that result, the confidence in her own security required by Israel to reach a settlement will be impossible to achieve. In the case of Iraq, I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment again today to supporting United States initiatives to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and to backing measures including the re-involvement of United Nations inspectors, but ruling out no course of action at this stage in our determination to ensure that those weapons are dealt with. The Government's recent announcement on smallpox vaccines underlines the chilling threat that those weapons could pose.
In pursuit of all this, it would help to show that de-escalating violence produces a peace dividend. Commitments by the international community that there will be investment, trade and jobs so long as peace is
478
maintained can positively encourage the Israelis and Palestinians to come to terms. Again, I have welcomed the Foreign Secretary's remarks today in that regard.
There must then be formal negotiations towards a fair and lasting settlement. We need to understand that, in the end, the only parties that can negotiate that settlement and make it stick are the Israelis and the Palestinians. Although outside encouragement may be valuable, outside interference could be fatal. Internationally tabled blueprints, as the European Union's Javier Solana seemed to accept yesterday, can promote rather than reduce intransigence. The way forward is therefore to identify common motivation: on the Israeli side, the sustaining of a secure democratic state within pre-1967 boundaries that will not be eroded by demographic leakage or unrestricted Palestinian return: on the Palestinian side, the realisation of a self-governing and viable Palestinian state to which Palestinians can feel genuine and sovereign allegiance. Those are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, as I ascertained when I was in the middle east recently, there are people in high office on both sides of this conflict who subscribe to those concepts, which must provide hope.
Although blueprints can be counterproductive, what I call negotiating road maps or frameworks can be valuable. They do not need to provide the only answers; they need to show that the detailed elements that require resolution and negotiation are technically capable of a resolution. They are the essential first step around which political agreement can be negotiated.
Before Camp David in 2000 and Taba in 2001, I doubted whether technical solutions to the key issues of territory, Jerusalem, the settlements and the right of return were available. However, as the Foreign Secretary said, it is now clear, from formal and informal records of both Camp David and Taba, that they were, and, I hope, still are available. On territory, with a little give and take, the 1967 lines could, in accordance with UN resolution 242, form the basis for the borders between Israel and the state of Palestine. On settlements in the west bank, some land swapping and border modifications recognising, in the words of the report on Taba, both Israel's and Palestinian needs and interests, and a safe passage between Gaza and the west bank, could point the way to an acceptable outcome. On the previously seemingly intractable problem of Jerusalem, divided sovereignty, with capital status for both sides within an open city, and with respective control over each side's holy sites and vertical responsibility over parts of the Temple Mount—these could provide an answer. A demographically acceptable quota on the delicate and sensitive question of the right of return could recognise the legitimacy of the claim while balancing it against the need to preserve the Jewish state.
Those are the raw elements of a road map that can point to a way through. None is without difficulty and all require concession on each side. Every one of them requires a compromise on cherished positions. One of the sadder truths about the middle east today is that those who at this crucial moment in history find themselves in the leadership of their respective peoples are not natural deal makers or compromisers. They look to their places in history as the leaders who remained unyielding in their adherence to their principles. They regard compromise as

479
a weakness and a betrayal, and they are bolstered by apparently massive domestic support for their contrasting actions. On the face of it, they will never come to terms, but we must believe today that the pressures of history will make them think again, and underline again the historic role that they could play at this crucial moment.
It may seem unreal to be talking in terms of the way forward while blood is still being spilled in the middle east, and while the threat of a wider conflagration still remains, but we have no option but to do that. I remember that, in the dark days in Northern Ireland in 1993, I was told time and again that there was no answer and that we were wasting our time looking for one. I also remember, however, the never-extinguished hope of ordinary people which drove us to identify a road map of solutions that could provide a way through. That is what is now needed in the middle east.
That is why this is the time to return to the basics of informal dialogue, of elementary confidence-building measures and of even-handedness. We should not seek to dictate or to prescribe, to bully or to condemn. Our job is to be friends, with all the frankness that friendship involves. We should be ready to help, but always on the understanding that, in the end, Israel and the Palestinian people must make their own peace, their own "shalom", their own "salaam". We must give them all the support that we can in so doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. That applies from now on.
4.55 pm
Donald Anderson: One conclusion is clear from the speeches made by those on the two Front Benches: there is a substantial degree of consensus in the two spokesmen's analysis of the situation and, indeed, of the road map. It is an escalating crisis and perhaps events have moved on so fast that only the most fundamental questions are relevant here. The end point has largely been agreed, but how do we get from here to there given the fact that hopes have been frequently dashed in the past, as at Camp David and in many other attempts to find a settlement? Equally, a key question is whether the key participants are capable of moving towards that goal on their own or do they need robust external intervention that uses the leverage that is available to the international community? Perhaps we have reached the point where international and robust intervention needs now to be exercised.
I commend to the House a recent report of the International Conflict Group. It argues persuasively that, because of the failures of the past, the incremental approach is no longer relevant. The Mitchell and Tenet proposals are landmarks of the past, detached from the current realities on the ground. Events have moved on and we now need a radical new approach as we search for a solution. If the international community can put a fair and final political settlement plan on the table, it would demonstrate that community's determination and give both sides something tangible to reach for. Obviously, for maximum legitimacy, the European Union and the United
480
States should take a leading role, but they should be backed by Russia and the Arab states.
Clearly there is considerable scepticism about the proposal for a regional conference put forward by Prime Minister Sharon this week. It smacks of a tactical concession. He has said that Arafat should be excluded from it, so perhaps it is not a serious suggestion.
However, the outlines of the overall settlement are clear. The two states should be based on pre-1967 borders. The settlement should include land swaps in areas such as Gilo, a resolution to the issue of the capitals of both states, an international force to provide stability to both states and a fair and realistic settlement to the refugee issue. The politics of fantasy that have fed the idea that there can be a substantial return of refugees must be put aside, but a fair and just solution must certainly involve some movement and a considerable effort on the part of the international community to provide financial compensation and a choice of resettlement in other areas. Despite all the faults involved in such a settlement, does any other serious alternative have a chance of being accepted?
We must address the problem of the extremist groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Part of the package must also involve the rebuilding of the Palestinian Authority area. The carrot is the counterpart of the stick, and the Authority must be prepared to pay the price in meeting suitable conditions if finance is to be provided.
International involvement is just one part of the equation. Success depends on both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority, so what leverage is available to the international community? Clearly the Israeli Government depend substantially on financial support from outside. For example, in the last financial year, the United States gave more than £2 billion in aid to Israel. We know about the extent of military supplies from the United States, but Israel's response over the past few weeks has done substantial damage to its cause. It has lost friends all round. It must withdraw, stop the incursions and adopt a more mature attitude to Chairman Arafat. It will have to deal with him. As the debate in the United States appears to have concluded, Israel cannot simply marginalise him and write him off. With all his problems and faults, he is there and he must be seen as part of the solution.
So far as the Palestinian Authority are concerned, it is clear that public denouncements of terrorism must be made, along with a serious commitment to preventing it. They must stop the creation of a climate in which suicide bombers are thought of as heroes, and take pre-emptive action to stop terrorist attacks. In that context, the evidence of Karine A is not encouraging. The Palestinian Authority are also heavily dependent on outside financial and other help, particularly from the European Union—a further external lever that can be used. At the moment, the two key participants—made for each other, alas, in a rather tragic way—seem incapable of reaching a solution themselves.
Neighbouring countries must also be heavily involved, because no amount of peace initiatives will work if they continue to play an unconstructive role. I welcome the Arab League declaration, but further vital steps are

481
necessary: the cessation of all support for extremist Palestinian groups engaged in terrorism, and the public condemnation of terrorism. Without that guarantee, it would be unrealistic to expect Israel to trust any settlement.
I should like to make one or two final reflections on Iraq, on which we have yet to touch. A clear nexus exists between the escalating crisis concerning Palestine, and the war on terrorism. That makes the task of building and maintaining a coalition the more difficult, as do bellicose statements by the United States on a possible military incursion to bring about a change of regime in Iraq. In respect of Palestine and Iraq, the war for the ear of the President appears in some cases to have been won, not by Secretary Powell, but by more extreme elements.
I have one or two questions on Iraq for the Secretary of State. Does he claim that a clear basis exists in international law for any military incursion? Does the Foreign Office accept that the post-1991 and post-11 September resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations are sufficient for any military incursion into Iraq? Does it also reject Richard Haas's new and dangerous doctrine of the "right of pre-emptive self-defence", which suggests that the American Administration have no serious confidence in the legitimacy provided by current Security Council resolutions? Does it disagree with those who suggest that the real agenda in respect of Iraq is regime change, and that the return or otherwise of weapons inspectors is wholly irrelevant?
Those are serious concerns. At the same time, we cannot duck the question of Saddam Hussein and the major threat that he poses to his region and to world peace. Many obstacles to peace in the region remain, and in terms of the peace process a desperate situation demands desperate measures. That is part of the tragedy of the individuals whom the Foreign Secretary described. Ultimately, a solution can be reached only through compromise, negotiation and a political process. We must be ready to do all that we can to assist in that process.
5.4 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I thought long and hard about my contribution to this debate, and I concluded early on that it would be easy to adopt a position of equidistance. I concluded that it would be easy to argue for some moral equivalence between Israel's army and the suicide bombers; and that it would be wrong to take refuge in such moral equivalence. I reached that conclusion not because some lives are worth more than others; not because I have an emotional attachment to the Arab cause or an in-built prejudice against Israel; and not because I believe that Arafat can be excused from not having done more, from not having been sufficiently robust in his condemnation of terrorist actions or from sometimes having been less than effective in the clampdown on terrorism which was his obligation and responsibility. The reason why I believe that moral condemnation cannot be neatly divided in light of the events of the past few days—I do not say these things lightly—is that one side has self-evidently been the aggressor; one side is self-evidently the more powerful; one side is self-evidently the more determined to breach international law; and one side is self-evidently more
482
willing to ignore the legitimate protests of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia.
Our Prime Minister sought last week to draw a limited parallel with Northern Ireland. He rightly asserted the need to have an identifiable and acceptable political process marching robustly in tandem with any military response to terrorism. But one parallel is patently lacking. When the most terrible atrocities were committed at Omagh and Enniskillen, the British Government did not put attack helicopters over the Bogside and we most certainly did not invade terrorist-supporting enclaves in the south.
I do not pretend that it is always possible to act according to some international Queensberry rules in dealing with acts of terrorism. I do not pretend that Arafat has always fulfilled his responsibilities or kept his promises. I certainly do not pretend that when ordinary citizens celebrating the most important time in their religious year are brutally killed by acts of terrorism, the provocation is not intolerable. I do argue, however, that it is not just Israel's good name and its credentials as a democracy that are damaged by continuing unfettered and defiant military action, but the prospects of a settlement that is sustainable in the long term.
President Bush asked what it was that made an 18-year-old Palestinian woman strap explosives to her chest, go to a discotheque and murder—yes, murder—among others her 17-year-old Jewish equivalent. We should ask ourselves that question, and perhaps the answer is a sense of hopelessness, a lack of self-worth, or a terrible vengeance for the indignities and humiliations past and present. We should then ask ourselves this: after the military operations of the past week, how many more will feel the same? How many more will feel moved to sacrifice themselves unless measurable progress is made?
We have all seen the images of refugee camps, with mothers standing in the wreckage of their homes, fearful for their children. We have seen the most holy place in Christianity under seige, and scenes of desolation and devastation, as if a terrible earthquake had visited the area. We have heard the claims of unburied bodies, of massacre and of indiscriminate violence. Israel says, "Do not judge us harshly. We are a democracy. We are fighting for our existence", but it is precisely because Israel is a democracy that we impose higher standards than if it were not. We expect democracies to implement the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations. We expect democracies to allow the Red Cross access when it requests it.
There have been claims and counter-claims, all of which need investigation, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), has said and as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged this afternoon. There should be an investigation, and it should take place as soon as possible.
Mr. Tom Clarke: In light of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's courageous comments, does he share my disappointment at the review that was published this morning by the Glasgow Media Group and reported in The Guardian? In spite of what he is telling the House, it indicated, on the basis of lengthy

483
monitoring, that most news channels are overwhelmingly pro-Israeli. Does he agree that that is not the basis for a proper national discussion?
Mr. Campbell: I fancy that if the right hon. Gentleman addressed that question to the Israeli ambassador here in London, he might get a rather different response. We should not be concerned about the bias, perceived bias or lack of bias of these channels but about our own judgments and saying what we think is right and what ought to be done.
What is obviously right is the twin-pronged approach whereby Israel is entitled to live in peace within secure borders and free from attack or the threat of attack, and the Palestinians are entitled to justice, land and a viable homeland. Those are not new concepts. They are to be found in Security Council resolution 242, passed in 1967 after the war of that year. They are concepts that survived through the Madrid conference, the Oslo agreement and Camp David. They are the same underlying principles that now form the foundation of the Saudi Arabian proposal. Let us be clear—as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made clear by implication, if not expressly—that these proposals do not themselves form a solution. But they offer a legitimate basis for discussion, and they come, on this occasion, with the unique endorsement of the Arab countries' meeting just 10 days ago.
However, to ensure the peace within secure borders and freedom from attack or threat of attack, I believe that the justice, the land and the viable homeland must come first. The difficulty of achieving that is shown by the fact that the settlement programme proceeds unhindered, even as we talk about these matters. How can there be confidence that a viable homeland can he created when that settlement programme is still in progress? How viable would a homeland for the Palestinians be if so much land were still put permanently aside for settlers?
The Foreign Secretary, in an interesting historical analysis of these events, reminded us of the historic agreement reached between Egypt and Israel—between Sadat, who some believe gave his life for the agreement, and Begin. We should remember that, to return the Sinai to the sovereignty of Egypt, Mr. Begin was willing to take the most severe steps to disrupt the settlements and to exclude the settlers from that land. The point is that one can do that if one has the political will to do it, and one will have the political will to do it if the reward for doing it is sufficiently attractive. If, for Israel, the reward was security within its own borders and freedom from attack or threat of attack, surely in those circumstances we would be entitled to say, "Show the necessary political will."
Mr. Maples: Is not that almost exactly what Israel did at Camp David and then at Taba? According to the Foreign Secretary, the Palestinians say that Israel offered them 95 per cent. of what they want. I am sure that we, as lawyers, would advise our clients to settle for 95 per cent. Yet the Palestinians persisted in starting the intifada during those negotiations. Why should Israel think that any subsequent offer would be accepted by President Arafat?
Mr. Campbell: There is considerable dispute about what happened at both of those places; the hon. Gentleman may be right, but that was some time ago. If we are to move forward, relying on what happened then
484
may prove ineffective. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has a comment to make, let him get to his feet and make it.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way even though I had not intervened. His was a feeble response to my hon. Friend's point, which was clear. If, within recent history, the Arabs were offered very much what they could reasonably have expected, in line with the formula that everybody agrees with, and they rejected that, what reason is there to think that they would accept something now? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that there is no moral equivalence between the two sides, he might find some agreement on one point: there is no moral equivalence between a side that initiates an exchange and a side that responds to it. Does he really believe that the Israelis would be in the occupied Arab territories now if the suicide bombings had not begun first?
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about history, he ought to have recourse to the history of the settlements and the extent to which they have been promoted. As for the remainder of his comments, jury trial has not yet been abolished and I rest my case on the response of the jury of the whole House.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred to the side that initiated events. Is it not a fact that the second intifada was triggered by the wanton, deliberately provocative visit by Sharon to Temple Mount—he knowing what he was going to do?
Mr. Campbell: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That is clear beyond question—clear even, I hope, to the hon. Member for New Forest, East, who might also bear in mind the provocation of Har Homa and the extent to which that was a source of great aggravation.
My next point is essentially domestic. I do not know whether all hon. Members have seen the leaflets that I have seen, but circulating throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in some UK universities, are hateful and hate-filled leaflets that demonstrate the most blatant and unpleasant anti-Semitism. They are an affront to decency, they disfigure democratic society and they disgrace our democracy. They are the product of twisted and evil minds. Whatever criticism any of us may make of the Israeli Government, we should all be united in the view that there is no justification for such conduct or for the circulation of material of that kind.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but does he accept that such leaflets do not come only from one side? As one who is without doubt a friend of Israel but who has recently expressed sentiments not entirely different from his own, I have received some pretty nasty epistles.
Mr. Campbell: For us, they go with the rations and with the territory. We are in public life, and we have to accept that, if we make speeches about such issues, we will receive unpleasant letters. I am far more concerned about the fact that such offensive leaflets are circulating on the campuses of universities here in the United Kingdom.

485
Looking at these issues as I try to do, it is clear to me that there have been several opportunities for hope—albeit hope that has proved to be unjustified—and a number of false starts. Great courage has been shown along the way, for example, by Mr. Begin and Anwar Sadat, whom I mentioned, and by King Hussein. Yitzhak Rabin paid with his life: he was assassinated not by a suicide bomber, but by a fellow Israeli who was determined to prevent the progress towards peace that Yitzhak Rabin represented. Ehud Barak, who was mentioned in connection with the last meeting at Camp David, paid for his efforts with his political career.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the role of the European Union. A great deal of damage has been done to Gaza airport, Gaza seaport, the Palestinian central bureau of statistics, a forestry project in Gaza, schools and clinics in the west bank, a sewerage and pumping station in the west bank, and an irrigation scheme near Jericho in the west bank. What they have in common is that all were funded at least in part by the European Union. They will have to be restored—paid for again—but I would regard that as a worthwhile price to pay if it were part of a settlement package of the sort outlined by the Foreign Secretary.
The EU has donated about 3 billion euros to the Palestinian Authority since 1994. No one in the Israeli Government could be surprised if the EU began to consider what its response should be if that Government continue upon their present course. The EU is Israel's greatest trading partner. We know that 27 per cent. of Israel's exports come to the EU, and that 43 per cent. of its imports come from the EU. We have a trade agreement that has been entered into by the EU and Israel. Article 2 states that respect for
"human rights and democratic principles constitute an essential element"
of the agreement. If Israel continues on its present path, there will be those who will argue, with some justification, that that condition would most certainly justify suspension, or even revocation, of the agreement.
David Winnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned some distinguished Israelis who oppose the policies that are being pursued. Will he also mention those in Israel—in the minority though they may be—who totally oppose what Israel is doing, believe that such policies bring discredit on the country and have the bravery to demonstrate in every way possible against the occupation and the crimes that have been committed in the past fortnight?
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. No doubt he had in mind also those members of the armed forces who have been called upon to serve in the occupied territories and have declined to do so, doubtless at risk of prosecution or something of the sort.
The proposals that the Foreign Secretary advanced are, in substance, the same as the proposals of the shadow Foreign Secretary. They have the unequivocal support of the House because they represent a staged journey and a route map. They contain all the necessary ingredients for a settlement, especially the need for it to be buttressed by UN resolution and acknowledgement that substantial
486
financial assistance will be required, perhaps not only for the Palestinian Authority, or a viable Palestinian homeland, but for Israel—the costs to Israel of these activities must be enormous.
It is right also to refer to the obligations of other Arab states. There is no point in going to a summit of Arab nations and endorsing the Saudi Arabian proposal if one is not willing and prepared to implement the responsibilities that will fall to one's country if the proposal is implemented.
There was reference also to the principle of mutual dependence, which can be achieved only by negotiation and agreement. It is relatively straightforward in the relative calm of the Chamber to argue for these things; it is much more difficult to see them carried through. The unique quartet of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia is probably the best bet for ensuring that the things that we believe are right, and which in my judgment are most certainly in the interests of both the people of Israel and the Palestinians, are finally implemented.
I wish that I could pretend that the road towards that settlement was an easy one, but it is most certainly one that must be followed.
5.24 pm
Ann Clwyd: First, I apologise for my voice. I had dust in my lungs once before from when I went down a coal mine; this time it is dust from Israeli tanks in Jenin. That is no exaggeration. I am grateful to the BBC and "Today" for giving me the opportunity to go there. We do not often thank "Today", but I do so most warmly on this occasion. It was kind of those concerned to enable me to go.
Along with the head of the UN relief programme, I went to Jenin on Friday, where I was able to see at first hand some of the things that were going on. We had tremendous difficulty getting into the town to begin with; there seemed to be many tank commanders every step of the way. It took us a total of six hours to deliver relief supplies to some of the 1,000 women and children who had been taken out of the refugee camp a few days before. Those women and children could describe what they saw; they were not particularly interested in the United Nations presence, although we were the only ones in town. There was a complete curfew. At one point, we saw a sea of men going down the road, but within half an hour they came back. The Israeli army had called out every man over 16 to a central point. I found it chilling just to watch that.
We tried to get to some of the hospitals, as we had medical supplies and doctors and nurses in the UN convoy, which was clearly marked with UN flags and "UN" on the side of the vehicles. However, we had great difficulty getting to the hospitals, and it took us six hours to deliver important medical supplies. Most of the hospitals had had their electricity cut; only one small private hospital had its own generator. People were therefore working in difficult conditions. The UN people with us who spoke Arabic took down in detail the statements of the women to whom we spoke. They said that when the Israeli army came into the camp, it called people out of their houses, particularly men. They had seen men come out of houses with their hands above their heads who were then shot. They saw people wounded on

487
the ground; other people could not go to help them. Those who were watching were obviously reluctant to come out of their houses.
Our presence in the town was not popular with the Israeli military and at one point we were surrounded by six tanks. I did not know that tanks were quite as big as some of those that I saw. I was pleased to talk to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on a mobile telephone and describe what was going on. I was glad that he took immediate action and put out a press release later in the day. He called in the Israeli ambassador in London and asked people at the embassy to go to Mr. Sharon's office in Tel Aviv. The UN representatives were impressed by the fact that the Foreign Secretary was on the telephone, particularly when they saw the press release later in the day. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking that action.
I have no idea what happened at the camp, apart from what we heard in those eye-witness accounts. However, one of the men who came back down the road in our direction was the mayor of Jenin, and he talked about a catastrophe. He claimed that up to 1,000 people had been killed. I have no idea whether or not that is true, but that is what he said. He said that what happened would be counted among world tragedies, like Sabra and Chatila, for which Mr. Sharon had some responsibility in the past.
Today, I checked with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the organisation with which I went into Jenin. It waited for eight hours yesterday with two trucks of food and water and a medical team. It was then allowed in, but was not given a liaison officer, nor was it allowed to offload its supplies. It managed to throw food to 30 people on its way out. Today, UNRWA has been allowed into the camp, but only into one area. It has set up a distribution point. A curfew is still operating, but the Israeli defence force has promised not to fire on people collecting food and water.
Yesterday, Richard Cook, head of UNRWA, was denied access not only to the camp but to Jenin itself. With him was the director of relief and social services and the new co-ordinator of relief projects in Jenin, who had flown in from Jordan, as well as representatives of the Swiss, Danish and Dutch Governments.
I spoke to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Two small hospitals are near the entrance to the refugee camp. A man from the International Red Cross had been standing by there for four days when I met him. He said that he could see people in the windows of some of the houses in the refugee camps—that is, the houses that are still standing.
The Palestine Red Crescent reports that from 6 am to 2.10 pm today, its teams awaited permission to enter the camp and resume rescue operations. At 2.51 pm, teams were allowed into the camp, but with an Israeli army escort. At 3 pm, the army escort left the teams—11 paramedics, three doctors, 10 IRC personnel and two ambulances. The teams distributed water and provided care for the sick. No search and rescue teams were operating in the camp.
Yesterday, the teams worked in one area that covers about 10 per cent. of the camp. Seven bodies were recovered and seven others could not be recovered. The teams are asking for equipment that is used after earthquakes, when houses are demolished on such a scale. They believe that after all this time people are still alive
488
under the rubble. If that is the case, that equipment must be brought into the area. I saw a UN ambulance with a bullet hole in its side. We learned that the driver had been arrested with the keys and the ambulance could not be moved.
I cannot tell the House about the women and children—they were so traumatised and upset. They were not interested in the UN food and clothing, and instead kept calling for news of their husbands and sons, from whom they had not heard for several days and still have not heard today.
No political or security objective can justify targeting and punishing civilians in this way. It is not enough for the European countries simply to bleat condemnation. They need to withdraw European ambassadors from Israel, they need to impose an arms embargo, as Germany has already done, and they should consider what economic sanctions can be imposed. After all, British taxpayers' money is being spent on infrastructure in the west bank, and that is being ground to dust by the Israeli army.
This is the moment when the European Union should show its mettle and implement its own plan, regardless of the objections or intransigence of the United States or any other country. At present the Palestinian leadership are so beleaguered that they are not in a position to negotiate anything. The Israelis' present policy is not working, and the sooner they realise it, the better.
5.32 pm
Mr. John Gummer: The subject is difficult to consider with any degree of clarity, not least for the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Those of us who have been targeted by the National Front because of our refusal to take other than a non-racist position know just how beastly, unpleasant and utterly immoral is the racist understanding of any situation, not least the one under discussion.
To try to talk about Israel in these circumstances is often to invite the use of one's words as in some way racist, rather than political. I much honour Members of the House and even more those people in Israel who have raised their voices with the same degree of honest and objective criticism in respect of what has happened in the middle east as they have on other issues, and who have been consistent in upholding human rights, even when it pains them to speak in such a way of the Government of Israel.
I hope that I am one of those who does not have to start off by saying that he has always been, in the general sense rather than in any particular sense, a friend of Israel, who is committed to the maintenance of the state of Israel, and who believes that we have a responsibility for that, because it was our forefathers who to a large extent both made it possible and recognised its rightness.
In that context, however, there is a fundamental distinction between the Israeli action and that of the Arabs: Israel is a state that has the trappings of a state and claims the legitimacy of a state. The more it rightly claims that legitimacy, the more it must be judged by the standards of a state and of democracy. That is where the distinction lies. It is not that one excuses for one moment the actions of individuals such as Chairman Arafat or Saddam Hussein; it is simply that one cannot treat as acceptable the decision of a democratically elected Prime

489
Minister and Government to invade their neighbours and threaten civilians who, by their nature, must include some who are innocent of any the crimes that have been committed. One simply has to say that the actions of Israel are unacceptable because they would be unacceptable in any other state—
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: If I may, I shall continue, as I have but a short time.
If Israel is to be treated and defended as a state, as most if not all of us in the House wish her to be, the converse must also be true: in circumstances such as these, she must also take the responsibilities of a state.
Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: I shall not do so, as there is only a short time available.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: To save time—I know precisely what the hon. Gentleman is going to say—let me explain that extra time is allowed for interventions, but not for responses to them, so it is entirely a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide how much time he loses.
Mr. Gummer: It is therefore important to recognise that it is not in any way to criticise the Israeli state for its hugely understandable reaction to the awfulness of the suicide bombers to say that the result of that reaction is unacceptable. The reason why one has to make that remark as a friend of Israel is that that reaction makes it incredibly difficult to see how one should move forward. A different reaction of the sort that might have been made by some of the great Israeli leaders of the past might have given a glimpse or glimmer of hope. That is why one speaks in sadness.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) spoke about the need for maturity, which leads me to the second issue that I want to raise. There is a huge need for maturity in these discussions, not only in terms of the Israeli Government, who are under such huge provocation, but in Washington and the United States. I cannot believe that it is helpful in the current circumstances for the voices of intolerance to be raised to the degree that they have been not only in the speeches of Mr. Netanyahu, but in the American Government's approach to the problems of Iraq. I yield to no one in my hatred of the Iraqi regime and my non-acceptance of its refusal to allow the visits of United Nations observers or weapons investigations that any sensible and proper state should allow. Neither do I yield to anyone in my belief that Saddam Hussein would be very much better off the scene. However, we have to deal with the world in which we live and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I cannot believe in building an approach that says that we
490
judge what is in our self-interest and self-defence and can thereby do anything we like, irrespective of the international law of the United Nations or the evidence that is before us.
I am still banned from having my questions on the bombing of the Sudanese aspirin factory answered in the House because the Prime Minister tells me that it is a matter of national security. Nevertheless, I remind hon. Members that that was done because of the CIA's absolute certainty that the factory was producing biological or other weapons. It was wrong. It had not shown the degree of accuracy in foretelling the future that we might have expected of it, especially in the light of 11 September. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and to the Foreign Secretary that if the Prime Minister and President Bush should wish to take action, I shall need much more than their assurances that they have the evidence but cannot share it with me.
This is an issue not for those who have historically been members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but for those of us who have given the strongest and toughest support to cruise missiles and so on. We must have the evidence, because it is too dangerous to use this, the cockpit of the world, as a means of carrying out internal political agendas and gaining votes for internal political purposes.
We have to talk so seriously about these matters because it is hard to find the truth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes says, the truth is not all on one side. If it is unequal today, it may be different tomorrow. That is part of the awfulness of the whole issue. The word of which we must remind ourselves is maturity. If we are to be mature, we must call on the Israelis to shoulder the burdens of being a state and on the United States to shoulder the burdens of being so powerful that it has to get it right.
5.43 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I became a friend of Israel when I was eight days old, and I have the scar to prove it.
The confrontation between Ariel Sharon's Government and the Palestinian terrorists has become an international crisis, which, unless handled decisively, could create a dangerous wider conflict and disrupt the economies of the developed world. The suicide bombings organised by Palestinian terrorist groups are atrocities with which no civilised community can cope. Earlier this month, an Israeli friend visited me here and told me that his trip was an escape from hell. He went back to hell. Last week, a suicide bomber blew himself up at the bus stop outside his kibbutz, where I have stayed many times, killing eight innocent people.
The deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelis are horrifying and have created an unsustainable atmosphere in Israel. The suicide bombers are mass murderers whose aim is to kill the maximum number of victims. Yet we need to ask ourselves why young Palestinians, men and women with their lives before them, decide to turn themselves into human bombs. We need to ask how we would feel if we had been occupied for 35 years by a foreign power that denied us the most elementary human rights and decent living conditions. We need to ask what the Jews did in comparable circumstances. In 1946, the

491
Irgun, controlled by Menachem Begin, who later became Israeli Prime Minister, blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem, slaughtering 91 innocent people, 17 of them fellow Jews.
Ariel Sharon responds to the suicide bombers by using the full force of the Israeli army. He is having absolutely no effect in ending the terrorist acts. The suicide bombings and the slaughter of Jewish innocents continue and, as Colin Powell said while in Israel, will go on—not only regardless of what Ariel Sharon's army does, but impelled by what it does. We have now witnessed—my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) described her experiences—the full impact of the Israeli assault on the Palestinians. We have seen what happened in Jenin.
In 1948, the Palestinians denounced what they described as a massacre in the village of Deir Yassin. It was denied that there was such a massacre, but it was later officially established by the incoming Israeli Government that 254 Palestinians had been murdered wantonly by Begin's Irgun and the Stern gang, led by Yitzhak Shamir—later, like Begin and Sharon, a Likud Prime Minister.
It is undeniable that something dreadful happened in Jenin. Despite an Israeli attempt at a cover-up, the press have now managed to get into Jenin. The Telegraph newspapers, which are pro-Sharon in their editorial line, deserve credit for reporting objectively what happened in Jenin last week. The Sunday Telegraph said:
"Without doubt something very terrible had happened to the Palestinian refugees there".
Yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph described how Israeli soldiers beat Muntaha Seraya with their fists and guns after bursting into her home. Four months pregnant, she suffered a miscarriage half an hour after the soldiers left. Today's Daily Telegraph accepts the Palestinian estimate of hundreds killed. The Times today describes the "stench of death" in Jenin, and The Independent calls what happened there a "war crime".
The difference between the Deir Yassin massacre and what happened in Jenin is that Deir Yassin was the work of terrorist groups denounced by mainstream Jewish organisations, whereas the horrors in Jenin were carried out by the official Israeli army. In 1901, Henry Campbell-Bannerman asked, "When is a war not a war?" Talking about the British Government and the Boer war, his answer was, "When it is carried on by methods of barbarism." Sharon has ordered his troops to use methods of barbarism against the Palestinians. Two thousand years ago, Tacitus said, "Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant",
"They made a desert and called it peace."
That is a precise description of Sharon's actions.
It is time to remind Sharon that the star of David belongs to all Jews, not to his repulsive Government. His actions are staining the star of David with blood. The Jewish people, whose gifts to civilised discourse include Einstein and Epstein, Mendelssohn and Mahler, Sergei Eisenstein and Billy Wilder, are now symbolised throughout the world by the blustering bully Ariel Sharon, a war criminal implicated in the murder of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila camps and now involved in killing Palestinians once again.
Sharon is not simply a war criminal; he is a fool. He says that Jerusalem must never again be divided, yet it is divided in a way that it has not been for 35 years. I used
492
to walk, shop and dine in east Jerusalem. No westerner or Israeli would dare to do that now. The state of Israel was founded so that Jews would no longer be penned up in ghettos. Now the state of Israel is a ghetto: an international pariah.
Sharon has reduced Israel's economy to its worst state for nearly half a century. As a consequence of his policies, more innocent Israelis have been killed by terrorists than for decades. More Israeli soldiers are being killed than at any time since Sharon tricked Begin into invading Lebanon 20 years ago. Sharon has rehabilitated Yasser Arafat, who had become sidelined and discredited and is now a Palestinian icon. The United States Secretary of State waited on Arafat in Ramallah like a petitioner. If Sharon succeeds in exiling him, Arafat will be welcomed throughout the world as a spokesman for the oppressed Palestinian people.
Sharon's most dangerous enemy is Iraq. Although I ardently wish for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, I have my doubts about taking action against him now because the confusion in American policy makes success extremely unlikely. The current fighting in Afghanistan involving the Royal Marines six months after we first went in shows how much more difficult a campaign would be in Iraq, with its huge, well equipped armed forces. In any case, Sharon has made it impossible for the Americans to take action against Iraq. If they did, the whole Muslim world would be united against the United States, the coalition against terrorism would disintegrate, and western economies could suffer a disaster comparable to the oil shock of 1973.
It is time for the United States to take action. Sharon must make a full withdrawal from Palestinian territories. If he does not, economic sanctions and an arms ban must be imposed. In 1956, President Eisenhower ordered the Israelis to withdraw from Sinai, which was occupied during the Suez war, and the Israelis, under a sensible Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, complied.
In 1991, when the Israeli Prime Minister, former terrorist and assassin Yitzhak Shamir refused to participate in peace talks in Madrid, President Bush senior imposed economic sanctions by withholding $10 billion in loan guarantees from the Israeli Government, and Shamir turned up in Madrid. President George W. Bush told the Israelis to withdraw from the Palestinian territories. Instead, Sharon has stepped up his aggression. Jenin has happened since Bush's call for withdrawal. The international credibility of the United States presidency is at stake. If Bush continues to be defied by Sharon, the United States presidency will be proved ineffectual with ominous consequences for the entire free world.
Our Prime Minister is an internationally respected statesman. He must use his influence with the United States—the special relationship—so that Bush speedily compels Sharon to return Israel to the international community. No alternative is acceptable. If it does not happen, the outlook for us all is bleak.
5.52 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who has again demonstrated his passion and knowledge of this subject. Whenever middle east matters are debated, one cannot fail to be struck by the depth of feeling, experience and knowledge that is

493
consistently displayed. That has been borne out so far today. There was a remarkable consensus between members of both Front Benches, and we are privileged to debate in relative calm, which is currently foreign to those who live in Israel.
We are debating a genuine crisis. As the Prime Minister said last week:
"There are many situations, both at home and abroad, which are called a crisis when, in truth, they are not. In this case, however, it is hard to overstate the dangers or the potential for this conflict to impact far beyond the region."
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton has shown that. The Prime Minister continued:
"It is, indeed, a genuine crisis, and one on which all of us, in whatever way we can, small or large, have a duty to act."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 22.]
Despite the variety of views that are likely to be expressed, I agree with that.
Although I speak as chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, I shall try to argue as even-handedly as I can. It must be obvious to all that, whatever our views, if we call on the Israelis to withdraw from the occupied territories and on the Palestinian Authority to tackle the terrorism of the suicide bombers, we also must try to understand the viewpoints of both sides. It helps no one for us to replicate here arguments, the results of which we condemn in the middle east, without at least attempting to understand others' points of view. This time, the messages are not mixed. Both sides must exercise restraint and put an end to violence.
As chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel for the past four years, I have visited Israel several times. I have had the opportunity to meet members of the Israeli Government, the Palestinian Authority, our ambassadors and consuls in Israel and Israeli ambassadors in Britain. It would be safe to say that my views do not differ from those of my counterpart, the chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who is in his place and from whom we may hear later. I have frequently hosted meetings with him for the Jewish community and others when Israeli politicians have visited the House.
Others have described circumstances in the Palestinian areas, notably the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), whose memories are so fresh and raw. I should like briefly to describe the state of mind as I perceive it—perhaps from the outside—of people living in Israel, not only now but since the state of Israel was established.
We do not remind ourselves frequently enough that Israel is a tiny country, one third the size of the state of Florida. It has been said several times that it is a democratic state, where politics are fiercely argued and as vehemently valued. It is surrounded by much larger nations, some of which make no secret of their violent opposition to its very existence. Its only international airport is in easy rocket range of potential aggressors, as are its major cities and its main highway. It has been invaded by its neighbours three times in living memory: in 1948, 1967 and 1973. During the Gulf war, it was a target for Scud missiles. It is no place for the paranoid.
The escalation of terrorist suicide bomb attacks in the past few weeks has created fear and dread for people who are trying to live their lives. In the wake of the events of
494
11 September, the Israeli Government believe that they are justified in claiming that their military action is intended to root out terrorism. They also claim that documents recovered from Palestinian camps prove links between terrorist attacks, those sustaining the terrorists and Chairman Arafat.
David Horovitz wrote in The Independent on 11 April:
"Israelis are deeply troubled about the impact on Palestinian civilians of the current military offensive—natural empathy combined with the realization that the bitterness this assault is causing will rebound to their detriment. But they feel strongly that at the root of the intifada is not 'the occupation' which Mr. Barak tried to end but an Arafat-engineered suicide-bomber-backed effort to destroy all of Israel."
Furthermore, Israelis feel overwhelmingly strongly that although Israel as a democratic state can deliver a ceasefire, Chairman Arafat cannot deliver an end to the suicide bombings as a quid pro quo. That is a major blockage to a peaceful solution. However, I believe that Chairman Arafat's recent condemnation of suicide bombings is welcome. The importance of guarantees cannot be overstated.
Israel, in its current preoccupation with its security and the rightness of its cause, must take note of international opinion. As the Foreign Secretary said, 450 Israelis have died in the current conflict, but 1,300 Palestinians have died and 1 million Palestinians have been living under curfew. The world has seen the terrible destruction of Jenin.
In this country, we have suffered the terrible insecurity caused by terrorist attacks and bombings. We know what they can do for national confidence. However, there must now be movement on both sides. Israel must withdraw from Palestinian Authority territory and terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians must cease. Arab states must recognise publicly the right of the state of Israel to exist, and there must be a reciprocal agreement on the way forward for Palestinians.
In one sense, tragically, things have gone backwards since the Camp David agreement when, under the leadership of Prime Minister Barak, a deal was on the table. For whatever reason—one has been adduced this afternoon—Chairman Arafat could not accept that deal. The non-acceptance of the deal has, understandably, increased cynicism in Israel as to whether Mr. Arafat can deliver any agreement. The fact that Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative is consonant with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 1397 represents some indication of a possible political way forward.
It must be clear to everyone, however, that military or terrorist solutions are not the way forward. Nor can those acquainted with the situation endorse the view that Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat can, as a result of international pressure, somehow just shake hands and move straight on to high diplomacy. With passions running as high as they are, and with wounds so deep, it is not possible to think that they could, at this time, discuss the future of the settlements, the partition of Jerusalem, or the status of refugees. Those questions will have to be tackled, but only when there has been some sort of return to order and normality, when both Israelis and Palestinians can focus on the bigger picture.
For the moment, Prime Minister Sharon must give the world an end date for his incursions into the west bank, and the world must be given the facts about what has gone

495
on in Jenin. Chairman Arafat must continue to make it clear that he condemns terrorist suicide bombings, that he endorses a ceasefire and that he will return to dialogue.
The question of guarantees for Israel is, of course, the nub of the problem for the Israeli Government, and it is one of the reasons why the Israeli military action seems to be set on defying world opinion. First must come an end to the violence. The international community cannot reiterate too often that, no matter how long the conflict goes on and no matter how many innocent lives are lost, the state of Israel will still be there, and so will the Palestinians. The players on the ground, however, are the democratically elected Israeli Government and Chairman Arafat. They must move.
6.2 pm
Mr. Marsha Singh: I welcome this debate. There have been calls from other speakers that we should be calm, and I respect that injunction. This Chamber can also be a place in which to express anger, however, especially when we see the injustice that we are witnessing now. There is anger on the streets in my constituency about what is going on. My Muslim constituents cannot understand why there are threats from America, backed by our Prime Minister, to attack Iraq while we are doing nothing about the massacre of Palestinians.
After supporting the Palestinians' calls for a homeland for so long, I have to ask whether there will ever be an end to the despair of the Palestinian people. In 1947, they were dispossessed of their homes, their land and their heritage. Seventy per cent. of their land had been taken by 1949, and the remainder was illegally occupied in 1967. Even in that remainder, settlements grow apace; there have been 34 more settlements since Sharon came to power.
The Oslo peace accord, signed in 1993, gave a glimmer of hope, as did Camp David. The reality, however, is that those on the right in Israel never accepted those agreements. They never wanted them. While Rabin was alive, and while Barak was in power, there was a road to peace. That was partially destroyed by the assassination of Rabin and the fall from power of Barak.
Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Singh: I am sorry, I shall not have time.
The peace process has unravelled not because of Palestinian terrorism but because of the continued expansion of settlements in the west bank, and because those who succeeded Rabin never wanted that peace process. Sharon was elected on a ticket of peace and security, but he is presiding over a massive escalation of violence and killings. He is not interested in peace. He is interested only in destroying the Palestinian people and continuing the illegal occupation of the west bank and Gaza that has gone on since 1967. If anybody doubts what makes Sharon tick, they need only think back to the massacres at the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in the early 1980s. He is continuing that policy, as we are now seeing in Jenin.
Sharon calls this present invasion Operation Defensive Shield. He says that it is intended to destroy the infrastructure of terror. It is neither of those things. A suicide bomber does not need an infrastructure of terror.
496
The truth is that this operation represents Israel's—Sharon's—reign of terror against the Palestinian people. Nobody wants to see the death of anyone on any side, but in the last 18 months, hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians have died, not counting the deaths in recent weeks.
Nobody supports suicide bombers, but we must ask what motivates a young girl to carry out such an act. What is the frustration and despair that makes her give her life? This is not an even battle. It is hard to be even-handed when the sides are not even. One side is an occupier; the other is an occupied people fighting against helicopter gunships, jet fighters and tanks. Against that, the Palestinians have only their lives to give. That is what creates the suicide bomber.
What is happening in the west bank is an atrocity. Why have journalists, aid organisations and human rights organisations been banned from Jenin? The answer is simple. It is because Sharon does not want us to know what has been going on there. The truth is emerging, however. It is a horrible truth involving civilians under siege and being murdered, their houses being reduced to rubble, assassinations, executions, gunship attacks, tank attacks and rocket attacks. The Palestinian people have not even been allowed to bury their dead.
The United States of America could have stopped this. I am sure of that. I wish that Bush junior had followed some of the examples set by Bush senior in trying to resolve this issue. It is clear, however, that the silence—until very recently—of the American Administration and the American President was a green light for Sharon. I am convinced that that green light existed, and I am convinced that that is why Sharon has not withdrawn now. He knows that, intrinsically, the American Administration support him.
Do not the United States Administration understand the danger to the region, or the danger to their own policies on the coalition against terror? Do they not also understand that, if Saddam Hussein is this great tyrant who needs to be removed—I do not support the latter proposal—there is a danger that that will never happen in the present circumstances? So much of the damage being inflicted now is going to take a long time to repair. The USA and the international community should hang their heads in shame for allowing this situation to develop for the Palestinian people over the last 35 years or so. Yes, Israel should be entitled to its security, but that question has moved on. The question now is: when will the Palestinian people be entitled to security? When will they be entitled to peace, a homeland and dignity?
The United States calls on Arafat to rein in the suicide bombers. Arafat is in a room somewhere without electricity, surrounded by tanks and machine guns. I do not know about him, but most people in that position would not he able to control their bowels, let alone suicide bombers. Bush's call on Arafat to control the suicide bombers is ridiculous. The infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority has been destroyed; security forces have been arrested and killed. In no way is Arafat in a position to do anything of that nature at present.
If Sharon's name were Milosevic, we would be acting now. If Sharon's name was Milosevic, we would be talking about war crimes and war criminals. It is time that the international community acted. It is time to give the

497
Palestinian people a homeland and a home. It is time, now, for sanctions—economic and military—against Israel. It is time, for once, that we helped the Palestinian people.
6.11 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: I have only a few points to make.
On occasions of this sort and in debates of this nature, it is easy for us to spend time beating our breasts and saying how terrible it all is, and then to engage in individual expressions of long-held views consisting mostly of a denunciation of the opposite view to the one we tend to favour. With respect to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), I must say that that is what we have just heard: a very one-sided view. Things—I was going to say "sadly", but as it is not sad I shall say "hopefully"—are, in fact, much more complicated.
It may seem absurd, when we are considering the terrible events of recent months, to sound a note of optimism. We should not forget, however, that what has happened over the last 20 months or so—since Camp David and the start, or renewal, of the intifada—has not returned us to the situation that existed before the Oslo accords. Minds have moved, and have moved decisively. I believe that that applies not just to a few moderates on both sides, but more widely.
When I was in Jerusalem in January last year, while the negotiations in Taba were still going on, I had the privilege of meeting Faisal Husseini, now sadly departed. He said something that I will never forget: "If we had been having this conversation 10 years ago, I could not physically have got the word Israel past my lips: I could not have said it. Now the negotiators at Taba are negotiating on whether the Palestinian state is to have 92 per cent. or 96 per cent. of the west bank."
The commitment of both sides to entitlement to the entirety of the land west of the Jordan has gone—for ever, we hope. So let us not lose sight of the fact that minds have moved in the last 10 years. We must hope that things do not slide back, and that we do not return to the extreme views that tended to be held before.
What has changed in that period of 20 months? We know that the process of the moving of minds, and the achievement of an intellectual consensus in favour of commitment to the new agreement, involve a huge amount of confidence and a huge amount of trust. During those 20 months, the trust has evaporated. It is not entirely pointless to ask why that has happened, and where the blame lies—not for the sake of settling scores and playing the blame game, but because it is important to understand and accept what went wrong if we are to remedy it.
Let us be blunt: there is blame on both sides. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who said that Israel should expect to be judged by a higher standard. Israel is a democracy; it is a fully established state. It is, in fact, a very argumentative democracy—and that is healthy, but it must nevertheless expect to be judged according to a higher standard.
I could wish that the Israeli Government had been much more restrained in their reaction to the intifada. At the time of the Gulf war, the then Israeli Government
498
exercised what seemed to be almost superhuman restraint in not responding to Iraq's direct attacks on populated civilian areas in Israel. That superb restraint won them the high moral ground. I could wish that today's Israeli Government would exercise the same restraint. That, however, is easy for us to say in this well protected House of Commons, here in the United Kingdom. We are not the ones who face the daily threat of having our families—our children—blown up by suicide bombers.
It is obvious that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have been lamentably to blame in failing to control the terror, and indeed, in many instances, in positively encouraging it. It is easy for us to hope for restraint; but we should recognise that Ariel Sharon belongs to a strand of Israeli thought that has held for decades that Palestinians will only acquiesce in Israel's existence at the point of a gun.
If we are thinking about blame, we should also accept that the Israeli Government's decision to go on creating settlements on the west bank in the aftermath of the Oslo accords was highly provocative, and appeared to constitute a determination to ensure that the peace process did not reach a satisfactory conclusion. It looked like—again—an attempt to change the facts on the ground, so that residual matters not disposed of in Oslo could be disposed of only in a way that would be more favourable to Israel. It was contrary to the spirit of the Oslo accords.
It would be hugely helpful to getting the process back on track if the Israeli Government accepted that this is the case, and that mistakes were made. A statement to that effect would constitute an earnest of their serious intention to resurrect a peace process capable of resolution.
What about blame on the Palestinian side? I spoke of the Palestinian Authority's lamentable failure to curb the terror. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that Israel had the trappings of a state and the status of statehood. That is true, but one of the obligations that goes with statehood is the obligation to protect citizens.
I do not know what I would want to do if terror was emanating from a neighbouring territory and the established authority in that territory refused, or was unable, to take steps to enforce the law and ensure that those behind the terror were brought to justice, other than going in there and enforcing order myself. That is not to say that everything Israel has done has been proper or proportionate. As is increasingly clear, we shall have to wait to find out exactly what happened at Jenin. It seems fairly clear, however, that what happened was well beyond the scope of any appropriate intervention in a neighbouring territory.
I think that we are right to expect Mr. Arafat to be unequivocal in his condemnation of suicide bombers. A Labour Member quoted something he had said, which included the comment, "This conduct is a deviation from the established policy of the Palestinian Authority". I do not think that that is quite the unequivocal condemnation for which we are looking.
We are all too used to Mr. Arafat's issuing some form of condemnation in English to appease his western allies—generally of a qualified nature—while at the same time, speaking in Arabic on the Arabic broadcasting channels, not only failing to condemn but positively

499
encouraging such action. We should accept that that happens. If it carries on happening, it will perpetuate the nightmare.
We should also expect Palestine's Arab neighbours, and those states that support Palestine, to change their ways. The Saudi peace plan is encouraging, but it would be more credible if the Saudi Government did not at the same time positively tolerate the promotion of terror by Palestinians. Saudi Arabia is an autocracy, and one of the benefits of that is that the Saudi Government ought to be able to control terrorist activity, but they are not so able. It is very important that action be taken to condemn such activity.
In the end, there must be compromise, and negotiation; otherwise, nothing like a satisfactory conclusion will be reached. However, both sides must acknowledge that there have been serious mistakes along the way.
Neither Ariel Sharon nor Yasser Arafat would be anyone's choice of dining companion, let alone of negotiating partner, but they are the ones who are in place. They may be bloody fools, as someone once said, but they are their own bloody fools, and we cannot choose to change them. We—the west in general, although Britain has a particular influence in the area—must use our influence to persuade Sharon and Arafat that, in the circumstances that obtain in the middle east, true leaders must accept that some mistakes have been made, and move forward.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
6.21 pm
Mr. Peter Mandelson: This debate has been characterised by some excellent speeches, and some passionate ones as well. I do not want to talk about Iraq other than to pick up a comment made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Referring to Saddam Hussein, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should deal with the world as it is and that, having dealt with the world as it is, we should decide to do nothing. I do not think that that is an option. The possibility that weapons of mass destruction might pass from Iraqi hands into the hands of international terrorists means that, in the end, we will have to do something.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) offered an important and sobering—chilling, even—account of recent events. It was all the more important for coming so early in the debate.
I have no hesitation in agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who said that at the heart of the conflict lies the gross, offensive, unacceptable and intolerable denial of human rights for the Palestinian people. It may be true that those people are led poorly and weakly, that the Palestinian Authority—which, by all accounts, is riddled with corruption—presides over them in an inadequate manner, and that too many Palestinians have absorbed the mindset and methods of the terrorist organisations that hold sway. However, although that complicates and clouds matters, it does not alter the basic, salient fact that the conflict will not end until the Palestinian people have a free, independent and viable state of their own. Everyone's efforts must be directed towards achieving that outcome.
500
One key point that I wish to make is that the creation of a state for the Palestinian people is as important for the Israelis as for the Palestinians themselves. Of course, Israel must take all reasonable measures to protect its citizens. Only the most partisan and one-sided advocates of the Palestinian cause would expect anything different. When people cannot take buses, sit in cafes or go to family weddings without there being a possibility that they will be blown up, they must of course act to defend themselves. However, we must also understand that long-term security for Israel can be achieved only if the Palestinian people form a state, and move on from what they are at present—a rag-bag of refugee camps, isolated and deteriorating towns, and terrorist cells.
The Palestinian state, once formed, would become part of the international community and system. It would have to play by the rules. It would be deterred from wrongdoing, in the same way that every other state in the international community is deterred. It would have to invest in peace and neighbourly relations, like any other state, because that is what economics and trade would dictate. The Palestinian state would also have to build up the security apparatus required by any normal state.
I believe passionately that Israel must work towards establishing that Palestinian state. At present, Palestinian policemen and gunmen operate hand in hand. That would no longer be possible in a state that was internationally and legally constituted.
I shall not engage in the blame game. That would be sterile, as we all know what has happened in the years since Oslo. Oslo was about building peace, but Israel built peace with one hand and settlements in the occupied territories with the other. Similarly, the Palestinian leaders built peace on good days, but hate on other days, and they have armed and trained terror units.
We now have two very angry old men who are unsuited to creating peace on behalf of the people whom they represent. They are going at each other with weapons of war, destroying any semblance of trust that ever existed, and deepening the hatred between their peoples.
I do not believe that the Israelis embrace Ariel Sharon as their natural leader. I think that they support Sharon and his policies because they feel that they have no option. Everyone involved—and all the Arab nations, as well—must work on creating an alternative option for the Israeli people to embrace.
The Israeli state was founded on principles of social justice, democracy and respect for other people. That is why Israel has always been able to draw on a well of sympathy and support in the British Labour party. That sympathy still exists, because the founding values of the state of Israel still exist, however much they might be obscured by current events.
In their apparently contradictory attitudes, the opinions of Israeli people continue to reflect those founding values. The mass of Israelis support a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. However, although 76 per cent. of Israelis favour the creation of a Palestinian state, a similar proportion—74 per cent.—support the current security policy. That is what happens when decent, civilised people are terrorised to within an inch of their wits' end.
We must accept that many people in Britain would react in the same way if bombs—twice the size of the ones at Birmingham, Warrington, Omagh, or Enniskillen—were to explode twice a week in our country. Yet however

501
desperate we might have felt, we would have known that the answer did not lie in our Army seeking not only gunmen but what appear to be reprisals against innocent citizenry, as seems to be the case in Jenin.
My last point is about the Americans. Any success in creating a peace process will require strong external pressure. The only source for that pressure will need to come from the Americans, who need to be engaged, full scale and full-time, and win the trust of both sides. That means putting aside their supporter's scarf if they are to go between the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Arabs. We will not persuade the Americans to take on that role by bleating and complaining about them or cutting across what they are doing. Our job is to persuade the Americans to stop wavering, acquire resolve and resume their international responsibilities to play the role that only America can play in these terrible conditions.
6.31 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I hope that tomorrow the Foreign Secretary will invite the Israeli ambassador to come to his office—I do not say summon him—and give him a copy of Hansard. There is a message running through this debate. Parliamentarians who are deeply attached to Israel—some have an attachment going back many, many years—are deeply distressed by what is going on at the moment.
I cannot claim to have been a friend of Israel for as long as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who made a most moving speech. However, within weeks of entering the House of Commons in 1970, I got together with Lord Janner, as he now is, and others, and we formed the Campaign for the Release of Soviet Jewry. We worked hard to get people visas from the then Soviet Union to go to a land which, if not exactly flowing with milk and honey all the time, was a land of freedom, a true democracy, a country of which we could all be proud to be friends.
One of the first countries that I had the privilege of visiting as a Member of Parliament was the state of Israel. I went with a group of colleagues; the House must remember that it was just three years after 1967. We stood on the Golan heights, visited the other historic parts of Israel, and went to the holy places. We all came back conscious of the pioneering spirit of the Israeli people, conscious of their vulnerability and conscious that almost all their neighbours wished to push them into the sea or crush them one way or another.
Over the years, one has watched Israel develop and one has been extremely glad that a degree of normality began to come to the middle east. The way in which Begin and Sadat came together was deeply impressive; the part played in that by President Jimmy Carter was also extremely impressive. Now, of course, the situation is very different. Israel has, over the past two months or more, forfeited its right to claim the moral high ground. I find that distressing.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) spoke most movingly of her recent experiences. She brought home to us, in a way that nobody else has done, what is going on at the moment. However, we have only to watch our television screens and read our newspapers to realise that crimes are being perpetrated—I use my words carefully and deliberately—by a civilised state that are bound to forfeit the respect of the world for that state.
502
Mr. Sharon has one great accomplishment: he has virtually united the world in condemnation of the enormity of his actions. He has created a situation in which many who were sceptical about whether there should be a state of Palestine now accept it and promote it as official policy. I am glad about that; I think that there should be a state of Palestine, side by side with the state of Israel—both within secure guaranteed borders, enjoying international recognition and a degree of international protection. Mr. Sharon has indeed taken the agenda forward, but he has behaved, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) said, as a Milosevic—a war criminal. He has used the apparatus of a mighty army and a civilised democratic state to crush.
Nobody in this House cannot but condemn the suicide bombing, but what drives a 16 or 17-year-old girl to go into a restaurant or to a bus stop and blow other people and herself up? I say to Members of this House that if they had been born where she had been born, if they had been taught what she had been taught and if they had been deprived of hope as she had been deprived of hope, they might have done the same. The true poor of the 21st century are those who have no hope. In Palestine, they do not have hope, and we must recognise that.
I yield to no one in my defence of the state of Israel, its right to exist, and to no one in my condemnation of any terrorist barbarism, but I say to the Prime Minister of Israel and his Government that they have brought many of these atrocities upon their own people by the way in which they have over-reacted and over-retaliated. They have forfeited the respect of their friends; they have made a great country into a pariah nation. They have behaved in a way that puts them beyond the pale of decency and civilised values.
It is not easy to say these things so strongly, but I say them because I believe them to be true. I hope that tomorrow the Israeli ambassador will convey to his Government just how many of his friends in this Parliament, on both sides of the House, feel about their actions. He should see, in particular, a copy of the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, himself a Jewish Member, with an impeccable record in this regard. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber—I hope that he is not blushing outside.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Not much chance.
Sir Patrick Cormack: That is wisely said. However, the right hon. Gentleman is, above all else, a friend of Israel. Let the Israeli Government realise what they are doing to civilised opinion in this Parliament at Westminster.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, in a powerful speech, if the Americans do not take a firm grip, the whole substance of the fight against terrorism is undermined. Saddam Hussein is a brutal and terrible dictator who has done the most despicable things to his own people. I have great sympathy with everything that the Prime Minister has said about him, but I know that if action is taken against him while Sharon is in power and behaving in the way that he is, the middle east will go up like a tinderbox. All those who are inclined to join the coalition or who are uneasy members will desert it.
When I visited the United States with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs shortly before Christmas, I was impressed by much of what we were told. Nobody

503
could stand at ground zero and fail to be deeply moved, but I was disturbed by the fact that many of the people we met did not seem to realise that unless the Palestine-Israel conflict is brought to an end, on sensible and civilised terms that allow the existence of both states, the breeding ground for terror will remain.
I hope, therefore, that the message will go out from the House today that there is no one who is not committed to an independent, democratic state of Israel: but also that there is no one who is not deeply disturbed by the way in which its Government are behaving at present.
6.41 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the heartbreaking situation in the middle east. I do so on the eve of yom ha'Atzma'ut, the Israeli independence celebration, for which, this evening, my constituents will be gathering in a determined but solemn manner.
I speak as chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, as an avowed supporter of land for peace and—as everyone who knows me well is aware—as a passionate believer in a democratic Palestinian state existing alongside a safe and secure Israeli state, as a neighbour rather than as an enemy. I fully endorse the Prime Minister's statement that there is no exclusively military solution to this complex political problem.
I support the Tenet proposals, the Mitchell plan, the Camp David proposals and the most recent Saudi proposals. I endorse the idea that they could form the basis of a new UN resolution that would garner broad international support.
In advocating anything that would bring the two sides closer together in a just settlement, I believe that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want a peaceful resolution of the problems. Both communities have hurt, bled and died for far too long. Both communities accept the painful need to make difficult concessions.
From my background as an avid supporter and chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I am happy to associate myself with all the proposals that advocate the creation of a democratic Palestinian state. I was in Israel when the secrecy about the Oslo talks was broken and the accord became public. I joined tens of thousands of Israelis from all political backgrounds in an almost spontaneous Peace Now demonstration in the enormous public square in Tel Aviv. That square has now been named after the late Yitzhak Rabin as, tragically, he was assassinated there. I admit to breaking a small council byelaw when I was there by joining many hundreds bathing in the public fountains, such was my joy in the belief that a new opportunity was on the horizon. Sadly, we are where we are now.
It is easy to apportion blame, but in my short comments I want to try to put my perspective in context. It is clear that a generous offer was made at Camp David. Our Prime Minister made that point, as did President Clinton. The deal was not ideal for either side. It involved painful concessions, but I believe that they would have been built on if peace had been maintained. It was a continuing process rather than a permanent settlement.
We must all be honest about what a minority of terrorists hope to achieve. There has been a lack of perspective about that. Some hon. Members have said
504
that the peace process was destroyed by the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, but in fact when Shimon Peres was the caretaker Prime Minister and the Labour Government were trying to negotiate a peace settlement, there were regular terrorist bus bombings. When Ehud Barak was trying to negotiate during the build-up to Camp David, bus bombings and suicide attacks were a regular occurrence. While the peace process was going on and hope was at its highest, terrorists continued to bomb innocent civilians in an attempt to undermine the process.
Neither of the last two Labour Governments of Israel were brought down by differences between the left and the right over the economy or other factors of that nature. Those Administrations were supported by the people of Israel in the hope that they could deliver peace and security, but history will judge that, unfortunately, that was not the case.
For people in Hamas and Islamic Jihad and for some of those in Al Aqsa—the so-called martyrs brigade—no concession would be good enough. We all know that drastic action is needed on Israeli settlements, but even if not one settler remained, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and some in Al Aqsa would continue to bomb innocent Israelis. Even if there were the most expansive Palestinian state, those people would continue to bomb innocent Israeli civilians.
Many Israeli civilians do not believe, or are unconvinced, that there is a partnership for peace. Israel, under a Labour Government, rightly withdrew from Lebanon. Although that took far too long, it was in full compliance with UN resolution 425, yet Hezbollah continues to mount terrorist attacks and launch rockets across the border. We have to accept that there is a hardcore coalition of organisations, and, yes, states, that does not believe in Israel's right to exist. It includes Syria, Lebanon and elements in Iran, Iraq and, sadly, in the Palestinian Authority. Arms shipments from Iran are delivered to the Palestinian Authority. There are strong allegations—although an independent assessment has yet to be made—that the Authority is providing funds for the families of suicide bombers. Elements in the Palestinian Authority glorify the suicide bombers while describing their activities as outwith its agreed policy or strategy.
The difficulty for all of us who want to see the two states living alongside one another is that while the majority of Palestinians and Israelis accept a peace settlement—albeit with painful concessions—a hardcore minority will never accept one. Who will guarantee the ceasefire for the people of Israel? Who will protect them against Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Will Chairman Arafat—or, in a Palestinian state, President Arafat—give that guarantee? It cannot just be willed in English or in Arabic, on television or radio; it must be given through action, not merely in words of equivocal condemnation or criticism. Until that guarantee can be delivered, I have substantial fears that Israel will be unable to make the essential and difficult concessions that are necessary.
The coalition of terror, which involves states and individual benefactors throughout the region, has killed 126 innocent Israeli civilians in the past month alone—Jews and Israeli Arabs alike. In this debate and on other occasions, hon. Members have drawn parallels with Northern Ireland. During the horrific dark days of the troubles there was disgraceful bloodshed and mass

505
slaughter in Northern Ireland, to the eternal shame of those in the IRA and other organisations who carried out those deeds.
On average, every year, 31 innocent civilians were brutally murdered by the IRA and their friends, yet in only one month, 126 innocent civilians were killed by suicide bombers in Israel. In one month alone, Palestinian terrorists killed more civilians than the IRA managed to kill in four years of the troubles at their darkest. That tragic loss of life has led the majority of Israelis, who are peace loving and wish to reach an accommodation with their neighbour, to turn to alternative means.
There is pain and suffering on both sides—we all know about the deaths of Palestinian children, mothers and grandmothers—but I shall cite just one terrible example: the recent slaughter in which a suicide bomber killed 28 innocent Jewish civilians as they celebrated Passover, including Frieda Britvich, 86 years of age; Anna Yakobovitch, 78 years of age; and Eva Weiss, 75 years of age. All three were survivors of the holocaust, and all three lost their lives to a suicide bomber on the eve of Passover.
We have to ask ourselves honestly how we would react as a democracy that wishes to reach an accommodation and accepts the need for painful concessions. How would we choose to react? I say that not as a friend of Ariel Sharon in any sense, as everyone knows. In conclusion—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for 10 minutes.
6.51 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Like most hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) rightly concentrated on the dreadful events that are unfolding in Israel and Palestine even as we speak. At this stage of the debate, it might be helpful if I pick up the various more casual remarks that have been made about Iraq because this will be one of the few opportunities that we have to question a Foreign Office Minister and express some concerns about British and American policy, which could lead to military action against Iraq in the near future. I hope that it goes without saying that I do so as one who abhors everything that Saddam Hussein has done and who, as Tom King's Parliamentary Private Secretary during the Gulf war, saw at something fairly close to first hand the effects of Iraq's invasion of its neighbour, Kuwait.
The first set of questions that I should like to pose to the Minister who will respond to the debate deals with the implications of any such military intervention, and the implications for Iraq itself. Most hon. Members have been impressed that America and the international coalition have identified people who could lead Afghanistan in the future. In fact, if anything, almost too many people have been identified and delicate negotiations and diplomacy will be needed to ensure that good people run Afghanistan. But there is no such opposition in Iraq that could take over from Saddam Hussein.
There is no point whatever in military action to remove Saddam Hussein and replace him with someone just as bad. The further implication would be the almost certain break-up of Iraq as a nation state, which is not necessarily
506
desirable for the stability of the middle east. When I was Tom King's PPS, I visited northern Iraq and saw the excellent work that our soldiers were doing to protect Kurdish Iraqis from attacks by Saddam Hussein. There is no doubt that the Kurdish people in the north would wish to have an independent state. The possibility of a greater Kurdistan would lead to instability and have a huge effect on our NATO ally, Turkey.
Equally inevitably and, I suspect, rightly, the Shi'ites in the south would wish to have independence. They would probably form a statelet very dependent on Iran. That would lead to greater instability because it would give even more power and influence to Iran, which is far from a force for good. There are grave implications for Iraq itself and for its neighbours, and the fragile international coalition against terrorism could well break up, as other hon. Members have said.
I noted, as other hon. Members must have done, the Arab League summit in Beirut earlier this month, when even Kuwait rejected military intervention in Iraq. Our many moderate friends throughout the middle east would be at least embarrassed and, at worst, heavily destabilised by any such military action. I need hardly say that the harm that it would do to the present awful crisis in the middle east—the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians—does not bear thinking of, so, on that count alone, I urge caution.
The second set of questions that we should ask deals with what exactly is new. Saddam Hussein is a very bad man—he has been for a very long time. He has inflicted gross cruelty on his own people and, some 10 years ago, he invaded his neighbour, Kuwait. But what has happened in the past two, three, six or nine months that requires military intervention to be considered that had not happened before? We are not told what weapons of mass destruction he has now that he did not have then.
If we were to take military action against every rogue state and every disagreeable dictator who has dangerous and serious weapons, we would have to consider many other candidates. There is Libya, which used its weapons of mass destruction in neighbouring Chad. There are Iran, North Korea and even China, but there is rightly no suggestion of military action against those countries. Instead, there is a sensible policy of containment and deterrence.
I have repeated time and again the self-evident truth that Saddam Hussein is a very bad man indeed, but he is not mad. I believe that he understands a deterrent and there has been no further incursion into neighbouring countries because, by and large, the no-fly zone over Kurdish northern Iraq has been maintained by us and our allies and because, after the Gulf war, he knows just what would happen if he were in any way implicated in any terrorist activity.
There is therefore no justification whatever for our American allies, supported by our own Government, to take military action against Iraq in the foreseeable future. In the long term, such action would be highly dangerous and destabilise not just the region, but world peace and the world economy. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would take a huge amount of convincing before our armed forces joined the Americans in any such military adventure.
6.59 pm
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: It is significant that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) said, we are having this debate on the eve of the 54th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel.
I last visited Israel in 1999 with a delegation from Labour Friends of Israel. One of the things that those delegations always do is speak to Palestinian representatives, as many of my hon. Friends and colleagues who have taken part in those visits will know. Indeed, on my first visit as a Member of Parliament we met Marwan Barghouti, who has just been arrested. We had an hour or so with him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) will remember. In 1999, we had lunch at the American Colony hotel in east Jerusalem with Palestinian representatives, one of whom was the Palestinian mayor of Jerusalem, Ziad Abu Ziad, whom we have seen on television from time to time. He said something very significant, which has stuck in my mind: "If you are truly Labour Friends of Israel, you must also be Labour Friends of Palestine. That means that you must support a Palestinian state, a true state that lives not back to back but face to face with Israel in peace." Those words have always struck me as very important and very wise. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said, it is significant that more than three quarters of Israelis would support a Palestinian state if it brought them the security that they are so desperate to achieve. It is, of course, also significant that so many Israelis support the current leadership of Ariel Sharon, who is causing so much violence, death, destruction and mayhem among innocent Palestinians.
I support the recent moves by the Arab League for a peace settlement—land for peace. That is supported by most of my colleagues in Labour Friends of Israel and, I am sure, by the vast majority of Members of Parliament. However, it is not good enough simply to say we will get rid of the Bantustans of area A, area B and area C, and the towns that are isolated from each other in the Palestinian territories; we must do much more than that. There must be investment in infrastructure, the creation of a civil society and the creation of an economic infrastructure, so that the economic development that is so sadly lacking in Palestinian areas can be used to develop the wealth and standard of living of ordinary Palestinians, which fall so far behind those of ordinary Israelis.
On my last visit, I went to east Jerusalem. The poverty there is palpably a factor that gives rise to the militancy of many Palestinians. When one considers that there is a 20-fold difference between the gross domestic product per capita or the annual income of a Palestinian compared with that of an Israeli, one begins to understand why there is so much bitterness. It is not good enough simply to have a Palestinian state; there must also be massive investment so that the standard of living can be increased—perhaps not to that of the Israelis, but so that a democratic, peaceful, civil society can be created in a state of Palestine and that we can have a truly and properly established state and bring justice to those Palestinians.
I want to say a few words about what is happening in Israel. We have heard many stories and many tales of ordinary Israelis and the way in which they have lost their lives, the lives of their children, and the innocent people whose lives have been destroyed by the suicide bombers. I was in Cyprus on 27 March on a Foreign Affairs
508
Committee visit when I turned on the television and saw, on CNN, the news of the bomb in the hotel in Netanya. My good friends—and my constituents—Debbie and Michael Ziff were in Netanya at the time. They were not going to that hotel, but they knew it well. This was on Seder night, the night before the Passover begins, so it was going to be very crowded. Twenty-seven people died, and many more were injured. I shed many tears, along with many others who saw that news.
What was the response of Ariel Sharon's democratically elected Government? The Israeli leadership says that it was to root out the terrorist infrastructure—there is an infrastructure even for suicide bombs. Brigadier-General Eyal Shlein said:
"We went out on a mission with the intent of destroying the terrorist infrastructure to thwart terrorist attacks, and to remove the threat of terrorism inside Israel. This is one of the most justified wars, and I am very much at peace with it."
Is that a justified response to the horror and carnage of suicide bombing? I recently received an e-mail from my cousin who lives in Ramat Aviv. She is now too frightened to go shopping. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said in his excellent speech, the fact is that Israel is becoming a ghetto—that is what the Jews tried to escape from when they set up the state of Israel. It is not good enough for ordinary Israelis to be too frightened to go out of their own homes. It is not good enough for my cousin who lives in Tel Aviv to send me an e-mail saying that he did not know, for six hours, whether his son, who is doing military service in Gaza, was alive or dead, when three soldiers were killed a few weeks ago.
What is the solution? I have been as horrified as all hon. Members by the reports that we have read—the kind of reports that were published recently in The Sunday Telegraph—of murder, mayhem and carnage in some of the Palestinian cities as well as the camps. A significant piece appeared in The Times on 12 April. It was written by Stephen Farrell in Ramallah. Obviously, the Israeli army did not want him to be in Ramallah, and one of the soldiers of the Israeli defence force said to him:
"You f****** Europeans, you have got it all wrong."
So began the familiar outburst before it headed in an entirely unexpected direction:
"Should I he here? No. Should any Israeli tanks be here? No. I have more sympathy with these people than any of those f****** settlers we are supposed to be looking after…You're going to write about massacres, aren't you, say we are killing them all in Jenin, all over the West Bank. We're not. But you won't write that."
Of course, the journalist did so, but those comments were very significant.
I am in an unenviable position as a constituency Member of Parliament who represents about 10,000 Jews and about 10,000 Muslims—I cannot win, whatever I say. I did do something that I felt was right, however—I signed the advertisement in the Jewish Chronicle on 29 March. I shall not read it all out, but part of it states:
"We condemn the use of terror by extremist Palestinian groups. Nevertheless, this terror should not blind us to the deeper issues posed by Israel's occupation of and current behaviour in the Palestinian territories. It is in recognition of these issues that voices are being raised in Israel to point out that the moral foundation of the Jewish state is being destroyed by the occupation."
Three hundred Jewish people signed that; I was the only Member of Parliament to do so—and, believe me, I have had a bit of flak from my constituents for so doing. I do not apologise, however, because, in the end, how many people have to die before there is a solution?

509
We know that violence breeds further violence; that is absolutely clear. I agree with Naomi Chassan, the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, when she says, "Withdraw the troops now." The moral high ground has been lost through such action. All I can say is this: we know that there will be a solution—eventually, one day, all the parties will have to negotiate peace in the middle east. The only question that remains is: how many innocent Palestinians and innocent Israelis must die in the meantime?
7.8 pm
Mr. John Maples: The last two speakers from the Government Benches have done something to redress the balance of this debate. I concur with much of what they said. Indeed, I am surprised at how overwhelmingly the balance of the debate has been tipped the other way.
Since I have been involved in politics, my sympathies have been largely with the Palestinians—60:40 or 70:30. As many of us have done, I have tried to balance the right of Israel to exist as a state against the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians and the indignity of having their land occupied, and the continued building of settlements, for which the current Israeli Prime Minister is largely responsible.
My attitude to that changed about 18 months ago when negotiations started at Camp David and culminated at Taba, in which President Clinton invested an enormous amount of time and the prestige of his office, and in which Prime Minister Barak of Israel went to extraordinary lengths to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. As the Foreign Secretary said, Barak offered them, in the words of a Palestinian negotiator, 95 per cent. of what they wanted. That was not just turned down flat; it was not even used by Arafat as a basis for continuing negotiations. In the middle of those negotiations, Arafat restarted the intifada for some trumped-up reason. Perhaps it was because Sharon went to the Temple Mount. [Interruption.] At that time Sharon was not even a member of the Knesset, let alone a member of the Israeli Government. If the leader of the Palestinians is not more mature, there is not an awful lot of hope.
It is not surprising that Israel and, perhaps more important, the United States have given up on Chairman Arafat as a negotiator for peace. We want a compromise, and that fact has been laid out by both Front-Bench spokesmen and by many speakers in the debate. A great many people in Israel want a compromise, but a good deal of Arab and Palestinian opinion does not want one. It wants the destruction of the state of Israel, and that might explain why Arafat cannot or will not reach a deal.
It seems from the events of the past few months that Arafat is really a terrorist at heart. The Al Aqsa brigade is not a child of Hamas; it is a child of Fatah. We have to ask what kind of regime encourages teenage schoolgirls to become suicide bombers. What kind of sick mentality or sick thinking encourages people to do that? It may be understandable that the occasional adult decides to become a suicide bomber, but it is obscene for a regime that claims to be a Government to encourage children to carry out such acts.
I hold no brief for Sharon. He has made the situation much more difficult, and the chances of reaching a peace with him are very limited indeed. The reaction of Israel
510
may have been brutal, but it cannot have been unexpected. I wonder whether the aim of the Palestinian Government was to provoke an overreaction from Israel so that they could gain world sympathy. Arafat has created a Sharon Government. He had much better options than that. He could have reached a peace deal with Barak, and he could probably have reached one with Rabin and Peres. He created the Netanyahu Government and he created the Sharon Government, and we are all reaping the results of that.
I am afraid that I am a pessimist—perhaps that is why I am a Conservative. I do not believe in the perfectibility of human nature or that it is as good as people like to pretend it is. I think that things will get worse in the Arab-Israeli conflict before they get better. I suspect that we will need new leaders on both sides before a peace deal is struck.
On 11 September, four sets of suicide bombers in the United States of America killed 5,000 Americans. The reaction of the western world was united, and we carried a good deal of the rest of the world with us. We started the war against terrorism and we saw the attacks—rightly in my opinion—as a fundamental assault on our interests and as something to which we had to respond.
Since September 2000, just after the Camp David talks, there have been 67 suicide bombings in Israel and 29 of them have taken place since 11 September. However, when Israel reacts to eliminate that threat, we call for their withdrawal and United Nations resolutions are passed to condemn them. This debate has demonstrated the one-sided nature of the arguments.
The Israeli reaction has been brutal, but it remains to be seen whether what happened in the refugee camp in Jenin was a war crime. However, the reaction has been over the top and we must acknowledge that, if there were no suicide bombers, there would be no Israeli defence force incursions on the scale that there have been. The suicide bombings came first.
What is the difference between the Israeli reaction to the Palestinian suicide bombings and our reaction to the suicide bombers in the United States? Terrorism is terrorism. I do not see a moral distinction. There is a practical distinction and that is what the issue comes down to. Our Government and the American Government are driven by the fact that we are engaged in a war against terrorism in which our Arab allies are an important ingredient. The United States is thinking about and perhaps even planning an attack on Iraq to replace the regime there, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) will forgive me if I do not pursue that point. However, it will be difficult to replace that regime if the situation in the middle east has been inflamed by the Arab-Israeli conflict re-emerging in the way that it has done. That is why there is a difference and that is why it is in our interests to cool the situation down. However, we should be very careful about pretending that there is a moral difference between one kind of terrorism and another.
If Israel withdraws, which United Nations resolutions and many speakers in the debate have called for, what guarantee is there that the suicide bombings will stop? They will almost certainly continue. No one has answered the question and I do not pretend to have an answer myself, but reasonable Israelis are entitled to an answer.

511
The middle east is the source of most of the world's instability, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not the only cause of that. The threats are not just regional and nor do they affect only our oil supplies. Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are a serious threat to the west and to our fundamental interests.
In the attacks on 11 September, 14 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The leader of the hijackers was an Egyptian. Mullahs in Saudi Arabia have developed and exported their peculiarly toxic brand of Islamic fundamentalism, which is a perversion of a great worldwide religion that almost all of us—perhaps all of us—thoroughly respect. It certainly deserves our respect, but what has emerged in al-Qaeda and its associated organisations is a toxic and poisonous brand of that religion that seeks to justify murder on a mass scale. The mullahs have succeeded in exporting that toxic brand of their religion to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Chechnya, the Philippines and even to the United Kingdom.
The problem is not created just by the mullahs; it is financed by Saudi money in one form or another. A recent article in a Saudi newspaper accused Jews of drinking the blood of Christians and Muslims in religious ceremonies. Saudi Arabia has a Government-controlled press. As someone said earlier, one of the advantages of an autocracy is that one can at least get what one wants in the newspapers. We have all met extremely well-educated and urbane Saudis, Egyptians and other Arabs, and can any of them seriously believe that that accusation is true? The Egyptian newspapers constantly carry diatribes against America and they fuel anti-western feeling. When combined with a fundamentalist brand of Islam, it creates many of the problems that we face.
The Saudi ambassador to Britain has recently taken to writing light-hearted and amusing letters to The Spectator. Last week he put pen to paper and wrote a poem that was published in a Saudi newspaper. It lauded one of the Palestinian teenage suicide bombers. It praised her and said that the gates of heaven were open to her. We are dealing with a serious problem in Saudi Arabia. It is our ally and we rescued it from a potential Iraqi invasion during the Gulf war. The stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, who are there to protect it from Iraq, is Osama bin Laden's casus belli. He constantly says that his actions are designed to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia, but the country refused to allow our Prime Minister to land there and to talk to its Government in the aftermath of the events of 11 September.
We must face the fact that we have some not terribly attractive allies in the war against terrorism. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are at the heart of opinion in the Arab world. One has most of the money and the oil; the other has the intellectual influence. However, both of them are running failed economies. Egypt is a failed state and Saudi Arabia's GDP is half what it was 10 years ago. Saudi Arabia will find it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to provide jobs for young, relatively well-educated Arabs. There are no political outlets for dissent, which is focused in the mosque. That is stoking up the problem. I hope that our foreign policy in handling the war against terrorism will address the issues affecting some of our allies.
7.18 pm
David Winnick: I believe that everyone will agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) when he attacked
512
anti-Semitism. Any form of racism is totally unacceptable. He referred to the disgraceful article in a Saudi Arabian journal and the blood-libel allegations against Jews. The columnist has since been sacked, but only after pressure from the United States.
I am highly critical, and have been for some time, of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and I shall turn to that issue in a moment. However, I want to make it clear that I am totally opposed to suicide bombing. Such atrocities cannot be justified in any way. In the main, they are targeted at civilians in Israel and they cause death and destruction to people who are not involved with Israeli policy in the occupied territories.
It is also important to recognise that suicide bombings play into the hands of those in Israel on the right wing and the ultra-nationalist right wing who use them as a justification for what is happening now. We should bear it in mind that the suicide bombers and those who organise them have one thing in common with the right wing in Israel: both are totally opposed to a negotiated settlement leading to a viable Palestinian state, co-existing with an Israel without its post-1967 occupied lands.
We have heard from some of my hon. Friends about the atrocities that have undoubtedly occurred in the past two weeks as a result of the Israeli action. The essence of the tragedy is the Israeli occupation since 1967 of the west bank and Gaza. Understandably, Palestinians see Israel as a colonial power that rules a people against their wishes. Even if the current Israeli policy were somewhat different, the situation would not change. We must try to understand that Palestinians feel humiliated and deprived of respect and statehood, living in wretched refugee camps for years on end, often jobless and denied adequate basic facilities—even such as sufficient water supply. To believe, as Israeli propaganda would occasionally have us believe, that Palestinians live like that deliberately to gain world sympathy is simply a refusal to face up to the facts. If a breeding ground for terrorism exists, it is what is happening—and has been happening for the past 35 years—in the refugee camps.
I have always argued—indeed, it has been my position since 1948—that Israel has a right to exist. I am not usually reluctant to state my views, and if I were a Zionist, I would say so, but I am not. Like most people—Jews and non-Jews alike, and certainly people in European countries, the United States and many other countries outside the Arab world—I believe that, as a result of what happened to the Jews, not only the holocaust but the 2,000 years of acute anti-Semitism that led to what occurred between 1939 and 1945, there is justification for a Jewish state.
In 1967, I was one of those Members of the House of Commons who argued that Israel had a right to defend itself, and I have not changed my views about that in any way, but I am totally opposed to Israeli occupation of the west bank and Gaza. If it is argued that, because of the events of 1967, Israel had no alternative, I would argue—indeed, I did so when that war ended—that Israel should use that land as a negotiating point in bringing about a settlement with the Palestinians. Instead, of course, the Israelis have adopted the very opposite approach. It is all very well talking about the Oslo agreement, which I support, and further negotiations, but what has Israel actually done in the occupied territories in the past 35 years? We know the answer: it has built its settlements—in defiance of international law. Tens of

513
thousands of Israeli settlers are living on land that belongs to the Palestinians, yet we ask ourselves why the Palestinians feel such resentment and bitterness. Would not we feel that way if we were them? Would not the Israelis feel the same if they were in that position? Why should we be surprised?
It must be recognised that Sharon does not want a Palestinian state. Virtually everyone who has contributed to today's debate, however much they may disagree, has argued in favour of a viable Palestinian state. That is the policy of the British Government, and even President Bush has used such words. However, does anyone believe for one moment that Sharon, the party that he represents and, as I said, those even on the right of Sharon—if such a thing is possible—want a viable Palestinian state? We must realise that the whole of Sharon's political career has been concerned with building a settlement, holding on to the occupied territories and denying the Palestinian people a state. We are dealing not with an Israeli Prime Minister who wants a proper negotiated settlement, leading to the type of solution that we want, but with a very different type of politician.
We are right to refer back to what happened in Lebanon. Is current Israeli policy and the crimes—indeed, the atrocities—that have been committed in the past fortnight very different from what happened 20 years ago in Lebanon? As hon. Members have pointed out, was not Sharon himself instrumental in Israel's going into Lebanon? What a fiasco that was. How many innocent lives were lost? When Sharon was elected last year, I said to the Prime Minister that we should remember those refugees who were butchered in Lebanon in 1982. Should we not do so? It is perfectly true that Israel was not responsible for the killings as such, but Sharon was indirectly responsible. As minister for defence, he was brought before a court of inquiry in Israel. It found that he was not the sort of person who should hold such a position, and rightly so, but now he is Prime Minister.
This issue cannot be resolved until Israel withdraws totally from the occupied territories. As I have said, Israel's right to exist is not in question. Arab states may not like that—understandably, they wish that the events of 1948 had not occurred—but an increasing number accept the reality of the situation. The way to resolve the issue is to bring about not a "statelet", but a viable Palestinian state that is no less sovereign and independent than Israel itself. That state should be responsible for matters such as security, and for combating terrorism.
I am glad that this debate has taken place. The United States is the one country that can put pressure on Israel, and I hope that it recognises that responsibility. It is all very well its considering Iraq, and so on, but its immediate responsibility is to put economic and financial pressure on Sharon, so that, at long last, there can be justice for the Palestinians. They deserve it, and they should get it.
7.27 pm
Angus Robertson: I am pleased to participate in this important debate on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. As hon. Members will recognise, both parties are committed to democratic constitutional change and self-determination for our countries. Therefore, recognising the right and aspiration of
514
both Israeli and Palestinian people to national self-determination and security comes easy to us. Like many who have spoken, we want to put on the record our condemnation of acts of violence in the region—whether acts of state violence by the Israeli Government, or terrorist attacks by Palestinian factions and suicide bombers. We associate ourselves with the calls for an immediate cessation of all acts of violence.
We also support moves to codify the Saudi Arabian initiative: a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations that would require the withdrawal of Israeli troops to pre-1967 boundaries, the Arab world's acceptance of the legitimacy of the Israeli state, and the establishment of a viable, self-governing and independent Palestinian state.
We have heard moving speeches throughout the debate. I was particularly struck by the testimony of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) concerning conditions in Jenin and elsewhere. If they have not already done so, I urge all Members to read an article in London's The Times today, by Janine di Giovanni, who writes from the Jenin refugee camp. She writes:
"The refugees I had interviewed in recent days while trying to enter the camp were not lying. If anything, they underestimated the carnage and the horror. Rarely, in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life."
In a previous career, I worked as a journalist. For one of my assignments I spent a great deal of time in the former Yugoslavia reporting on Croatia, in particular, and on the cause of the civil war there. I saw a great deal of destruction. I have not been to the west bank or the Gaza strip, but like other hon. Members I have seen many of the pictures and much of the television coverage. Rarely have I seen so much destruction caused in such a short time. Although there was also terrible destruction in eastern Croatia and Bosnia, it was wrought over many years.
The Israeli Government justify the actions of their defence forces—so-called—as dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism. It is clear to everyone, however, that their aim is broader than justifiably dealing with the terrible suicide bomb attacks. It is instead an attempt to dismantle the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority.
In preparing for the debate, I tried to find out what neutral observers on the ground have been saying. Other hon. Members have given various facts and figures. Today's update by the Palestinian Red Crescent confirms that it was denied access to the refugee camp in Jenin for 10 days. It was not allowed to remove the injured or the dead, and of course it is terrible for Muslims if they cannot bury their dead within 24 hours. Red Crescent was allowed in once but its movements were restricted to less than 10 per cent. of the camp area. In Bethlehem, Israeli forces continue to prevent ambulances and medical teams from gaining access to the Nativity church area, Manger square and the old city. In Jenin, Israeli forces continue to surround the town's hospital.
Oxfam writes today that it is concerned about the
"gross violation of international humanitarian law",
including violence against civilians and humanitarian workers and the denial of access to meet immediate need. It fears that there will be a serious health crisis due to people drinking contaminated water. Oxfam is also aware that Israeli soldiers have failed to honour agreements made by

515
senior officers to allow repair of water pipes. That and all the other points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House—I agree in particular with what was said by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson)—challenge us all to call for and bring into effect a step change in the international community's reaction so that it uses its leverage. I also agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the time has come to think about the use of sanctions to effect that.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On sanctions, we have heard much about even-handedness and it is true that we have to take a mature approach to both sides. However, is it not supremely ironic that we are considering the use of force, even warfare, to deal with one country—Iraq—that has consistently broken UN resolutions, yet we are not prepared to consider imposing even limited arms sanctions against another country that has also consistently broken UN resolutions since 1967? Does my hon. Friend agree that unless the Israeli Government are prepared to trade land for peace, we will not see a resolution of the conflict in the land of Israel?
Angus Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend and will deal with Iraq in a moment. On sanctions, however, it is important that we do not avoid mentioning developments at a European level, which have not been discussed so far. I note with interest that Members of the European Parliament representing the European Socialists, the Liberals and the Greens/European Free Alliance, of which our parties are members, recently voted overwhelmingly to suspend the EU's association agreement with Israel. I note with sadness that that was not endorsed by the British Government or many others at the meeting of the EU Council of Foreign Ministers yesterday.
It is also sad that the UK Government did not support the initiative that my party colleague and the Foreign Minister of Germany, Joschka Fischer, presented to the Council meeting. Ironically, the plan embodied points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It called for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops, international peacekeepers patrolling a buffer zone, a declaration of a Palestinian state, an end to Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas and negotiations on Israel's borders and the status of Jerusalem. I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that inaction is not an option in the face of breaches of UN resolutions. For that reason, I very much hope that the UK Government will pursue those matters in the UN and with our EU colleagues and support a robust response.
I dislike Saddam Hussein's regime as much as anyone else in the Chamber, but we still wait for the famed dossier on the weapons of mass destruction programme of Iraq. Dossiers and intelligence on al-Qaeda were shared and briefings were done on Privy Council terms in the run-up to the situation in Afghanistan. Why is the same not true of the Iraqi information that we have been promised? We still also wait for a specific UN mandate should military options be undertaken on Iraq. What we are not having to wait for, however, are clear breaches of UN resolutions when considering the situation in Israel. Like the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), my comments are aimed at Israel in particular because it is a democratic, independent state and should be judged by a higher standard. However, like
516
the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), I think that the extraordinary provocation and senseless killings by suicide bombers are a massive challenge to the Israeli authorities to protect their citizens.
Nevertheless, on balance, the time has come for the countries that can influence Israel to act decisively. We have a responsibility to use the political and economic leverage that we possess to influence change. Although I welcome the recent change in tack by the United States and the mission of Secretary of State Powell, it is time for the US Administration genuinely to press Israel to withdraw from Jenin and the other occupied areas. It is also high time for the EU and the people in Europe to lead by example.
7.37 pm
Joan Ruddock: I have visited Jerusalem only once, in 1965, when I was a very young woman. It was an incredibly interesting visit and I was struck everywhere I went by the ability of the young people whom I met to speak English. I was amazed by their wonderful grasp of our language. I remember what an enormous impression it made on me at the time, when I was still ill-informed about the history of that region, when they got out their ID cards and said, "I am a Palestinian."
I have thought many times in the past few weeks about those young people and a young woman in particular to whom I spoke. Now, of course, they are probably grandparents if they are still alive. They, their children and their grandchildren have lived through a terrible time in which they have suffered goodness knows what deprivations or humiliations. They have all lived out that history in a way we can only imagine.
There have been many courageous people in those generations who have struggled for self-determination and many who have done despicable acts, but it is extraordinary that the struggle has taken so long and has come to this. If I am shocked by what has happened and find it utterly unbelievable, then how much the more so those people of the middle east?
I have no special expertise or associations in the context of the debate, but I want to join all those who have spoken in expressing my wish to see an independent state for Palestine and a state of Israel that can live in peace and security.
I join with all who condemn the suicide bombings. There can be nothing more terrifying for people than going about their work and ordinary daily events not knowing whether they may stand or sit next to a person who is about to blow himself or herself, and them, to destruction. Undoubtedly, we would all find it impossible to live with such a threat and not feel the need for revenge. Nothing can justify the suicide bombing, but equally no military action can eradicate it. What is so shocking about the current events is that we can, as many people have done in this debate, almost track them back to a time when lasting peace was within our grasp.
There has been a debate among Opposition Members about what happened at Taba. I have had sight, as others may have done, of the paper that is called, in EU-speak, a non-paper and is the account of the EU special

517
representative to the middle east, who wrote at the time that although there were serious gaps and differences between the two sides,
"it also shows that both sides have travelled a long way to accommodate the views of the other sides and that solutions are possible".
Furthermore, in that contemporary account, the EU representative records that both sides had agreed to the 4 June 1967 lines in accordance with UN resolution 242, as a basis for borders. Both sides had agreed in principle on land swaps, on refugees, on Jerusalem and on the involvement of an international force. Both sides had reservations and, tragically, neither side was prepared to commit at that time, when the intifada had already started, Israeli elections were pending and there was uncertainty over the future of Ehud Barak. We will never know whether, given the time and opportunity, that peace process could have concluded successfully.
What we do know, however—this is why I cannot be even-handed in this matter—is that the election of Ariel Sharon, on 6 February 2001, ended all hope of that settlement. He said that he would insist on a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, that there had to be Israeli control over security areas on the west bank, and that there could be no right of return for Palestinian refugees. It is that attitude that has denied justice, peace and, perhaps even more importantly, any hope to the Palestinians who have carried out the madness of suicide bombing.
When we unreservedly condemn the suicide bombers, we must equally condemn the 70-odd political assassinations carried out by Israel. Of course Israel has an absolute right to take steps to protect its citizens, and it must, but the actions that have been taken in the past few weeks go far beyond that aim; as somebody said today, Ariel Sharon is a fool to believe that they could have any meaningful result for those young people.
Professor Paul Rogers of the Bradford school of peace studies has said that the military operations have a different purpose, which has become clear as the effects of the war have become apparent. He says:
"They are, in short, aimed at destroying the capacity of a putative Palestinian state to operate."
Those sentiments were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). The international community cannot allow those sentiments to prevail. It cannot allow this impasse to continue.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, the Mitchell and Tenet proposals and the Saudi peace initiative provide an international consensus on the best way forward for securing an end to the cycle of violence and a return to negotiations. As others have said, we can no longer wait for those two old men to cease their quarrel and come to the table. We, the international community, have to bring that about. I am not sure, as others have said, that a ceasefire has to be a prerequisite. We have seen previously how a demand for seven days' continuous cessation of violence prevented negotiation. There is the difficulty that Chairman Arafat undoubtedly faces of policing any ceasefire, if indeed he agrees to one.
It is for the leaders, under the influence of the international community, to start talking now even while the violence continues. We cannot go down the
518
confidence-building road proposed by Mitchell which will take so long. This is so urgent that it has to happen now. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I have no time, and others may not have time, to go through the dossier and the briefings sent by Amnesty International and Oxfam to Members of Parliament today, but the Government must read those documents to see just how horrific the conditions have been. Clearly, the aid agencies have seen those conditions at first hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) so movingly demonstrated.
In conclusion, we must do more than we have already done. I applaud the attitude of our Government, but we must put an absolute ban on any export of arms to Israel at this time. We could do more, perhaps within the European Union, to consider other sanctions. We must continue constantly to put the maximum pressure on the United States of America because as others have said, it is the one nation that holds the key to the solution of the crisis. It must accept its responsibility; we must ask that of the USA. It must get the two sides in the dispute to rise to their responsibilities as well.
7.47 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: Bournemouth is twinned with that very similar coastal resort in Israel, Netanya. The hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) have reminded us that last month a suicide bomber destroyed 27 lives and injured more than 100 of Netanya's citizens, most of them elderly, as they sat down for a Passover supper. The mayor of Bournemouth sent his counterpart in Netanya a message of condolence on behalf of us all. It has been his fourth such message during his year in office. Israel has used that atrocity to justify its current offensive in the occupied territories.
There is, of course, no justification for such acts of terrorism. In the total absence of any curtailing influence over those who perpetrate them, we should have sympathy with Israel in seeking to defend itself from them. However, as many hon. Members have said in this debate, until Israel offers the Palestinians a credible prospect of a homeland of their own, such atrocities will continue. Only the people of Israel, as citizens of the only responsible civilised democracy in the region, can insist on their political leaders seeking a settlement by negotiation which will enable them to live in peace and security for the first time in their history.
Of course we should support initiatives such as the one undertaken by Colin Powell. The role of the international community is to encourage a climate in which negotiations can recommence and succeed. Thus we should welcome Crown Prince Abdullah's plan, which, although neither new nor his, calls in the clearest terms yet for the universal Arab recognition of Israel. We should consider Mr. Sharon's plan for a regional conference, as well as the concept of an organisation for security and co-operation in the middle east—an OSCME—to emulate the success of the Helsinki process in consolidating peace in Europe, as proposed by the Council of Europe.
The devastation of the Palestine refugee camp in Jenin, graphically described by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), should concentrate our minds on how to resolve the greatest humanitarian challenge in the middle east: the existence of densely populated refugee

519
camps. There are 59 refugee camps in four host countries and the occupied territories, housing 1.5 million refugees. A further 2 million refugees are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides them with support and services, as it has done for more than 50 years with the continuing generous financial support of the international community.
As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) rightly says, most of those refugees are effectively homeless and stateless. They are the prime sources of terrorism against Israel and the international community and of support for the current intifada, but as long as their situation remains hopeless, there will be no settlement in the middle east. We all have an interest in resolving their position.
In 1998, in its resolution 1156, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe endorsed proposals that would provide a permanent settlement and a secure future for all those refugees, and enable those camps to be closed. The proposals accept the reality—as do a growing number of Palestinians and Arab states today—that there can be no right of return to Israel, although Israel has agreed to accept some of the refugees to reunify families. I believe that the rest would accept one of the current options: citizenship in their host country; acceptance of offers of resettlement to other countries; or real citizenship in a viable state of Palestine.
The message I want to convey in today's debate is that the international community, especially the European Union, should give clear and firm support to those proposals and consider how they might be funded. A new United Nations "Palestine refugee and displaced persons final status" fund has been proposed. We should wait no longer for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to resume on that and all the other final status issues. We should have an international plan ready for all to see as soon as possible.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will find details of the proposals in his Department. They were the subject both of a conference at Warwick university in March 1998 that was addressed by his predecessor, the late Derek Fatchett, and of my Adjournment debate on 28 April 1998. It is relevant to recall them now as a way to resolve one of the obstacles standing in the way of peace in the middle east.
7.53 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: I hope that the House will not mind if I do not follow the path laid down by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). I had the misfortune to follow in one of his paths during an investigation into the future of Palestinian refugees undertaken in September 2000 by the Joint Parliamentary Middle East Councils. One of my abiding memories is of sitting in a refugee camp listening to refugees tell us that they were—I shall not use their language; hon. Members can read the report for themselves—fed up to the teeth of people from various organisations coming to the middle east, asking them how they felt about their situation, getting the information, then returning home and producing their version of what they had been told. We had to spend a lot of time assuring people who had been refugees since 1948 that we did not intend to do what the hon. Gentleman had done when he visited the area in another capacity.
520
While listening to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I recalled that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and I have spent most of our adult lives working on these issues. Had we been asked back in the 1970s what we most wanted for the Palestinians, we would have said that we wanted them to have a home and to be able to sit down at a table with the Israelis and talk about how they could live together. However, we recognised that support from the Americans would be required to make that happen.
In the midst of the events taking place in the middle east, it is difficult to see any light at the end of the tunnel. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently returned from his talks with George Bush, and it is important to remember that those of us who have been involved in these issues have striven for many years to make the Americans understand their responsibility. Only with the active engagement of an American Administration will we achieve an end to the problem.
I shall not spend time going over the comments already made by speakers in the debate. Everyone has their own opinion. Instead, I shall speak specifically about the issue that I believe will derail our efforts again and cause us even more heartache in future: the notion that we can resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict without recognising that the refugees are at its core. Unless we deal with that problem, as set out in resolution 194 passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1949, there is little or no chance of ever achieving peace in the region.
Like many other middle eastern peoples, the Palestinians have a direct and profound attachment to their land that is apparent as soon as one talks with them. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is no longer present. Under the 1947 UN resolution 181, British mandate Palestine was partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. Under that plan, 86 per cent. of the land owned or inhabited by Palestinians was taken away from them and given to someone else.
I do not excuse what happened afterwards, but most of those who have been involved in these matters would agree that the people who have most let down the Palestinian Arabs are the Arabs themselves. The 1948 war that followed the end of the British mandate led to the flight or expulsion of two thirds of the Palestinian Arab population, and to the Israeli conquest of 25 per cent. of the territory that had been allotted to the proposed Arab state, in addition to the land set aside for the Jewish state—of which, as I said, 86 per cent. had been Palestinian owned or occupied.
In 1967, Israel occupied the remainder of Palestine—the west bank, the Gaza strip and the rest of Jerusalem. That caused a second exodus of about 500,000 Palestinians. The refugees from 1948 and 1967 now live in the west bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, the Gulf, Europe and the Americas.
Of the 3.8 million refugees registered with UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency, which was set up specifically to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian refugees, 33 per cent. live inside one of UNRWA's 59 refugee camps. That is the background against which it is said that the Arab states must decide what will happen to the refugees. It is not up to those states. If anyone believes that it is, a major mistake is being made, and one that will come back to haunt us. The outcome will be catastrophic.

521
If I were living in Israel, I would not want to talk about the refugees. We cannot get Israelis to talk about them. If there are refugees, we must ask from where they came. Who made them refugees? To where do they return? All refugees have that right. Of course, if they all returned, Israelis would say that that would be suicide. That word is used again. Yet again the Palestinians are referred to in the context of suicide for someone else. When they exercise their rights, somehow that becomes a threat to someone else.
No one has asked them what they feel, what they believe and what they understand. Not even the Palestinians have done that. We did. The JPMEC went to the area in September 2000, and we took 40 hours of evidence from Palestinian refugees. That has been reported, and a document has been sent to every Member of this place. The report is entitled "Right of Return". It is not a frightening document. Evidence was given for 40 hours and tapes are available for anyone to hear. Tomorrow, the Arabic version of the report will be published. There will be a verbatim account of what the Palestinian refugees are saying.
Not one Palestinian wants to kick Israel into the sea. The Palestinians accept the reality that there is a state of Israel. They accept that if they accept the right to return, they will have to live in Israel. They want that right so that they can decide for themselves. Yasser Arafat cannot negotiate that right away on their behalf. One of the reasons why the Oslo process failed is that the multi-track approach did not include the views of the Palestinians. The refugees were not spoken to. That is not possible.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to take some time to read the report. The Palestinians recognise that they do not want to visit on others what has happened to them. They know that times have moved on. They know that they cannot return exactly to what the situation was. They understand that there will have to he accommodations. However, they have rights. If we do not recognise those rights, we will lose, and quite heavily. There will be more problems. The issue will not be resolved unless that is recognised.
We need to consult the Palestinian refugees, but there is no mechanism whereby those who are not within the Palestinian Authority in the west bank of Gaza can even communicate with the Palestinian leadership. It is significant that all the Palestinians accepted that the PLO was their representative body. That still did not give the PLO the right to negotiate away on their behalf their right of return.
We could use—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
8.4 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: Today is yom ha'Zikaron, the Israeli day for remembering the fallen soldiers who died fighting for Israel. They were fighting for a Jewish homeland. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, three years after the end of the second world war. That was a war during which 6 million Jews were systematically and brutally murdered in a plan to wipe out Jewry everywhere.
522
I am not Jewish, nor do I have a large Jewish community in my constituency. However, I am a strong supporter of Israel. That is because in the period ending only 15 years before I was born, across the channel just a few hundred miles south-east of my constituency, Jewish men, women and children were being gassed. The Jewish people need a homeland.
In discussing the middle east, and especially the situation in Israel, we have become accustomed to using phrases such as the cycle of violence, intransigence on both sides and the failure of negotiation. They are phrases that seem to imply that each side is as bad as the other; that each is equally worthy of our support or, more usually, our condemnation.
There are however, important different differences between Israel and its opponents. Israel is a democratic country that upholds the rights of its citizens and uses military force only for self-defence. It is surrounded by countries that are, to a greater or lesser extent, hostile to its very existence. Every day, Israel faces fierce and even deadly opposition to its very survival from enemies who seek their ends through force and terror rather than through democracy.
As UN Security Council resolution 242 declared 34 years ago, it has
"the right to live at peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
That right is still not recognised in full by many of Israel's neighbours.
The Palestinian Authority is a haven for terrorism. It glorifies suicide bombers through its media and tells them that they are martyrs. It has authorised the Tanzim militia, an organ of Yasser Arafat's Fatah PLO faction, to fire upon Israeli civilians and soldiers. It tries to import arms and ammunition from terrorist allies such as Iran. It tells its people and educates its children to believe that every ill is the fault of Israel.
The unfashionable truth is that the greatest obstacle to peace in the middle east is not a breakdown in diplomacy. The biggest obstacle is terrorism on the citizens of Israel. That is terrorism which Yasser Arafat, as President of the Palestinian Authority, has done nothing to end. At Oslo, in 1993, and elsewhere Arafat has renounced terror and agreed to control it, but terror continues unabated. If Arafat can call an end to the terror, why has he not done so? If he cannot, what possible claim does he have to a place at the negotiating table?
It has come to be accepted that the cause of the current crisis in Israel was the visit by Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount in September 2000. Like many things that come to be accepted about Israel that is wrong. The roots of the present crisis can be found two months earlier at the summit at Camp David. Palestinian spokesmen have said so themselves. Communications Minister Imad Al-Falouji, for example, was reported in the semi-official Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Ayyam on 6 December 2000 to have said that
"the Palestinian authority had begun preparations for the outbreak of the current intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself."
It added that this was a
"culminating stage to the immutable Palestinian stance in the negotiations, and was not meant merely as a protest of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount."

523
The Camp David summit illustrates in microcosm the story of Israel's relations with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. This was a summit at which hopes were high for real progress. The world called for flexibility on both sides and Israel responded. Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered unprecedented compromises—real sacrifices—to achieve a workable and enduring peace. He offered 94 per cent. of the remaining land of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. He offered Arab and Christian east Jerusalem, and he offered an additional parcel of the Negev to make up for the additional 6 per cent. He could not meet every Palestinian demand but he offered genuine concessions. What was the Palestinian response? The proposal was rejected out of hand and then we had the current intifada. That is how we find ourselves now.
Israeli civilians are subjected every day to violence and mayhem. People in Jerusalem, Haifa and every town in Israel are afraid to leave their homes and Israeli leaders and soldiers struggle every day to protect and defend them. An accusation often levelled at Israel is that it is not really interested in peace. It is alleged that it prefers to remain in military conflict rather than negotiate with the Palestinians. This accusation is unjust. After generations of conflict, the people of Israel yearn for peace. Their leaders are willing to achieve it through negotiation, hence the offer made by Mr. Barak.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gibb: No. The change of Government in Israel has not destroyed that willingness at all. Prime Minister Sharon—I am no great defender of him—expressed his readiness to return to the table to make painful concessions for a true peace. He has stated his acceptance of the Mitchell plan. But Israel understands that peace cannot exist in the shadow of terrorism. We should respect its leaders' firm resolve not to negotiate under fire and their determination to take action, which the Palestinian Authority should have taken, to destroy terrorist capability.
In recent days, attention has focused on the Jenin refugee camp. The pictures emerging of the aftermath of the battle are ugly and brutal. But it is easy to overlook the facts: between September 2000 and the beginning of Israel's action there, Jenin was the source of no fewer than 23 terrorist attacks on Israel, including suicide attacks on Afula and Hadera. The Palestinian Authority knew Jenin was a centre of terrorism, but did nothing to prevent the attacks or to apprehend the perpetrators. There were pitched battles in Jenin; 13 soldiers were ambushed and killed, and 23 soldiers were killed in total. We have yet to see what did happen in Jenin, but Israel has been careful to minimise civilian casualties, which is why the mission has taken so long, and why Israeli forces have suffered. The Israelis could have done what we did in Afghanistan: they could have conducted aerial bombing of the area, which would have resulted in far higher casualties overall, but fewer Israeli casualties—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gibb: It is said that the military action against terrorists will simply encourage more fanatics to join the militant brigades to wage war on Israel; there is some
524
truth in that. But those people, like the young woman who blew herself up in Jerusalem on Friday killing six Israelis, cannot supply their own explosives, plan their campaigns, finance their operations or import their own arms. Israel is therefore taking action against the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure—a task that Arafat should have undertaken himself.
Our Prime Minister said last week that the only way to resolve the conflict is not to take sides. With respect to the Prime Minister, who is undoubtedly committed to do everything in his power to help bring about peace in the middle east and whose support for President Bush in the fight against terrorism has been inspiring, he has got it precisely the wrong way round on Israel. First, terrorism has to stop, and we must side with those who oppose terrorism and oppose those who support terror. We must not equate the perpetrators of terrorism with its victims.
Some people say that the situation in Israel can be compared with that in Northern Ireland; the parallel to be drawn is that if only the two sides will negotiate, peace can be achieved. But like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I believe the lesson is quite different: progress towards peace can be made only when terrorists decide that they will not succeed through violence. President Arafat has done nothing to suggest that he has yet made that decision.
Many people argue that the situation in Israel is not quite as simple as I have described. In some ways that is true; there are many questions, not least about land, that go back many generations and myriad grievances will need to be addressed if a lasting settlement is to be achieved. Those things are a matter for negotiation, to the success of which Israel is committed. One does not have to be a committed Zionist to understand Israel's stance against terrorism; one merely has to favour democracy over terror.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
8.14 pm
Mr. Tony Clarke: With the obvious exception of the last contributor, hon. Members have been reluctant to apportion blame for the current conflict. However, it is possible to do so. It is not just Israel and Palestine that are responsible; others should shoulder blame for what is happening in the middle east, including nation states such as our own, other European democracies and the United States of America. They have long remained inactive, allowing Ariel Sharon to take his war to the occupied territories over an extended period.
In his recent statement to the House on the middle east, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, developed the message of his address at the George Bush Senior Presidential library in Texas on 7 April and said:
"Doing nothing is not an option."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 23.]
He was, of course, referring to our response to the worsening situation in Iraq. I accept that there are different views about what should or should not be done about that, but most hon. Members believe that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States would have been wiser to call for action against the genocide and bloodletting in Israel and Palestine which, as we know, has led to the deaths of 1,500 Palestinians and more than 400 Israelis. That death toll has risen substantially over the past few days.

525
In addition, we have seen on our television screens not just pictures of the refugee camp in Jenin but disturbing reports suggesting that the conflict could extend beyond Israel's borders to other Arab nations. When we see scuffles and military action in and around other Arab states, we must take a step back and see what we can do to try to prevent the crisis from worsening and spreading.
President Bush's "axis of evil" speech was rightly criticised; it was not well received in this country or across western Europe. President Bush did himself and the office of President a great disservice by lumping together countries such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an evil threat to western democracy. He must have had criteria for judging those countries—a way of determining their ranking in the league table of evil. He would have had to include the following in his list: whether nation states aggressively occupied others' territory; whether they were in breach of United Nations resolutions; whether they were willing to defy international law and opinion; and whether he thought them capable of using military force against a civilian population.
If President Bush used those criteria, he would have to include Israel in his statement about countries that form an axis of evil. Those double standards have led to much unrest and disagreement, both in the United Kingdom and across the world, about what action should be taken in the middle east, not just in Israel and Palestine but in Iraq. Such double-speak has led to people like me arguing that without renewed UN authority, and while the situation in Israel and Palestine remains unresolved, UK military action in Iraq would be at best immoral and at worst illegal.
I said that we should shoulder some of the blame and guilt. There have been many warnings in the House and elsewhere about Ariel Sharon's endgame since he came to office. I tabled an early-day motion on 30 October 2001, which received 102 signatories. Like many other Members who tabled early-day motions on the same subject, I was trying to highlight for the Prime Minister and the Government our concerns about what would happen unless action was taken. My motion welcomed the Prime Minister's statement calling for a viable Palestinian state and asked the Government to hold Ariel Sharon to account. It talked about his incursions and his continued occupation of the west bank and Gaza in defiance of American calls for Israel to withdraw. What hope is there of Israel listening to President Bush now, if way back in October 2001 when the USA and President Bush were calling on him to withdraw from the Palestinian territories, Ariel Sharon took not one jot of notice? The early-day motion warned that unless the peace process is restarted, the Palestinian Authority will be undermined and the region further destabilised.
Since then, the situation has deteriorated. I had the pleasure, and the displeasure, of being in Israel and Palestine at the start of the intifada. I believe that the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) do the House a disservice when they suggest that Ariel Sharon's walkabout, as it was described at the time—Ariel Sharon's setting foot in the grounds of the Haram al-Sharif, the Temple Mount—was not the cause of the latest unrest and the intifada.
526
As someone who was on the streets of the west bank at the time, I can tell the House that there was only one reason for the unrest. There was only one reason why Palestinian youth took to the streets and started to engage Israeli troops, and the reason was Ariel Sharon's actions that weekend. Let history show that to be the case, and let apologists not suggest that there were other reasons for the start of the intifada at that time.
During my visit to Palestine, I visited villages in the west bank—Batir, Husan and Wadi Fuquin—where I saw some of the forerunners of the present conflict. We were shot at while visiting charity projects for World Vision. Israeli forces entered villages, answered stone-throwing youths with live bullets and dumdum bullets, which are illegal under international law. I then visited Bethlehem and Rachel's tomb and witnessed the shooting of a young man within 20 yards of where I stood. I felt that I as a westerner was clearly picked out and allowed to walk within gun-sight of Israeli defence force soldiers without being shot. They were clearly targeting individuals for assassination and have continued to do so ever since.
I went to Gaza city and visited the Shiffa hospital. I walked around the intensive care ward. It must have been clear to all the consultants and surgeons that none of those occupying the 14 beds would survive their injuries. I spoke to the parents and relatives of those lying there. Anybody who wants to know why there are martyrs and why people become so desperate that they will give up their own lives should speak to the relatives of those who have been butchered and assassinated by Ariel Sharon and the Israeli defence force over many years. One can then start to understand the pain that they feel and why they feel so hopeless that they resort to such terrible acts of terrorism.
Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: I do not have time.
Time prevents me from saying all that I had intended, but in the remaining time I shall mention two matters. When we discuss international aid in the Adjournment debate tomorrow, we must turn our attention to the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Palestine and the occupied territories of the west bank and Gaza, particularly in Jenin. Oxfam and World Vision speak today of gross violations of international humanitarian law, military targeting of medical personnel, denial of medical care and violence against International Red Cross and Red Crescent workers, and they give examples of such terrible atrocities, including the systematic—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
8.24 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I apologise for being rather creaky. I sometimes wonder whom I would sue if I had a deep vein thrombosis in the Chamber after a long-haul debate.
Even before the recent Israeli offensive on the west bank, the humanitarian situation was very grave indeed. Life was hard for Palestinians. Some may ask why it should be, when they are surrounded by friendly Arab states, some of which are extremely wealthy. Nevertheless, I repeat that life is very hard. Child malnutrition in Gaza has doubled in the past year. I repeat: doubled. Unemployment in Gaza is

527
85 per cent., the result of border closures. Thirty-seven per cent. of people in Gaza and 15 per cent. on the west bank are living in poverty—that is, on less than $2 a day. That has happened over the past year or so—a breeding ground for terrorism, if ever there was one.
Recent events in Jenin have horrified the international community, however many terrorists were hidden there. That was eloquently and vividly described by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd).
Over the years, the European Union has provided a large amount of aid to try to combat the problems of the Palestinians, but much has been destroyed by Israeli action. The list provided by the Department for International Development in response to my parliamentary question on 26 March is in the Library. I have a copy. Twenty-two European Union projects have been destroyed or badly damaged. Some were mentioned by name by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
The airport at Gaza is totally destroyed. The list includes schools, hospitals, the sea port, forestry projects, landfill sites and water installations. I heard from Oxfam today that the engineers are not allowed to go in and repair them. The lack of clean water is a huge problem for the Palestinians. The list goes on and on. Almost 20 million euros worth of aid has been blown up in the past two weeks.
I well understand that the Palestinians are not entirely without blame. It has been said tonight that they hide terrorists among civilians so that the civilians suffer too. I have seen reports, and been given reports by constituents, of Red Crescent ambulances being used to transport explosives and terrorists. There is blame to be laid there, but we must remember that terrorism is desperation and it is a very dirty business.
In the eyes of the world, Israel must take responsibility. It is seen as exerting disproportionate force. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) put it eloquently when he said that we expect more of a state like Israel.
Will the Minister say who will refund the European Union? There are many calls on those funds from all over the world. Will Israel be forced to pay reparations for the damage? If not, how can those essential services be restored?
I had a useful meeting with members of the Jewish community in my constituency on Sunday evening. They are eminent and highly regarded members of my community, one a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. I love and respect them all. They asked me to make three main points in the debate tonight. First, Mr. Sharon is not admired by them, nor are his methods, but they are firmly committed to a free and secure Israel and will always support the Israeli people. Many have relatives there and visit them often.
Secondly, my constituents want to support the Palestinians' right to their own free and secure state in Palestine, and wish to see withdrawal from the occupied territories to facilitate that. The settlements must indeed go. Thirdly, and above all, they wish me to say that they welcome the Saudi peace plan and the recognition by the Arab League of the legitimacy of the state of Israel. They felt that that was a huge movement forward and that the international community must not lose the opportunity to build on that gesture. They want negotiations based on the plan.
528
My constituents showed me an interesting piece written by Amos Oz, a well-known left-wing Israeli. I confess that I did not know of it, but some in the House may do so. I should like to quote what Amos Oz said:
"Israel is fighting two wars. Only one of them is just. One is the Palestinian nation's war for its freedom from occupation and for its right to independent statehood. Any decent person ought to support this cause. The second war is waged by fanatical Islam, from Iran to Gaza and from Lebanon to Ramallah, to destroy Israel and drive the Jews out of their land. Any decent person ought to abhor this cause. Yasser Arafat and his men are running both wars simultaneously, pretending they are one."
Of course, we must support the just war, but we should abhor the unjust war against Jews worldwide that is waged by Islamic fundamentalists. I contend that the unjust war is one of the reasons—if not the main reason—for the suicide bombings, on the basis of a combination of desperation and hopelessness, laced also with a huge dose of religious fundamentalism.
There is already much evidence of anti-Semitic campaigns being waged in universities, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife pointed out. I have brought evidence with me of what is happening in universities in this country in terms of action against synagogues and individuals throughout Europe. Just as we urged people to support the ordinary Muslim after 11 September and not to blame them for the acts of fanatics, we must support our Jewish friends throughout Europe who do not like the methods that are being used by the Israeli Government. I hope that the Minister will assure us that action will be taken against anyone who is found to be inciting racial hatred.
The situation in the middle east is dangerous and terrifying for all of us and I urge the Government to seek to use all means—I support wholeheartedly many of the suggestions made in the House—to bring the two sides together yet again.
8.32 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: We are witnessing the tragedy of the conflicting rights of self-determination of two peoples and the consequences of the derailment of the peace process that should have led to the creation of a new, independent and viable Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. That derailment happened when Yasser Arafat decided to walk out of negotiations 17 months ago and resort to terrorism—a decision that was criticised by the PLO's major negotiator in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh, who said that it was a major missed opportunity.
That major missed opportunity has been a tragedy for all in the region. In Israel, we see the carnage caused by the work of suicide bombers who deliberately target civilians in cafes, at 12-year-olds' birthday parties and discos, and families and elderly people in particular as they sit down to religious festivals. We have seen targeted carnage in places such as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya, Hadera, Beersheba and Afula. On the west bank, we see the tragedy of destruction and loss of life as the Israelis make their incursions into the Palestinian west bank in an attempt to prevent suicide bombers from planning and executing new outrages.
I deplore the loss of civilian life, and the loss of the lives of innocent people. Where there is evidence, outrages must be punished, but surely it is absurd to suggest that any Government can ignore the continuous

529
targeted killing of its citizens by people who believe that their country should not exist. Let us consider what happened in just one week this month. The casualties in Israel caused by the deliberate targeting of civilians for no other purpose than the creation of terror are the equivalent of 400 people killed in this country, with 2,500 injured. That would be the United Kingdom equivalent of what happened in Israel in one week in April—and that is not an isolated week.
As many hon. Members have said, attention must be concentrated on how we move forward, but before that can be achieved a number of unpalatable and extremely difficult facts must be faced. First, terrorist suicide bombings by Palestinians are directed against the existence of the state of Israel. We have heard much today about the desperation that may drive some people to commit these atrocities and massacres against Israeli civilians, but let it never be forgotten that suicide bombings began on Israeli civilians when the peace process was under way. They began when Rabin and Peres began their peace initiative; indeed, they brought down Shimon Peres' Government and ushered in the Government of Netanyahu, who was not committed to the peace process or to peace. History then repeated itself, and it was the suicide bombers who brought down Barak's Government as he fought so hard to achieve a genuine peace. The result of the suicide bombings carried out while Barak fought hard to bring peace was the ushering in of the Sharon Government; again, we saw coming into power a Government led by someone who was not dedicated to peace.
It is important to remember that the continuing outrages committed by Palestinian bombers and by people shooting indiscriminately have occurred to a great extent within the green line, or within Israel's 1967 borders, so I fear that it is promoting a misleading fallacy to pretend that suicide bombers are the result of occupation of the west bank and Gaza, much as I deplore that occupation and want it to end. I believe that the evidence shows that those suicide bombings are about the attempted extermination of the whole of Israel and what is seen as the occupation of Palestine.
The second unpalatable and difficult fact that has to be recognised is the reality that Yasser Arafat is part of the terrorist network. There is abundant evidence that he broke the promises that he made at Oslo while that peace process was ongoing, where he said that he would deal with conflicts and difficulties in a peaceful manner and without resorting to violence. At the end of 2000, he ordered his security services to release many Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists, many of whom had been convicted for terrorism under the Oslo provisions.
Mr. Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Ellman: I am sorry; I have no time.
Perhaps even worse, information has now been revealed on the Israeli incursions in the west bank, and specifically on its incursions into Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah, giving direct evidence that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have been the paymasters of the terrorists, including the very recent ones who are still wreaking havoc.
530
Invoices have been found in Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah from the Al Aqsa martyrs brigade, which is directly connected to Yasser Arafat, asking for reimbursement from the Palestinian Authority for explosives for bombings in Israeli cities. Those requests were directed to Fouad Shoubaki, the Palestinian Authority's chief financial officer for military operations. Some, dated 16 September 2001, ask for money for bombs and to finance posters promoting suicide bombers. Indeed, since that date 12 suicide bombings have been carried out in Israel by that very group.
The Israelis have found and made available a handwritten note from Yasser Arafat dated 19 September 2001 authorising payments to three militia leaders, including the Fatah commander Ziad Muhammed Daas, who masterminded the suicide attacks at the Hadera bat mitzvah massacre on 7 January 2001. That massacre, which took place at what is in effect a birthday party for 12-year-old Jewish girls, killed at least six people and injured 35, many severely.
That is recent evidence, unearthed by the Israeli incursions into Ramallah, of Yasser Arafat's continuing direct complicity in the direction of terror, which is being perpetrated to ensure that there can never be peace.
It is important for everyone who seeks peace to remember that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians will not be resolved without recognising the impact of international terrorism. Iraq is deeply involved through its funding of the families of suicide bombers. Recently, Iraq decided to increase its payments to the families of suicide bombers, who now receive $25,000 every time a suicide bomber goes out on a mission.
There is awareness of the involvement of Iran, especially in the case of the Karine A, which was carrying a shipment of arms to the west bank. Fortunately, it was intercepted by Israel. Those arms were intended for the purpose of firing on Israeli cities, in direct contravention of the Oslo agreement. Syria is involved in direct funding of Hezbollah and Hamas.
Hon. Members referred to the increasing number of anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in this country and other countries—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
8.42 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, because there have been many fine speeches, which I cannot hope to emulate. They introduced passion, commitment and a great deal of understanding of the situation in Israel and Palestine.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), like my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), assisted the debate by ensuring that we balance an understanding of the issues as appreciated by those who live in Israel, and have suffered at the hands of terror for so long and to such a dreadful extent, with an understanding of the perspective of Palestinians who have suffered so much injustice.
At times I felt that some hon. Members strayed into representing views, or even repeating propaganda, more than aiding genuine understanding. Nevertheless, it is to

531
the credit of the House that anyone who cares to read the whole debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) suggested, will at least, even if they do not think that an appropriate balance was struck overall, appreciate that we understand many of the views of those involved and trust and respect one another in doing so.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, that sense of trust is precisely what is missing in the middle east process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the Foreign Secretary explained how past negotiations and discussions brought the parties close to the point where they could see an end, but did not reach it. Although we can argue about who was to blame—Ariel Sharon at Temple Mount or Yasser Arafat promoting the intifada—agreement was not reached and trust between the parties broke down. There is now such an absence of trust that it is difficult to see how they can be brought together.
As we move towards the conclusion of this debate, I do not envy my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) or the Minister their task of trying to sum it up. We have to think not only of what has happened and who is to blame but of where we are now and where we should go. There has been insufficient emphasis in the debate on the American Government's desire to play an active part in seeking a way forward, with which we can assist, and too much cavilling about what may or may not have been a lack of commitment on the part of President Bush after what was clearly an immense effort by President Clinton to secure agreements.
It is hardly surprising that President Bush thought that he would not devote so much political capital and energy to securing an agreement in the middle east in the immediate wake of his election. He knows that he has to do it now. That is not simply because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the genesis of so much terror and crisis across the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said; more particularly, it is because the Americans know that only they have the ability to bring the necessary influence to bear on the Israelis. It is no good believing that anyone else can do that. It is even worse for us to make suggestions about sanctions against Israel, as that would simply convince the Israelis that they had no option but to defend themselves entirely according to their own justification and judgment, rather than according to the judgment of the international community. The Israelis must understand that the international community understands and supports them, their right to self-defence and their right to exist.
President Bush said in his speech in the rose garden:
"This can be a time for hope, but it calls for leadership".
Of course, that leadership must come not least from the Americans. We should applaud the fact that Secretary Powell is in the middle east meeting some of the participants in this conflict. We should particularly applaud the fact that he is meeting Chairman Arafat. We in this country do not necessarily understand how that will be received in America, or how difficult it is for the American Secretary of State to meet Yasser Arafat, for example, or members of the Syrian Government. It is difficult, but he is doing it.
We need to determine how to escape from this position of mutual mistrust and incomprehension. On the face of it, that will not happen with Ariel Sharon at the helm
532
in Israel and Yasser Arafat at the helm on behalf of the Palestinians, but how do we move from that position? We cannot govern who is democratically elected as Prime Minister of Israel, or Chairman of the Palestinian Authority. We have, however, reached the point at which we must tell Prime Minister Sharon that he cannot determine who speaks for the Palestinians in these negotiations. So, it will be either Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat, or neither of them. Secretary of State Powell's meeting with Chairman Arafat could be interpreted as important in that respect, because he accepts that Chairman Arafat has that authority for the time being. Prime Minister Sharon should also accept that.
I entirely support what my right hon. Friends the Members for Horsham and for Devizes said earlier about the nature of the problem, and about where we need to go from here. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, we must understand that there is a Palestinian cause, but it is not one that justifies terror. We must understand that the Israelis have the right—and, if necessary, we must offer them responsible support in exercising their right—of self-defence and striking back against those who would use terror against them.
We must understand that even in the context of further negotiations that may lead to a settlement, which is plausible, we will not eliminate terror levelled against Israel, whatever its source—whether it comes from Hezbollah, from some of the fundamentalist Islamic groups supported in Iran, or from anywhere else. We must be prepared to support Israel in the process of distinguishing between legitimate Palestinian causes and the pursuit of terror.
We must do something else as well. If we expect a high standard from Israel in respect of how it exercises its right to self-defence according to the rule of law, we should also expect the Palestinian Authority, if it aspires to statehood, to meet the standards of statehood. That means ensuring that it exercises the monopoly of coercive power within its state, that it does not allow terror to be used from that state with its consent or even through negligence on its part, and that it uses the rule of law to bring those responsible for terror to justice.
8.51 pm
Mr. George Galloway: In the years during which I was on the campaign trail with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I used to describe him as the best Foreign Secretary that Labour never had. I think that he proved that again this evening.
The real Foreign Secretary, on the other hand, sought at the outset to inject a tranquilliser into the debate. He proceeded on that basis to paint a picture that I thought bore little relation to the reality of what is happening on the ground. He and his opposite number seemed to be building sandcastles in the air, talking of a peace process that no longer exists and of all the things that Ariel Sharon will have to do—which, as is manifestly and abundantly clear, he has no intention whatsoever of doing: he will tell anyone who is listening, and indeed those who are not, that he has no intention of doing them, not now, not ever. They made demands of Arafat that he do this and that in his cell in Ramallah. He was being asked to control—from a cell full of holes, without water, without a toilet, without a telephone, without electric light, without policemen,

533
without an army, without transport and without the ability to leave Ramallah—the destiny of millions of his compatriots.
In the Foreign Secretary's discourse and in that of his opposite number, I smelt no whiff of the cordite of the ordnance that, as we speak, is shattering the edifice of the basilica of Bethlehem. In their, if I may say so, rather complacent Front-Bench consensus I did not smell—as I did so vividly when my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was speaking—the death camp of Jenin. I did not picture the children drinking sewage. I gained no grasp of the immediate, desperate tragedy of all this.
Instead, we heard a long recitation of what we all know already—of what the final solution of the conflict will have to be, namely two states living side by side. We do not need to debate that; what we need to debate is how we get there. Nothing that the Front Benchers had to say led me to believe that they had any manifesto or programme for bringing that about. We should compare what they said with the radical set of proposals presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton. He actually had a plan for how we and the United States could, and should, force Sharon to the negotiating table, and for the concessions that he must be forced to make. We should compare that with our own Government's performance. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, in the United Nations conference yesterday we could not even bring ourselves to vote to condemn the massacres. The Foreign Secretary said that the resolution was unbalanced, but it was not so unbalanced that most of our European partners could not vote for it. Why was that impossible for us?
What is Britain doing to rise to the occasion? We are selling guns to Ariel Sharon. In fact, the Government are selling more weapons to General Sharon than we sold to Ehud Barak, the so-called dove who preceded him. The Minister answered my earlier question, so the Government know that Israel is brazenly breaking former assurances that it would not use those military weapons in the occupied territories. The Minister said that he would demand an assurance on that, but we have had none. The Foreign Secretary said today that he could no longer rely on Israeli assurances. Given those facts, what is stopping us announcing now that we will sell no more arms to General Sharon?
Time will not permit me to develop more than a few extra points, so I shall deal with two dramatic events that have occurred over the past couple of days. They are pregnant with further disaster, and I direct my remarks to those friends of Israel who have been eloquent in the past few minutes.
First, the capture and proposed trial of Marwan Barghouti; is a very dangerous development. Marwan Barghouti; is the second most important man in Palestine, and he may well be the president of the Palestinian state one day. He is not an Islamic fundamentalist or extremist, but a leader of the progressive nationalist wing of the Palestinian resistance. The friends of Israel must accept that when Sharon marginalises, imprisons and murders the leaders of the nationalist wing of the Palestinian resistance, he ensures that the torch of nationalist leadership will pass to the irrational and irreconcilable
534
Islamist fundamentalist forces. They are the main beneficiaries of Sharon's rampage through the Palestinian territories.
I ask this of the friends of Israel: please do not harm, humiliate or, after a kangaroo court trial, imprison Marwan Barghouti. With Yasser Arafat, he represents the last hope of a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said earlier, from the Opposition Front Bench, that Arafat was not flexible. My God, Arafat is so flexible he could be made of india rubber. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that another Palestinian would be more flexible than Yasser Arafat, his learning curve has some way to go.
Barghouti and Arafat are the last hopes of a two-state solution. If we lose them, we are in for prolonged war between Islamic fundamentalism and Israel. How any friend of the Jewish people could think that that would be a step forward beats me.
My second, and final, point, concerns the proposal from General Powell in the past 24 hours for a regional peace conference that did not involve the Palestinian leadership. Someone in London will have to tell our special friends in Washington that the Palestine Liberation Organisation became the sole legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people more than 25 years ago. No Arab leader, however much of a puppet he may be, would ever turn up to speak for the Palestinians at a conference from which the Palestinian President was forbidden, and certainly not at a time when that President is besieged and imprisoned in a cell in Ramallah. We have to shoot down that moth-eaten kite now, because it seems to be emerging as the only concrete product from General Powell's ill-fated and ill-starred visit to the region.
In conclusion, I implore the Government to be bolder and more imaginative. We have a special responsibility here: in this building was authored this tragedy when one people promised a second people the land of a third people, without consulting any of the three peoples concerned. Balfour did not speak for the British; the Zionist movement to which he promised the land at that time was not only not hegemonic among world Jewry but represented only a small fragment of opinion in world Jewry. The Palestinian people, whom even Balfour said had inalienable rights that must not be prejudiced, were the last and least to be consulted about that historic declaration.
We have a special responsibility to try harder than other people, to go the extra mile to get justice for the Palestinian people when we played such a seminal part in the tragedy that has befallen them. The great Albert Camus said:
"All civilised people have a duty; not to be on the side of the executioners"—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
9.1 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: Even if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) has little time or patience with the Foreign Secretary, there are plenty of voices on the official Opposition Benches who appreciate what the Government are trying to do and applaud the measured tone and balanced approach that the Foreign Secretary took this afternoon.

535
I believe that the Palestinians played into the Israeli rejectionists' hands by refusing a generous deal with Ehud Barak at Camp David less than two years ago. I believe, too, that the Israelis have now played into the Palestinian rejectionists' hands by responding to terrorist bombings with a military offensive. Terrorism should be met by proportionate and effective measures, and that is not happening.
I hope that the House will not play into the hands of the rejectionists of both sides by adopting double standards. If ever there were a case of extremists feeding off each other, it is this one. It has reduced the prospect of rapprochement between Israel and the Palestinians to the present dire straits.
I have been sad to see that double standards have explicitly been applied in the course of this debate. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said that because Israel is a democracy, we expect a higher standard from it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) similarly said that because Israel is a state, we expect a higher standard from it. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who belongs to the Scottish National party, said that Israel is a democratic state and should be judged by a higher standard. What is this if not moral relativism? If we wish to condemn one side or another in a terrible conflict such as this, we must apply similar standards of morality to each side. We must not say that because one side in the conflict is a state or a democracy, it is unacceptable for it to overreact to terrorism, but because the other side is not a state or a democracy it is less morally reprehensible for it to embark on terrorism in the first place.
My view is that Arabs have consistently tried, over many years, to destroy Israel and, since 1967 at least, Israelis have consistently tried to colonise occupied Arab territory. After 1967, the Israelis were in a position—had they wished to he magnanimous—to conclude peace settlements with their erstwhile enemies. They were not magnanimous and when Sadat successfully launched the Yom Kippur war in 1973, it was an opportunity for the Arab nations to regain some self-respect and to negotiate realistically with the Israelis to bring about peace. Sadat and Begin seized the opportunity after 1973 and, as was said earlier, Sadat—whom I regard as one of the heroes of the history of the middle east conflict—paid with his life for his foresight, generosity and courage.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) claimed that nobody supports the suicide bombers. Tell that to the people who organise telethons in Saudi Arabia to raise vast sums for the relatives of those bombers. It is a fact—alluded to previously in the debate and not, as far as I know, denied—that many of the suicide bomb attacks have been carried out by the Al Aqsa martyrs brigade. That body is directly linked to Fatah, and there is little doubt that it would not continue those terrible activities if Yasser Arafat were not willing for it to do so.
There is an example of the support for the suicide bombers in an article published as recently as 1 April in the Saudi press—in a Government-controlled daily called Al-Jazirah. It says of the Passover bomber:
"May Allah have mercy upon you…mujaheed and martyr, the quiet hero who infiltrated so elegantly and spoke so gaily. You defended your religion, your homeland, and your people. You attached no importance to any Arab summit; you did not wait for
536
international agreements; you did not follow television interviews; you did not pause because of dead Arab and international reactions that neither help nor hinder."
The article uses similar words to describe the supermarket bomber, a young teenage girl. It states:
"May Allah have mercy on you…You left your home for the path of martyrdom and Paradise. Your family knew not where you were headed, and knew not that you had chosen the way of martyrdom. There was nothing to stop you…You proceeded with a determination, will, and strength rarely found, even impossible to find, in a 16-year-old girl."
The article concludes by asking that Allah and the angels welcome both of them as religious martyrs and beseeches Allah to give them
"the highest level of Paradise".
Is it only Sharon who is the cause of the present situation? Many people have chosen to load him with all the guilt and to say that he is why the present situation is so disastrous. Only yesterday, however, The Times published an article written by Ehud Barak himself. He said of the missed opportunity at Camp David that the Arab states and Yasser Arafat had been offered
"a contiguous and independent Palestinian state, over more than 90 per cent. of the West Bank."
This is Barak speaking—not Sharon the extremist. He said:
"Mr. Arafat refused even to take it as a basis for negotiations and turned deliberately to terror. To reward this is like feeding a crocodile—it only increases its appetite."
Mr. Barak's view of Mr. Arafat is as follows:
"Mr. Arafat does not envision a Palestinian state alongside Israel but a Palestinian state instead of Israel, and now he tries to dictate it by dispatching brainwashed human missiles to commit suicide and murder civilians."
That is the moderate voice of Israel speaking, not the extremist.
Several right hon. and hon. Members asked what drives a teenage girl to blow herself up and murder innocent civilians. The suggestion was that it is a form of desperation, caused by the Palestinians' plight. Yet, no one said anything like that about the suicide hijackers of 11 September—when the reasons were truly given: hatred, brainwashing and religious-based fanaticism. If the House applies one standard to Palestinian terrorism and another to the terrorists of 11 September, it will forfeit the right to be taken seriously on this life and death issue.
9.10 pm
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I am grateful to the House for the chance to contribute to this very timely debate. This is a grave period for people in the middle east. Colin Powell's intervention is welcome, but he has much to do before he is seen as even-handed. Ariel Sharon suggested an international peace conference, excluding Yasser Arafat, when he met Powell on Sunday. The US Secretary of State now states that Yasser Arafat would not need to attend such an event, which serves only to undermine his leadership among the Palestinians.
According to a statement by the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information, Palestinians now identify more strongly than ever with President Arafat. Mr. Powell told reporters that President Arafat
"has the ability to empower people in the Palestinian movement who represent him."

537
He added:
"The conference does not necessarily require his personal presence to get started."
It is difficult to imagine a key leader being excluded from genuine peace talks anywhere else in the world. It is even more difficult to picture the fair-minded Secretary Powell agreeing with such an unreasonable demand.
New Israeli calls for peace talks will be empty rhetoric if President Arafat cannot leave his front door in Ramallah. Prime Minister Sharon has also omitted the European Union from prospective delegations to such a conference. Discussions will be extremely short if the Israeli leader wishes to talk only with those who agree with him.
I welcome Mr. Powell's recent engagement with other Arab leaders to avert the conflict widening throughout the middle east. The Lebanese Government have said that they will attempt to restrict attacks to the disputed Shebaa farms. President Lahoud also called on Mr. Powell to view the middle east situation with "objectivity and realism" and not to be influenced by Israel's presentation of events. We must all heed that warning.
In particular, we must exercise extreme caution over yesterday's arrest of Marwan Barghouti, the west bank Fatah leader, a view I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). Mr. Barghouti denies charges of stoking violence and encouraging the suicide bombers. He must not simply be a scapegoat for Israeli retribution against acts of terrorism. The evidence must be openly presented against him. In the same way, the evidence of the horrendous conditions in Jenin must be presented to the world.
According to The Independent today, a monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed in Jenin refugee camp. The International Committee of the Red Cross has finally been allowed into the west bank refugee camp after the Israeli onslaught. The ICRC has found destruction and a terrible smell in the camp. Israeli tanks and bulldozers have reduced much of it to dust. Workers from the Red Crescent and the Red Cross have begun to treat the injured before bringing out the remaining dead. Their task is enormous. The Palestinians say that hundreds died in Jenin, but Israel denies that. Our Government must join with others to uncover the truth.
The indiscriminate force currently being used by the Israeli army in the west bank against a civilian population is a form of collective punishment. According to Oxfam, there has been systematic targeting of medical personnel, denial of medical care to the injured, and threatened violence against clearly identified ICRC staff, Palestine Red Crescent Society staff and UN staff. Damage to water lines and pumps has left approximately 400,000 people in Ramallah, Nablus, Qalqilya, Bethlehem and Tulkarm without access to running water. Almost all hospitals in the west bank are now surrounded by Israeli tanks, which compromise the free and safe movement of staff, patients and emergency vehicles. Hospital generators, electricity and telephone lines and water supplies have been deliberately damaged by Israeli soldiers. United Nations organisations including the UN Development Programme, the UN Fund for Population Activities, the World Health
538
Organisation, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Relief and Works Agency issued the following joint statement on 10 April:
"This is a humanitarian crisis without precedent in its destructive impact on the Palestinian people and its institutions".
The UN resolution accusing Israel of "gross violations" of international law must be acted on. Our partners in the European Union have a pivotal role. I am disappointed, however, that European Foreign Ministers have rejected calls for trade sanctions against Israel. However, I understand the reluctance to act while Colin Powell is in the middle east pushing for peace, for fear of undermining him.
I welcome Germany's decision to suspend its supply of military equipment to Israel and urge our Government to consider a similar gesture. The EU, not America, is Israel's largest trading partner. Under a special agreement between the EU and Israel, the latter enjoys preferential trading under an association treaty. The European Parliament has already voted to suspend this agreement. If there is no sign of real progress following Mr. Powell's intervention, will the Minister assure me that the British Government will consider again the issue of trade with Israel?
Ariel Sharon must recognise that there has to be a political solution, which cannot be imposed by force or by killing innocent men, women and children. Israel has been ignoring or breaking UN resolutions for the last five decades, and still enjoys blind support from the United States of America. The USA must adopt an even-handed approach to deal with the UN resolutions if President Bush wants to bring peace and stability to the region.
9.17 pm
Mr. John Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at this late stage in what has been an extremely interesting debate; in fact, it has been one of the best debates that I have heard in the House. The House has been shown at its best.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to move away from the general discussion that has taken place and focus on a single tragedy arising from the situation in the middle east. Before I do so, I should like to make a personal observation: as far as I am concerned, there is no justification for the use of human bombs to kill innocent civilians in the streets of Israel, just as there is no justification for the suicide attacks on the United States of America. Attempts to seek such justifications are unwarranted and wholly wrong. I must also say that there is no justification for the actions of Israeli soldiers in the last 12 days—I speak as an ex-service man. Their actions bring disgrace and dishonour to the uniforms that they wear. They have no right to call themselves soldiers if they carry out such heinous crimes.
In the short time available to me, I want to draw the attention of the House and the country to the desperate plight of four young Welsh children who have been caught up in the terrible horrors that have been taking place in the middle east. The four children of my constituent, Mrs. Eileen Sutton of Barry, have been trapped in a house in Nablus for the past 12 days. They are unable to move, and the house has been occupied by 21 heavily armed Israeli soldiers. The occupants of the house—not just the four children and their immediate

539
family but other children and adults—have been pushed into one room. These young children—constituents of mine—have been warned not to go near the windows because they might be shot dead if they do. There is no justification or excuse for treating children like that in any war or any situation.
These Welsh children are British citizens and British passport holders. Not only that: they are British wards of court. In other words, the legal guardians of the trapped children are the British Government. Everything humanly possible should be done to move the children immediately and to place them in the safe custody of the British consulate general in Jerusalem.
I have been in touch with my colleagues on the Front Bench, the Foreign Office and the British consul in Jerusalem. We have had regular contact. I also wish to place on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). She raised the plight of the children when she was in Israel last week. I thank her for her efforts to get them released into safe custody.
These children were born and brought up in the little town of Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan. Just a few months ago, they went to local schools, clubs, after-school clubs and discos. They enjoyed the life that our children and grandchildren take for granted. However, in just a short space of time, they have found themselves in the most horrendous and despicable situation.
I am aware that such cases involve desperately difficult diplomatic and political considerations. In fact, it has been put to me that moving the children right now might create a spark that could result in an escalation in the violence in Nablus. If that is the thinking, we have got it all wrong. There should be one consideration only: the children are in grave danger and should be moved to safety immediately.
I hope that the fact that I have been able to refer to this desperate case in the debate will mean that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do all in their power to return the children to the safety of their mother at home in Barry, in south Wales. I hope that they will not delay any further. The children are the only British subjects in such a position anywhere in the occupied territories or where the Israelis have moved in and attacked and threatened innocent civilians. These four young innocents do not deserve to find themselves in such a situation. For God's sake and in the name of humanity, get them out of there—and get them out now.
9.24 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: Although I sympathise greatly with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and I want to see his constituents returned, I should point out that the last time I saw children in Palestine, they were being put into graves.
The important point is that the Israeli state is waging a war on people who, in the main, are innocent. Although some may be taking up arms on the Palestinian side, or committing acts that some have described as atrocities, the reality is that we are facing the butcher of Beirut, who has also become the butcher of Bethlehem. There is a madness to current events there. The Christian bell-ringer at the church in Manger square was shot dead by Israeli troops, and an Armenian monk was shot in the back by Israeli troops and left to die. The bodies of Palestinians
540
remained unburied because their burial in Manger square would probably have turned a shrine to the Christian birth into a shrine to Palestinian martyrs.
As I have only a few minutes, I shall skip many of the points that I wanted to make, some of which have already been made. In my view, the flaw lies in the original Oslo agreement, which was supposed to provide land for peace. It is no wonder that some on the Palestinian side left the negotiations. It became clear that what was on offer was not a Palestinian state and an Israeli state, but land criss-crossed by Israeli roads leading to settlements. Such an arrangement would have fragmented the west bank in such a way that a Palestinian state could never have proved viable.
Most people do not know that the majority of the land in Gaza is still under the control of the Israelis; in fact, Israelis go on holiday there. I have visited Gaza several times and walked on its beach. It is beautiful, but nearby Beach Camp is infested and rat-ridden. Along the coast, however, there are protected zones where the people of the cities of Israel can spend a nice summer holiday, protected by Israeli troops.
In terms of peace, when I was in Beirut, the people looked to Hezbollah to provide spokespeople for the Palestinian diaspora. When my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and I visited Gaza last year, it became clear that people were turning not to the Palestinian Authority, but to Hamas, and that those who had supported the Palestinian Authority were looking to other, more violent methods of extracting a settlement from the Israeli Government.
We must ask where the solution lies. Does it lie in Sharon, who clearly came to office on the back of a promise of peace and security? Jewish friends whom I used to visit in Tel Aviv have left Israel altogether, because they do not believe that Sharon can deliver peace and security. He is displaying not statesmanship but the worst form of militarism. His record—from events in Beirut to his election as Prime Minister—made clear what kind of Prime Minister he would be. He thinks that he can defeat the Palestinian people, and that they will have to accept whatever solution he offers, but that will not happen. He is creating bitterness and feeding future generations with the desire for retribution. I am amazed to hear that he enjoys 67 per cent. of the popular vote in Israel. That is a disaster for Israel, among other nations.
On the question of whether the solution lies with Yasser Arafat, my view is perhaps controversial. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) that Yasser Arafat represents the non-militant, non-Islamic view. However, as a European Union observer at the elections, I share the view of many who wanted the Palestinian Authority to come into being that they are failed and devalued. Arafat is accused of approving of Fatah members who participate in violence, but what other option did he have? It was clear that Hamas, Hezbollah and other fragmented groups that support Islamic jihad were getting popular support. The Palestinian Authority were being valued less and less.
What could Arafat do, given that Israel was killing children? I have not seen martyrs dying with bombs strapped to their chests, but on many occasions I have seen snipers or members of the official Israeli defence force shoot children who were throwing stones at, or shouting at Israeli soldiers when they were killing their

541
brothers and their mothers, and even the nurses and drivers of ambulances who went to try to help those who could be rescued. Have we forgotten the sight of the man perched behind a bollard with his son behind him while the Israeli defence forces shot until they killed that child? Although Arafat has had to take a more militant stand, such events lead me to believe that he is either the rock upon which peace will be settled or the rock upon which the future peace of Israel will be dashed. It would be insane to encourage anything that would allow him to be taken out.
I do not believe that the solution lies with the United States of America. I was in Washington on 11 September. On 10 September when we met State Department officials they had no perspective on Israel and Palestine. It had no middle east policy and did not understand the demographic, geographic or economic factors of the region. Since 11 September, it has had to make up policy on the hoof. I do not believe that they can do that without our help. Do the Government really believe that they can influence the USA so that it takes seriously the one solution on the table—the proposal by the Arab nations which is almost the same as UN resolution 242—because that is the only way forward?
I am disappointed that I do not have more time to speak. This is the first time that I have tried to speak in the Chamber since 13 September and I am disappointed to get the fag end of the debate.
9.31 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: If the hon. Gentleman is at the fag end of debate, I do not know where that puts me.
The debate has been a high point for this Parliament. In the 10 years in which I have been a Member, I have not heard a better one. The six hours of discussion have brought credit to all the participants, of whom there were many—I counted the contributions and I am the 32nd to speak. There were respectable differences, passionately and genuinely put, and division and argument that did not follow traditional party lines. Every contribution was infected by a sense of moral judgment—not to say outrage at times—and by a genuine search for peace, decency and civility in this highly complex issue.
For some, the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is just a local skirmish on which they can turn their back, but they are wrong. They are very wrong on mere grounds of justice and humanitarian decency, but they are doubly wrong because the continuing conflict in the middle east has the potential to spark global conflagration on a massive scale. We, as politicians with opinions and influence, have a duty to grapple with the issue in all its complexity.
I want to echo the good sense spoken by the Foreign Secretary. He gave us three guiding principles that he and I hope all of us believe should govern our approach to the issue. First, there is no monopoly of right and wrong. Secondly, Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to live side by side. Thirdly, no solution can be reached by force. In all those three, the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right and we share them in every respect.
In fact, on this issue perhaps more than any other, it is easy to champion one side. Anyone can easily take up the cudgels for one side against the other, but they soon find
542
that for every argument there is a counter-argument and for every claim there is a counter-claim. They simply get into a tit-for-tat debating battle. We need understanding rather than grandstanding and to appreciate that there is a limited purpose to any antiphony of blame. There is no point being simplistically partisan. We all have to struggle to be even-handed and to bring the sides together. We need to take steps that allow us to see an end to the polarisation that has bedevilled the argument for decades.
It is not necessary to be anti-Israel to be pro-Arab; nor is it necessary to be anti-Arab to be pro-Israel. It is not nonsensical to be pro-both. Indeed, I would contend that if one is to be pro-peace, one has to be pro-both. In the 20 years in which I have travelled the Gulf, and in which I think I have been to every country in the wider middle east, I have been pro-both, and I would do anything to steer the two sides down the path towards peace.
We have to understand history to understand the intensity of opinion which governs this debate, and it is so easy to be selective about history. Perhaps "understand" is not quite the right word. I saw on a wall in Jerusalem the telling sentence, which explains to the beginner in the middle east debate the simple truth:
"If you're not confused, you don't understand."
That confusion arises from the complexity of the issue, because it is complex in its history, in its geography and in the interaction of political powers. There is also the unfathomable complexity of some of the personalities involved.
Looking at the history, and perhaps at the risk of being slightly selective myself, I point out that the Foreign Secretary skirted slightly over the events of 1948, and so much stems from the war of Palestine between April and September that year. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for admitting that—I am obviously not being over-selective.
Of course, one can go back to the Balfour declaration, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) did. In 1948, however, in the aftermath of a war in which Jews had been heinously herded and hounded towards intentional annihilation, their right to a homeland was widely recognised in principle, but the first steps to its inception also caused its subsequent problems. In 1948, the minority population of 600,000 Jews displaced about 1.4 million Palestinians. Perhaps above all it is that expulsion that has festered for over half a century. So now we have two sides, and we have heard the shades of debate today, as we have heard them in many comments on television and elsewhere.
Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although undoubtedly there were expulsions, it has also been accepted on both sides that many Palestinians fled, believing that they would return as successful invading forces?
Mr. Duncan: That question perfectly illustrates the complexities that we have to unravel. I have to give credit to the Israeli Government, as a democracy, for releasing documents that add to a better understanding of history as academics try to look back to the events that unfolded 50 years ago.
We have two classic, distinctive polar points of view. The Arabs feel that they are second-class citizens; they feel dispossessed and permanently humiliated. They feel

543
that 4 million Palestinian refugees are condemned to a life in camps. They feel—this is simple but true—that America is Satan. They feel that much of their land is occupied and that the world looks to them with double standards. At the same time, across the divide, the Israelis feel threatened too. They feel insecure, and they think that people want to drive them to the sea. They feel compelled to protect themselves because nobody else will, and they feel that some Arabs do not believe that they have the right to exist as a state.
We have seen all shades of that opinion in today's debate. I want to pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), so I am sorry that she is not here. All of us, while munching our cornflakes, have listened to her broadcasts on Radio 4 from Jenin. I think that they have been remarkable and I look upon what she has done over the past few days with supreme admiration. It takes a lot of courage to tread the rubble of a refugee camp such as Jenin in the middle of a conflict such as the one that we have seen, and it takes courage to look down the barrel of a tank. Perhaps in her absence, I can pay proper tribute by saying that she knocks the spots off Kate Adie.
We have had many contributions, and it is invidious to mention any of them, but I will mention some. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that Israel must behave like a legitimate state. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), speaking as the president of the Conservative Friends of Israel, said that Israel should withdraw, but urged us to remember the Israeli state of mind, which governs so many of its actions. I also draw attention to a remarkable speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I cannot mention all the contributions, but what emerged from them is an acknowledgement of the need for a two-state solution in which there is mutual recognition and mutual security for both Israel and a Palestinian state.
What could have emerged more strongly is that there are in this vicious debate ingredients that give glimmers of hope. The essential ingredients of a deal and a settlement are present. In a way, the boundaries between the two states are almost the easiest bit, and recognition that the two states have to live side by side is growing. By and large, there remain only three main elements of a potential settlement: the large, concrete settlements in the west bank, the right of return demanded by the Arabs, and the vexed question of Jerusalem in whatever form is chosen. None the less, the ingredients are present, in a scattered jigsaw that needs to be assembled. The initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah is admirable—the first top-level collective Arab endeavour working towards peace and prepared to establish normal relations with Israel.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin asks the right question: how do we get there? Although one or two voices have been heard today dissenting from this view, much points to the Americans as the people who have to take the initiative if steps towards a ceasefire and further negotiations are to be taken. The USA is the key: it must keep up and prosecute its pressure on Ariel Sharon to withdraw from the west bank. It is American pressure and influence evenly applied on both sides that matters most.
544
In the minutes remaining to me, I shall focus on a further dimension to this intense debate. From the burning of one small match, an enormous fire can result, and the danger we now face is of a huge conflagration flowing from the Israel-Palestine conflict. The conflict has the capacity to inflame the wider Arab world, and far more besides. It is for understandable reasons that that has only been touched on in today's debate.
Already—without the regional turmoil that an invasion of Iraq might provoke—the entire region is a tinderbox. With 70 per cent. of its population restless Palestinians, Jordan is living on a knife edge. The Hashemite hold on the country is far from firm, and Jordan depends wholly on Iraq for its annual economic bloodstream of £850 million worth of oil. Saudi Arabia is a sort of Faustian pact between the al-Sauds and the clerics. Well in excess of half its population is under 30 and it faces a perilous period of unrest which is barely contained below the surface. Iran is in a state of transition, and critics provoke and offend it into enmity instead of choosing to draw it into bonds of friendship. Egypt—barely a democracy—is finding itself increasingly incapable of controlling the street. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain—for all its recent reforms—and Qatar are far from safe. Even Oman—perhaps the most stable and progressive of all the Gulf states—is wary of the growing mood of resentment.
If the regimes in those countries fall, an explosion of popular fury will push them rapidly into the hands of maniacal clerics whose intolerance and aggression will make the current activities of PLO militarists seem as nothing. It is not an exaggeration to say that the world would be pushed towards massive conflict if that were to happen. A series of regimes in the Gulf thrust into different hands would be far more perilous for the state of Israel. Currently, those regimes feel impotent, and their populations are on the edge of revolt.
The question of Israel and Palestine is crucial to the management of all that danger. For their sake and for the sake of the wider world we must now do all we can to walk down the path to peace.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on an excellent speech. I agree wholeheartedly that this has been an excellent, well-attended debate—the most thoughtful that I have heard since coming to this place nearly five years ago. I thank all those who have contributed. I express sympathy to those who did not even become the fag end of the debate—I refer to those who were not called, having waited six and a half hours.
The debate has rightly been dominated by the grave situation in the Palestinian territories and Israel. However, I shall refer first to Iraq, on which the Government have made their position absolutely clear. Military action is not imminent or inevitable. Both my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have made it clear that, if that were to be the case, there would be ample future opportunity for debate in this place. All Britain's efforts at the moment are in the direction of trying to get Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions and the return of weapons inspectors.

545
I believe that the House is agreed that the situation in the Holy Land is extremely grave. The spiral of violence is intolerable, and it has the potential to set back the cause of peace by years. The recent policy adopted by the Israeli Government in defiance of world opinion has been wrong, counter-productive and futile. The failure of the Palestinian leadership to curb violence and stop the suicide bombings has made the job of those in Israel who argue for a better policy much more difficult.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members made powerful speeches, giving their analyses of the current situation. They included my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Most of those Members, if not all, described themselves as traditional friends of Israel. However, they all expressed extremely strong concern that while Israel must have its right to security, it has done itself immense damage by its recent behaviour, which has been unacceptable and counter-productive.
Many Members listened in silence to the testimony of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who sadly is no longer in her place. It has been supported by a growing number of United Kingdom press reports. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear this afternoon that if we had our own official reports by now, we would give them to the House. I am pleased to tell the House that our defence attaché in Tel Aviv made a trip to Jenin today with two colleagues and has returned safely. His report states:
"all the available evidence is that the"—
Israeli defence force—
"used disproportionate and excessive force. What we cannot say is how many people in the camp were killed, who they were and how they died. This may take some time to be established."
I hope that I speak for the House in calling this evening on the Israeli Government to allow full and unrestricted access to international charities to the Jenin camp. I wish to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) that we are doing everything that we can to get the children to whom he referred out of Nablus. At present, we have been given no permission by the IDF to go there. However, we have received assurances from the Israelis that the children will not come to any harm.
We have rightly heard from a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) and for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), about the current psychological state of the Israeli people. It was right and proper that we heard from those Members. If we are to solve the situation, we must understand the Israelis' sense of vulnerability. I was pleased that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk said that she agreed that Israel should take note of international opinion and comply immediately with UN resolution 1402. It was right of all the right hon. and hon. Members to whom I have referred to remind the House of the devastating psychological impact of the campaign of suicide bombings and their counter-productive effect on the hopes for peace.
546
I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said about the disappointment in Israel about the Camp David failure. I do not want to spend too much time dwelling on the past or going into claims or counter-claims about who was to blame for the failure of Camp David. For the remainder of my speech, I wish to try to point out a way forward.
Richard Burden: Briefly, as chair of the all-party Britain-Palestine group, I had hoped to contribute to the debate but sadly could not. We have heard an alternative view from Israel in the House today, on which I would appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. Uri Avnery, the noted peace campaigner, was here and made it clear that we do the peace camp in Israel no favours at all if we ease up on our criticism of its abrogation of human rights. I am sure that he would welcome my hon. Friend's speech. It is important to recognise that there is an alternative view in Israel, which we should support.
Mr. Bradshaw: I recognise that.
In his extremely constructive contribution, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked whether there were parallels with Northern Ireland. I agree that there are some parallels, but not others. One parallel that he accepted was the need for political dialogue; there is no simple security solution to the problem of Israel and the Palestinian territories. In the absence of politics, extremists fill the vacuum. There are responsibilities on both sides, which have been clearly spelt out by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in countless United Nations resolutions, most recently in the unanimous resolution 1402 adopted 10 days ago.
There are also responsibilities on the Arab states. The whole House welcomed the unanimous declaration of the recent Beirut summit in support of the initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and our Prime Minister's recommendation that it should be embraced in a UN resolution.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asked specifically whether we had taken measures or had had recent conversations to try to dissuade some Governments in the region from supporting rejectionist groups. The answer is yes, we do so regularly. The Foreign Secretary has recently had conversations with his Iranian counterparts, encouraging them to play a more positive role. Colin Powell was no doubt in Syria and Lebanon to deliver similar requests.
Many hon. Members stressed the importance of third-party involvement and, above all, the importance of the engagement of the United States of America. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) all stressed the unique ability of the United States to make a difference in the region and its responsibility to engage there. We should all welcome the statement of President Bush last Thursday week on the eve of his weekend summit with the Prime Minister in Crawford. My right hon. Friend the

547
Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) added sound advice on how best to sustain American engagement and persuade the Americans to fulfil their responsibilities in the region.
We heard an important contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who expressed his growing feeling that the incremental approach of the past had not worked: the old models of Madrid and Oslo were not the way forward. The Government have some sympathy with that, which is why the Foreign Secretary spelt out in his opening speech more clearly than any other recent British Foreign Secretary what a final settlement would look like. He went into considerable detail, which I do not intend to reiterate, about what an Israel secure in its borders, with normal relations with the Arab world would look like, and what a Palestinian state, viable, recognised and respected by Israel, would look like.
That will not be easy, and it will require a number of myths to be debunked. Several of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have been doing a good job of that in the past few hours. One of those myths is that the right of return will mean in practice the return of all Palestinian refugees to green line Israel. That will not happen. On the Israeli side, such myths include the idea that there can be a viable Palestinian state without east Jerusalem as its capital, and the idea that there can be a peace settlement while the existing Israeli settlements remain in their present number in the occupied territories. The settlements are against international law and they will have to go.
Right hon. and hon. Members made a number of other suggestions for measures and actions. Let me say at the outset that it would be foolish for any politician to rule anything out for ever. What we do not want to do is detract or divert attention from the current important diplomatic efforts, particularly the mission of Secretary of State Powell.
On arms, contrary to what was suggested, the Germans have not implemented an arms embargo. There is no EU consensus for such an embargo. I understand that the answer which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife thought that he had received from the Foreign Secretary did not arrive in time, so I wish to put it on record that our current policy is that we will no longer take into account the Israeli assurances given to us in November 2000 that they would not use UK-originated equipment in the occupied territories. Those assurances have proved to be unsound. Nothing that could be used for internal repression or external aggression will get an export licence. In the current circumstances, those criteria will apply widely to military equipment destined for Israel.
On sanctions, I do not believe that that is a sensible idea at this stage. It would simply push Israeli public opinion further into the bunker in which it already is, as we heard from hon. Members. We do not want to do anything, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) said, to undermine Colin Powell's mission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley suggested that we cut off diplomatic relations. I do not
548
think that that would be sensible at this stage. It has not been done by Arab states that have diplomatic relations with Israel. It is vital that we keep those avenues of dialogue open. We may well feel better by suggesting such gestures, but the Government are interested in action that will make a difference on the ground and increase the likelihood of a settlement with justice.
I have endeavoured to respond to the points and questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members during the debate. If hon. Members feel that I have failed to do so, will they please speak to me afterwards? I shall happily write to them.
There is overwhelming agreement in the House that the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories is desperate, but I should like to leave the House with a ray of hope. A number of the ingredients that are essential for a peace settlement are in place in a way that they never have been before. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) when he rightly said that minds have moved in the past 10 years.
There is unprecedented international agreement about what peace with justice in Israel and Palestine would look like. Despite the current situation, that is still supported by the majority of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians. It is a vision that unites the Arab world, the United States, Europe, Russia and the United Nations. It is enshrined in the recent United Nations resolutions and in the unanimous declaration of the Arab summit in Beirut. Following President Bush's statement, America is more engaged than it has been before, and Colin Powell's mission is continuing. The signs give us cause for cautious optimism.
The parties in the region—the Israelis and Palestinians and their neighbours—must grasp this opportunity. They must show the courage and the leadership to achieve peace with justice, rather than condemn generations of Palestinians and Israelis to more death, violence and hatred. Britain, as always, stands ready to help.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
LYNNE JONES, who acted as a Teller in Division No. 211, came to the Table.
Lynne Jones: I have to inform the House that in the Division for leave to bring in a ten-minute Bill this afternoon, we reported that the votes for the Ayes were 163. They were in fact 154.
Mr. Speaker: The House will have heard that correction, and I shall see that the record is corrected.

The Middle East
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    MENTAL HEALTH
    That the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3712), dated 18th November 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th November, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
    That the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 682), dated 14th March 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Asylum Accommodation Centre (Bicester)
  10.1 pm
  Tony Baldry: This is the petition of the residents of the villages of Arncott and Piddington in my constituency, supported by people in neighbouring villages and the town of Bicester. The petitioners object to the proposal by the Home Office to build an accommodation centre for asylum seekers on land vacated by the Ministry of Defence. They are concerned that the proposal to locate an asylum seekers' accommodation centre in Bicester is not in the interests of the asylum seekers themselves and they are alarmed that the centre will overwhelm local communities. The petition has been signed by almost every single resident of the villages of Arncott, Piddington and Blackthorn and is supported by people in neighbouring Bicester. The petition states:
  The Petition therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Home Secretary to look for more suitable sites for asylum accommodation centres from the perspective of both asylum seekers and local residents.
  To lie upon the Table.

Local Authorities (Libel Actions)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Patrick Hall: I am grateful to have secured this short debate on a matter that is of considerable importance to many of my constituents in Bedford and Kempstown and to other residents of the borough of Bedford, some of whom are represented by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), whom I am pleased to see in his place.
The matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the House arise from events that took place within Bedford borough council during and after the counting of the votes at the district council elections in May 2000. I do not wish to dwell on the detail, but it is necessary to outline the context before I come to the substantive issues.
Bedford borough council is a hung council—no party has had overall control for 15 years or so. For the past two years, councillors have failed to elect a leader of the council, which has inevitably led to a situation in which responsibility for decisions is not transparent, there is no clear accountability and little openness, the chief executive has developed a very powerful influence among councillors, and personalities rather than politics have become predominant.
After the declaration of the result for the Brickhill ward in Bedford at the May 2000 elections—a result that delivered a narrow victory for the Conservative candidate over the sitting Liberal Democrat councillor—it was discovered that 86 postal votes had not been opened and had therefore not been counted. The ballot papers were subsequently opened—the following day, I believe—by an officer of the council acting on the prior advice of the council's solicitor. Candidates and agents were not present, but were later told that the informally counted postal votes did not alter the result.
Ten days or so later, a Liberal Democrat councillor suggested to the chief executive and the council's solicitor that the council should, under rule 47 of the local election principal areas rules, ask the county court to order a recount of the ballot papers. The officers agreed to do that. The hearing took place on 23 and 24 May 2000. On both occasions, it was adjourned. At some point later the council discontinued its action.
Immediately after the hearings, the local Conservative party agent issued a news release, claiming maladministration by the borough council for pursuing a misconceived application under rule 47. That procedure is designed for election agents who represent candidates, not returning officers. The content of the news release contributed to the coverage of the Brickhill election count in a local weekly free newspaper called Bedfordshire on Sunday.
Three senior council officers—the chief executive, the council's solicitor and the council's employed lawyer—sued the Conservative agent and local Sunday newspapers for defamation. The complaints were about the Conservative party news release and two articles published by Bedfordshire on Sunday. The case was heard in the High Court in February before a leading libel judge, Mr. Justice Gray.

551
The council's solicitor and lawyer lost all their claims. The chief executive lost on two counts and won on two, and was awarded £27,000 damages because the judge ruled that the news release had wrongly alleged political bias on the chief executive's part. The claimants were ordered to pay 80 per cent. of the costs to the defendants. The amount is likely to be £400,000 to £450,000.
The important point is that the complaints were private actions that Bedford borough council supported and maintained from the start. The council's executive committee met on 7 June 2000 and, in private session, received a report from officers advising the committee that the council had to support and maintain the private libel actions under its duty of care to its employees. Councillors apparently considered legal advice to the effect that because the three officers were criticised for actions undertaken in the course of their duties, the council could face legal claims for dereliction of its duty of care if it did not agree to support them.
The all-party committee duly agreed to support the libel actions. It agreed that the costs of the intended claims should be financed from the contingency reserve. Furthermore, on 14 February 2001, the executive committee agreed to take out insurance of £50,000 to cover up to £250,000 costs should the private libel actions prove unsuccessful. Again, the public were excluded from the meeting. In the event, the council did not purchase the policy, and decided to self-insure out of the contingency reserve. The bill, as I said, will exceed £400,000.
On 6 March this year, the executive committee agreed to support and maintain the council's solicitor and lawyer if they were successful in seeking leave to appeal against the judgment. Full council has yet to endorse that position, but if an appeal is made, and if it is unsuccessful, the costs to the public purse in Bedford borough will naturally be substantially higher.
Bedford borough council has agreed to use public money to maintain private libel actions. It has also committed staff time and resources in support for many months. It has justified that under its duty of care to employees.
I am deeply disturbed by the situation, which has serious and wide-ranging implications. The obligations and responsibilities associated with the duty of care do not include maintaining private libel actions initiated by employees. Duty of care, as I understand it, covers matters such as safeguarding health and safety, dealing promptly with grievances, taking reasonable care, and acting in good faith.
I do not believe that any case law suggests that duty of care extends to funding private libel action. I do not believe that an employment tribunal in the land would consider any failure to sponsor such action to be a fundamental breach of the contract of employment. Councils can and do fund prosecutions when employees have been assaulted in the course of their duties, but there appears to be no duty of care to fund libel actions. However, given the contrary position adopted by Bedford borough council, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider for the avoidance of doubt whether the Government's advice to local authorities on such matters should be reviewed.
I turn now to the maintenance by a local authority of libel actions. I strongly oppose that, because the use of public money to suppress public criticism would
552
fundamentally undermine freedom of expression and, therefore, democracy itself. If a Government or a local council disagree with comments made, they have suitable avenues open to them to obtain a remedy without recourse to litigation. The normal and healthy response is to investigate the complaint, debate the issues openly and issue a rebuttal in the media.
Public criticism of an officer or councillor may sometimes be harsh and unfair, but that is an occupational hazard. The more senior the individual in an organisation, the better one would expect that to be understood. If a council considers a particular instance worthy of an investigation and a reasonable response, it has the means to pursue such a course of action; supporting and maintaining a defamation action is clearly beyond reasonable. That being the case, it is perhaps unsurprising that English local authorities have only twice sued for damages, in 1891 and 1972.
In 1993, in the case of Derbyshire county council v. Times Newspapers Ltd., the Law Lords held that:
"A local authority did not have the right to maintain an action for damages for defamation, as it would be contrary to the public interest for the organs of Government, whether central or local, to have that right. Not only was there no public interest favouring the right of Government organs to sue for libel but it was of the highest public importance that a governmental body should be open to uninhibited public criticism, and a right to sue for defamation would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech."
Lord Keith of Kinkel, expressing his opinion en route to the ruling, made the following observation:
"I regard it as right for this House to lay down that not only is there no public interest favouring the right of organs of Government, whether central or local, to sue for libel, but that it is contrary to the public interest that they should have it,"
He also approved of the following statement made in a much earlier South African case:
"I have no doubt that it would involve a serious interference with the free expression of opinion hitherto enjoyed in this country if the wealth of the state, derived from the state's subjects, could be used to launch against those subjects actions for defamation because they have, falsely and unfairly it may be, criticised or condemned the management of the country."
Not maintaining an action for damages surely means not doing so either directly on the local authority's own account, or indirectly, or by proxy by funding its employees to do so. Naturally, individuals enjoy the right to sue for damages, and that includes individual councillors and officers. It is the maintenance of such actions through public funds that is wrong. Bedford borough council has done just that. I believe it is wrong, and many of my constituents believe it to be wrong. They know that there are dozens of better ways of spending their money than through the irresponsible commitment of hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal costs. They know that this whole business represents a diversion of time and energy from the real tasks that should concern the council—those of promoting the borough and running effective services. I could not agree with them more, and I think that the people of the borough are owed an apology by the council. Whatever my constituents may think, however, events have unfolded in the way that they have. Despite the rather strong evidence that the council's actions ought to he ultra vires, there is a need to clarify the situation once and for all.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have already tabled a parliamentary written question on these matters, and I see from his reply that the Government are thinking

553
about local authorities having the power to provide indemnities to councillors and staff. I understand that the Government will want to go through the process properly. I must ask my hon. Friend, however, to give an indication of where he stands, given my immediate concerns and those of my constituents, given that Bedford borough council may, in the next few weeks, confirm its willingness to endorse its executive committee's recommendation that public funds be made available to maintain appeals by two council officials, and given also the wider public interest considerations that I have raised.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that local authorities should not maintain and support libel actions directly or indirectly. I hope that he will also agree that such actions cannot be in the public interest, that they would undermine freedom of speech in our country, that they form no part of duty of care, and that they must therefore be stopped once and for all.
10.14 pm
Alistair Burt: I am grateful to both the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and the Minister for allowing me a couple of minutes.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Bedford has raised a matter that is of great concern to his constituents and to mine, and I associate myself with what he has said. The whole thing appears to be a classic example of circumstances in which personality is allowed to cloud judgment, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations that are made. Words spoken or written in, or shortly after, the heat of an election battle are perhaps not always the wisest. My constituents are appalled that the matter has gone as far as it has, and appalled at the cost.
Bedford borough council is running out of time in which to re-establish credibility with its electorate, as was shown in a recent vote on the possibility of electing a mayor. It is time for the council to put aside the variety of personality issues that have beset it in recent years and damaged its effectiveness. It is time for serious thought about the council's good name, and its ability to serve properly residents who deserve rather better service than they have had in recent years from a council that has been hung and unable to perform its duties effectively. Perhaps this debate will fire a final warning shot over the bows. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) for giving us an opportunity to discuss this subject. The debate is timely: the issue is one that we in Government have been actively considering, albeit, as I shall explain, in a slightly different guise.
I must make it clear that I do not intend to comment on the case itself. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is currently before the courts, and I consider it inappropriate to comment in such circumstances. I am, however, happy to comment on the general principle of circumstances in which local authorities can and should indemnify their members and officers, using public funds, for any personal liability arising from actions or decisions made by them in the course of their official duties.
554
In the past, local authorities have relied on various statutory provisions to provide indemnities—provisions dating back even to the Public Health Act 1875—but doubts have been raised from time to time about the extent to which authorities can rely on those powers. Given the importance that the Government attach to modernising local government and to local authorities working in partnership with other bodies, it is important for those doubts to be removed. That is why, in section 101 of the Local Government Act 2000, the Government took order-making powers to allow the Secretary of State to enable authorities to indemnify their members and officers in respect of personal liabilities. The scope of that provision is deliberately wide. and permits the order made under section 101 to remove any doubts about the circumstances in which authorities can provide indemnities.
The next step is for central Government to consult on how we might give effect to such an order. I will now outline the ideas that we are minded to present in a consultation paper that we intend to issue this summer. We are minded to permit the indemnification of members and officers within certain bounds, but I want to make it clear that we are still considering those issues, within Government and with stakeholders, and that we will not make final decisions until we have received responses to the final consultation paper.
In the making of an order under section 101, the following questions need to be addressed. Which relevant authorities are to be allowed to provide indemnities? Who should authorities be able to indemnify? In what circumstances should indemnities apply? Should any restrictions be placed on authorities' ability to provide indemnities? I will say something about each of those questions.
First, there is the question of which authorities should be able to provide indemnities. Section 101 allows the Secretary of State to enable all relevant authorities in England, and police authorities in Wales, to provide them. Although the range of functions undertaken by the various authorities varies considerably, the Government see no reason to withhold the right to give indemnities from any relevant authority. Parish and town councils are as likely as other authorities to appoint members to serve on outside bodies such as charitable trusts. In such circumstances they need to be able, if they so wish, to indemnify those individuals against personal liabilities in the same way as other authorities.
Secondly, who should authorities be able to indemnify? The 2000 Act allows the Secretary of State to provide that authorities should be able to provide indemnities to some or all of their members and officers.
The Government believe that it should be for authorities themselves to determine which members and officers should be granted indemnities. Accordingly, our consultation will propose that the power should be widely drafted and not limit the class of member or officer to whom indemnities can be given. Instead, the power will permit authorities to grant indemnities to specific individuals, at the discretion of the authority. However, we also believe that the power to grant indemnities out of public funds should be limited to circumstances in which the member or officer acts in an official capacity.

555
Thirdly, what liabilities should authorities be able to indemnify? The Government believe that authorities should be permitted to indemnify individuals against any personal financial liability that they incur in the service of the authority.
Accordingly, authorities' powers should be wide enough to remove any doubts about their ability to indemnify individuals, including where an individual becomes personally responsible for the debts of a body to which they have been appointed by the authority; or where an individual incurs costs defending himself against legal proceedings brought by a third party—including any in which the member is co-joined with the authority.
Fourthly, should any restrictions be placed on authorities' power to provide indemnities? This is the crux of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, and of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).
Again, the House will understand that I cannot comment on the detail of the Bedford case. However, I can say something about the Government's views on the principles of the use of public funds to meet costs of legal action for libel.
The Government believe that indemnity at public cost should not he used to allow individuals to avoid all personal responsibility for their actions. Accordingly, we intend to propose that members and officers should be able to rely on indemnities only if the action giving rise to the liability was taken in good faith, and was not unlawful or reckless.
We are therefore minded to propose to prohibit authorities from indemnifying members or officers for the cost of taking legal action for slander or libel. We are content that authorities should be able to provide indemnities to individuals against the costs of defending such actions, but we do not believe that individuals should be funded at public expense to bring proceedings against a third party. That would risk, among other things, an increase in litigation, and it could stifle legitimate public debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford mentioned the comments of judges on that issue.
Of course, I must stress that none of that would prevent someone pursuing legal action for libel in a personal capacity. However, we are also minded to prohibit authorities from indemnifying members or officers in two further situations—when they provide guarantees or
556
letters of comfort to third parties on behalf of the authority, and when they incur costs answering allegations that they have breached codes of conduct.
As a matter of principle, the Government do not believe that public money should be spent by members as part of the process of establishing whether or not they have behaved improperly. Moreover, the procedures to be adopted by the new standards board and adjudication panel should preclude the member from having to be legally represented by affording him or her a full opportunity to make their case without having to undertake the cost of additional legal representation.
Proposals on which the Government will shortly be consulting will give authorities a role to play in the investigation and determination of allegations of misconduct. In such circumstances, if authorities were also faced with having to meet members' legal costs, there would be a potential conflict of interest. Authorities would have a legitimate interest in minimising the potential cost to the authority, and in ensuring that allegations were properly investigated and dealt with. It is possible that, on occasion, those interests might conflict.
These are the ideas that we are likely to put forward in our forthcoming consultation paper. Before going out to consultation, we will discuss the issues further within Government and with the Local Government Association. We will also prepare a draft order so that consultees can see how we intend to give legal effect to our proposals.
In closing, I emphasise again that nothing is set in stone. We will consider carefully the responses that we receive from authorities and other interested stakeholders to our consultation paper, which we expect to issue in the summer. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire are sent a copy.
After we have considered the responses, we will consider the need for further changes. We will then lay the order before the House for debate under affirmative resolution procedures. I hope that the order, once laid, will provide the clarity concerning indemnities that does not exist at present.
I hope that this information is of some help to my hon. Friend, and thank him again for providing an important opportunity to discuss the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
SIR MICHAEL LORD[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

EU Enlargement
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]
9.30 am
Mr. Wayne David: It gives me great pleasure to begin this morning's debate on one of the great issues of our time—the proposed enlargement of the European Union.
The enlargement of the EU is not new. It was enlarged in 1973, when Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined what was then the European Economic Community. Greece joined the European Union in 1981, Spain and Portugal joined in 1986 and Austria, Finland and Sweden joined in 1995. Significantly, the enlargement anticipated in 2004 will be bigger and more ambitious than any we have seen before: it is hoped that eight countries from central Europe—Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia—plus the islands of Malta and Cyprus will join the EU.
The other three candidate countries are Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. Negotiations with Turkey have not yet begun because it does not meet the so-called Copenhagen criteria, and Romania and Bulgaria are some way behind the other applicant countries. Although Romania and Bulgaria will not be joining the EU in 2004, we should not forget about them because progress is being made in both states. Equally, we should not link them because differentiation is vital. Bulgaria is way ahead of Romania in its negotiations and the number of chapters that it has closed in anticipation of entry.
You may wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I have elected to debate enlargement. Some may think that it is an esoteric subject, and others may think that it betrays the obsessions of the European anorak brigade. However, the enlargement of the EU is of tremendous importance to both this country and the present EU, and its importance cannot be exaggerated.
I am passionately in favour of enlargement for three reasons, the first of which is economic. Enlargement will create a huge single market, the size and significance of which will dwarf the United States and Japan put together. It will have more than 500 million consumers. There will be huge economic benefits for us. It has been estimated, for instance, that the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom alone will increase by £1.75 billion as a result of enlargement. It has also been estimated that, through enlargement, 300,000 new jobs will be created in the present European Union, the economic worth of which cannot be legitimately doubted.
Secondly, I strongly support enlargement because it will give us an opportunity to develop broader policies for co-operation and co-ordination on a pan-Europe basis in a way that has never before been possible. As we
102WH
often say, pollution knows no national boundaries, because what happens in one country inevitably affects other countries. Crime is increasingly developing on an international basis, and if we are serious about creating safer communities we must take a pan-Europe approach to tackling it. In a more positive sense, there is tremendous scope for developing cultural and educational opportunities across eastern, central and western Europe. For those reasons, I am strongly in favour of enlargement of the EU.
My third and final reason for believing that the process is so important relates to the need for peace and stability throughout the European continent. It is opportune to end the artificial division between western and eastern Europe. The appalling events of recent years in the former Yugoslavia emphasise the need to work consistently and diligently for peace and stability in our continent. Enlargement alone will not achieve that, but it will make a huge contribution.
Enlargement is in the mutual best interests of the citizens of the European Union and applicant countries. We may discuss the process of enlargement and how we anticipate and hope that it will happen in 2004, but the reality is that the process of bringing people closer together is already happening. Yesterday, I was in Poland where I addressed a conference in Sopot just outside Gdanz. The conference examined how links can be developed between local authorities and other local organisations in Poland and Britain. I learned that 36 twinning projects between local authorities here and in Poland already exist, and the number will increase with enlargement. Nottingham is linked with Poznan, Southend is linked with Sopot, where the conference was held, and in Wales links are being established between the National Assembly for Wales and Silesia, two areas with much in common, not least their previous reliance on heavy industry. The British Government are actively pursuing various links and some senior civil servants are regularly seconded to help Poland and other countries prepare for enlargement.
Although I am a fervent advocate of enlargement of the European Union, I recognise that others have reservations. Some fear "floods" of people coming to the EU from the east, but the reality is that most people in central Europe want to stay in the countries where they were born and brought up, and have no great desire to migrate. When enlargement takes place, transitional phases will ensure that the free movement of people is introduced gradually.
Some people fear that footloose capital from the EU will move eastwards and we must acknowledge that some firms have relocated from Britain to central and eastern European countries. South Wales has experienced that. However, that process is the result not of anticipated enlargement but of globalisation. We must seize the nettle and ensure that our industries are truly competitive and our work force have the skills and adaptability to ensure that we retain capital investment and attract more inward investment. We must face that challenge whether or not enlargement takes place.
Some people have expressed concern that present recipients of structural funds in the European Union and particularly in this country will lose out as those funds are reallocated to central and eastern European countries. However, after 2006 there will be an opportunity to renegotiate the financial perspective and

103WH
the structural funds, and I am sure that tough negotiation from the United Kingdom will ensure that adequate transitional arrangements are made for recipient areas, particularly of objective 1 funds. With sensible decisions, I am sure that we can reach a financial agreement that will benefit central Europe as well as existing members of the EU.
Those are some of the reservations that have been expressed about enlargement. However, the obstructionists who have seized on the issue and attempted to raise obstacles to enlargement have raised two issues in particular. The first is the ratification of the Nice treaty. I believe that that is a sensible treaty for taking Europe forward. It contains a realistic extension of qualified majority voting and a re-weighting of the votes in the Council of Ministers that benefits the United Kingdom. It takes reasonable and moderate steps to ensure that smaller states cannot outvote larger ones. Those measures are necessary for the enlargement process to take place and be successful. I hope that the Irish people will endorse the Nice treaty in their forthcoming referendum.
As well as opposition to the Nice treaty, there has been an attempt to suggest that the common agricultural policy must be reformed before enlargement takes place. I am sure that none of us questions for one moment the need to reform the CAP. Changes have been made, but more radical ones are required. However, we cannot make CAP reform a precondition for enlargement—if we do, enlargement will not take place for a generation. That is the clear fact of the matter. That would be tremendously detrimental to this country's national interest and to the interest of the whole European continent.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend suggests that we should not reform the CAP before enlargement. Can he say whether the CAP will apply to new member states, or whether they will be insulated and kept out of its arrangements?
Mr. David: There will certainly be transitional arrangements. Some negotiations on the most difficult chapters have begun, agriculture being one of those. The European Commission has proposed modest subsidies for farmers in eastern Europe, which are contentious in terms of Poland, which has the greatest concentration of farmers. However, transitional arrangements are being negotiated and, at the same time, a marker is being put down, not least by our Government, about the need radically to change the CAP in the future.
There is also an acknowledgment in all central European countries, not least Poland, that the CAP must be reformed. That is because of pressure from not only the European Union but the World Trade Organisation. The old agricultural regime simply cannot continue in the modern world, as most people now recognise. A momentum for change is undeniably building up, and it will ensure that the CAP is fundamentally changed once and for all.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On agricultural policy, is my hon. Friend not concerned that the chapter on access that has been closed with the
104WH
Polish Government allows direct payments to Poland, although it was quite clear that that would lock new countries coming in under enlargement into a system that was being phased out, and had to be phased out, in the interests of agriculture throughout Europe?
Mr. David: Tough negotiations on the agricultural chapter are quite rightly taking place. However, if enlargement is to proceed according to the timetable set out, we must recognise the need to accept the acquis communautaire and the rules that currently apply, including agricultural regulations. Equally, as part of the negotiation process, an earnest debate is taking place on how those regulations can be reformed. We must move away from a common agricultural policy based on subsidy and encouraging overproduction to one more akin to a rural policy, which will bring about the transition of rural economies, making them more efficient and more realistic about the demands of the modern world.
I commend members of our Government who went to Poland and engaged in that debate, while those negotiations were taking place. The current twin-track approach is a realistic way forward to secure enlargement and bring about meaningful change at the same time.
Progress is being made on that and on other contentious areas. The negotiation chart that was drawn up at the end of last month shows that, of the 10 countries that are actively engaged in negotiations, eight have closed some 23 of the 29 chapters that have been opened. That is very significant. I take great comfort from the fact that Poland, which is the largest of the applicant countries, has successfully completed one of its most difficult chapters, which dealt with land ownership and the free movement of capital. Colleagues who were in Poland only a few weeks ago were involved in some of the detailed negotiations. We know full well the sensitivities at issue, so the agreement that has been reached with European Union negotiators on that extremely contentious matter is a huge success that bodes well for the future.
Informal as well as formal negotiations are taking place. Applicant countries must adapt their social and civil infrastructure to ensure that they are able to implement EU policies, and there has been a great deal of success with that as well. However, although it is right and proper for the EU to negotiate a whole raft of policies and, inevitably, for us to take into account our own national interests, we should also bear in mind that the applicant countries, as well as securing a deal with us through negotiation, must sell the package to their electorates in referendums.
Generally, recent Euro barometer opinion surveys show that support for EU membership among applicant countries is holding firm. However, there is cause for concern in some countries. For instance, only 33 per cent. of the Latvian electorate are in favour of joining the EU. Much will depend on the terms that their Government are ultimately able to negotiate with the EU. If we are genuinely committed to the enlargement process, we must keep in mind not simply our own needs and negotiating positions but the need to secure the support of the applicant countries' citizens.

105WH
I am optimistic about the enlargement process. There is a very strong chance that it will take place in the near future, probably in 2004. All of the applicant countries already engaged in the process of developing links with EU countries are also contributing to the debate about the future of Europe, which focuses on the work of the convention. A little while ago, our Prime Minister made a statement with the Prime Minister of Poland, which was published on The Guardian website, if not in the newspaper itself. It set out several areas of common ground between Poland and Britain. For example, both Prime Ministers emphatically said that they did not want a European superstate, that intergovernmental co-operation was very important and that the role of national Parliaments was absolutely central to Europe's development.
Leading politicians in Poland are contributing to the debate about the future of our continent. One of the most significant speeches about the future of Europe that I have read for a long time was made last month in the Royal Palace in Warsaw where, in 1791, the first European constitution was officially launched and published. The President of Poland said:
"The most important decisions cannot be taken by politicians alone, or panels of experts in the seclusion of their offices. The unification of Europe must not be solely a matter for the political, elites or groups of technocrats: it should be the concern of all citizens"—
of Europe. Those words are important, and as politicians we should always remember that enlargement is not about what we want, but about what the people of Europe want.
In echoing those fine words, I believe that the enlargement process offers us a monumental challenge and a huge opportunity. It gives us the chance to create a European continent built on the principles of democracy, respect for human rights and good governance. It also gives us a chance to create a peaceful and prosperous Europe. Let us ensure that we grasp that opportunity.
9.50 am
Mr. John Redwood: I praise the spirit in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) moved his address. He recognised the number of problems relating to the successful integration of applicant countries into the European Union. Part of my case is that if the EU moves too quickly with its agenda of more centralised power and an ambition to cover an ever-wider number of policy areas in greater detail, the task of applicant countries will become more difficult.
During the EU's development there has always been tension over whether it should open its doors more widely to countries that are properly part of the continent of Europe, or whether a limited number of countries should rapidly press on with centralisation to create a type of grand federal Germany at EU level. That tension is seen today: on one hand we have a convention under way that is trying to create a constitution for the European fifteen; on the other, there are the detailed and difficult negotiations of several applicant countries, which have been sketched by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Those would dearly love stronger links with our democracies and our prosperous
106WH
trading system in the west, but they are finding the hurdles of the current 15 difficult to leap, let alone the hurdles that integrationists are keen to put in their way.
I remember being moved at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s when the Berlin wall came down and many brave people led peaceful, but decisive revolutions for freedom, enterprise and democracy in eastern European countries. At the time, I was privileged to be a Minister of the Crown, and went on several journeys to welcome peoples and their interim Governments into the community of European democracies. The first thing that touched me then was that, on more than one occasion when I was travelling in an ambassadorial car that was flying the United Kingdom flag, people saluted or even kissed the flag because they were so impressed that this country had stood against Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s, and against communism in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. They loathed those systems, as I do, because they both eclipse freedom, damage prosperity and make the lives of people who wish to have independence of thought and movement a misery.
I was impressed by the first impulses of those countries as they began to grasp the heady atmosphere of freedom. They wanted two things before anything else: the restoration of their national flags because for so long they had not liked being under the Soviet colours; and, however small the countries, the restoration of their old national currency, because that was seen as a symbol of more control over one's destiny. Small countries decided that the rouble monetary union was not a good idea for them, and that they would rather have control over their own independent monetary system as an expression of their national sovereignty. I urge Her Majesty's Government to understand those feelings. I am keen that we should extend the European family and community ever more widely.
Mr. Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that when other member states join the European Union, they will be less willing to join the single currency because they would want to retain their own currencies as a symbol of their modern freedoms?
Mr. Redwood: If one consulted their people, many would remember the very deep and strong feelings that they had some 10 years ago when they grasped their freedom from the Soviet empire. I am suggesting that our Government—above all others in the current 15—should be sympathetic to that and understand that the single currency is becoming a barrier to the successful conclusion of a wider union rather than an open invitation. After all, the Government welcome the single currency in principle, and believe that it is a good idea.
We have suffered under, or enjoyed, this Government for five years and they are still unable to pop the question to the British people because they understand how unpopular the idea of the single currency is in Britain. Many people deeply understand that controlling the currency is not just a symbol—it is not just about keeping the monarch or Head of State on the coin of the realm—but something very real concerning democratic political power. It gives current and future Ministers the opportunity to control interest rates and have an influence on borrowing or the exchange rate, and therefore to influence imports and exports. That control and influence would be lost if our currency were taken away.

107WH
If the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) will forgive me, I do not wish to get diverted into a debate on the euro. The debate is about European enlargement, and the euro is one of many hurdles that the European Union is placing in the way of the applicant countries. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said, quite rightly, that there were questions to be resolved concerning agricultural policy, and possible movement of capital and people. I share his vision of agricultural policy getting away from subsidy and over-provision that causes considerable expense to the taxpayer. Indeed, if I can believe the Government's policy statements, it is one that they share. Unfortunately, the Government are unable to deliver it given the current configuration of the European Union.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly should understand that we cannot leave the common agricultural policy on one side. The CAP is the biggest, most important and most expensive EU policy. That leads one to question how many more of those centralised policies we want, given the infernal mess that the EU has made in recent years of many parts of the agricultural industry in Britain and on the continent. The CAP is expensive to the taxpayer and to the consumer. That is a remarkable contribution of bad luck—we pay twice. People pay more in the shops and as taxpayers, and the policy is not very good for British farmers either.
Joyce Quin: I am not an advocate of the common agricultural policy in its present form. However, does the right hon. Gentleman at least recognise that changes are taking place in the European Union? For example, a year ago there was a change of agriculture ministry in Germany, which made a significant difference in pushing the reform debate forward. Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the rural development part of the CAP is growing? We must ensure that it grows at the expense of the traditional part. Rather than being defeatist about the matter—not to say that the right hon. Gentleman is—and saying that we cannot secure change, we should be part of the great momentum for change that exists.
Mr. Redwood: I am suggesting that we should be more forceful and persuasive because change is much needed. I welcome any changes on the continent that move in the right direction, but as the right hon. Lady conceded in her intervention, it is relatively easy to set up another subsidy scheme on top of the scheme we already have, which is not working. It is far more difficult to tackle the underlying problem: a subsidy scheme for farming based on wrong propositions, which conspires to be bad for taxpayers, consumers and farmers in a relatively advanced agricultural society like the United Kingdom, whatever its impact might be elsewhere.
Bob Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the CAP were fundamentally reformed to make it less intrusive on the taxpayer and on countries in Europe, that would open the door for even further enlargement and put a light at the end of the tunnel for countries like Turkey? That would add to the great benefit of Europe about which the hon. Member for
108WH
Caerphilly (Mr. David) spoke—that is, to spread security and stability across Europe, which is what it should all be about.
Mr. Redwood: I agree that the lower we can make the barriers, by reducing the cost and complexity of common policies at federal level, the easier it is to bring other countries in. My ideal would be a European Union of independent national democracies co-operating together. That is a good alternative model, which the UK should advance at the constitutional convention. It is wrong for us to give credence to the idea that tame proposals are likely to emerge from that convention; that the aim is not the creation of a superstate. We all know that the agenda is to create an EU-type state, modelled along German constitutional lines. The lines might be perfectly democratic, but it will be a superstate. We should say that Europe is not ready for that—it is not suitable for all its different peoples, nations and traditions— and that we shall get on better together if each country has room for its own national aspirations and forms of democratic expression.
It is crazy that the people of the countries that we seek to invite into our midst risked and gave so much to recreate their old nations some 10 years ago, yet we now expect them to take on an enormous amount of central power in Brussels, designed by countries at different levels of development and with different attitudes. The tension that occurs in enlargement negotiations is always resolved in the EU by going for more centralisation. The centralisers, or federalists, always say that if more participating countries are brought in, that will slow the thing down. Therefore, they say, we must at the same time take more central powers to avoid such slowing down. Indeed, they often aspire to speed it up.
What are they trying to accelerate? What are they trying to prevent from slowing? They are trying to stop the deceleration of the great legislative machine—the centralising machine that trundles on day by day. I have sympathy with those who wish to slow down or stop that machine. There must come a point where there is enough European law. My constituents do not wake up in the morning and write to me saying, "We feel that we need more European laws. Please prod the Government into getting more," whereas I often receive letters from people who say, "We do not want a European law on this or that. We want to trade with our partners in Europe and to be friends with them; we want to see whether we can reach agreement on mighty matters relating to foreign policy or the environment, but the last thing that we want is a legislative machine churning out hundreds of directives and regulations."
The centralisers always say that we need more laws in order to complete the social or environmental area or the single market, to have a common foreign policy or to prepare for a single army. They fear that the admission of different countries such as Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic would get in the way of the pursuit of their agenda of more laws and more central control, with more trappings and more power going to the superstate in the making. I should like the British Government to say that this enlargement should be different. We should say that we joined a common market—the British people voted for that and British Governments past and present have been supporters of

109WH
the minimum level of law needed to create a common commercial and trading area to spread prosperity through trade, but I do not see why the British Government should sign up to extending European government power into so many more corners. If we were a strong and clear voice for a genuine Europe of nations, in which we did together those things that everyone agreed needed doing without constantly pressurising countries and peoples into accepting laws that they did not want and which they had voted against, we would stand for something good and true, which could advance, rather than set back, the cause of European integration.
That brings me naturally to the curious case of the treaty of Nice. The British Government have consistently argued, often in a partisan spirit, that the treaty of Nice contains the minimum that is necessary to complete the arrangements for the applicant countries, but anyone of independent mind who reads the treaty can see that it is mainly concerned with giving more central power to European institutions. It is about removing vetos that we currently enjoy and replacing them with qualified majority voting. It is about creating a series of new common policies, some of which are set out in the recent Government document, "Realising Europe's potential: Economic Reform in Europe", and there are parallel measures for the common foreign policy and the common military policy that is being evolved.
The treaty of Nice is more about centralising than about enlargement. Of course, some items in the treaty are necessary for enlargement. It is necessary to rebalance votes and determine the numbers of Commissioners—I do not disagree with that; it is a necessary part of enlargement—but because the treaty goes so much wider and includes chunks of centralising agenda, it hit the buffers when it was put to a vote in Ireland. Who would have thought that Ireland would object to such a treaty when Ireland has been a great beneficiary of subsidies and trade with the European Union, which one would have thought would overwhelm any demerits that Irish people might see in the scheme? However, the Nice treaty was so centralising and claustrophobic that the Irish decided that they could not live with it. I hope that member states will learn from that lesson and understand that free peoples and democracies are likely to respond "No" to such a centralising treaty. The British Government would not dare to put the treaty of Nice before the British people because they know that we would run a rattling good campaign against it—making the points that I have made, that the treaty is about not only enlargement but centralising and grabbing power—and that we would win.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Given what the right hon. Gentleman says about this Government, why was the Maastricht treaty never put to the British people?
Mr. Redwood: I would have liked it to be. As the hon. Gentleman may remember, I resigned from the then Government over several issues, including the handling of the single currency and the Maastricht treaty, which I wanted to be put before the British people. However, I was very pleased that we obtained an opt-out from the main point of the Maastricht treaty—joining the single
110WH
currency—an opt-out which I am delighted this Government are still using and, I suspect, will continue to use for the rest of their life. That abated the problem, but there is no opt-out from the Nice treaty, so the Government do not have the excuse that the Conservative Government had in the case of Maastricht.
The Government should understand that the people of western Europe—and. I suspect, the peoples of eastern Europe—now desperately need a voice in the powerful councils that meet behind closed doors in Brussels and other leading centres to say that they do not want more centralised power, but want their national democracies to be respected. We think that we can get on better with each other if we are allowed a little freedom and some looseness, rather than having everything controlled centrally.
The Minister may like to comment on how he sees the negotiations on agriculture going, because he must concede that, far from settling all the important issues that must be resolved before enlargement, the Nice treaty leaves out the most important issues: the handling of agriculture and of the budget. We need to know how much enlargement will cost existing members. What are we prepared to pay for it? We all want to enlarge the Union, but we need to know whether the own resources ceiling will be increased and whether there will be big tax increases for people in Britain, France and Germany. If there is not a big tax increase to pay for enlargement, we need to know which elements of the budget will be cut. As soon as we bring new and poorer members into the Community, they will naturally—on the basis of proportionality and population—receive more than their fair share of money for agriculture, transport and infrastructure projects from the social fund. That will mean less money for the western countries. While that may be perfectly fair, I would like to see the numbers.
I would far rather achieve enlargement by amending the budget than by a big tax increase. I do not think that a big tax increase for the western European peoples would be a good idea at the moment. There may be more to be said about that tomorrow, once the tax-raising Chancellor has disclosed his domestic requirements. If, on top of domestic requirements, we are to face a big requirement for enlargement, we should at least know the numbers and have an opportunity to debate such an important matter.
Will the Minister use the opportunity for renegotiation that enlargement offers to sort out fishing? There are some sensible words on fishing in the Government's latest document. However, the British fishing industry is being destroyed. The common fisheries policy is another example of a centralised common policy that does not work for Britain. Now that everything has to be renegotiated because we are considering proper enlargement, can we please dig in and get some common sense and a better deal for our fishermen?
The Minister may also like to comment on the Government's recent statement that one of the European Union's main aims at the moment is to
"reach an agreement on the tax package as a whole as soon as possible and no later than by the end of 2002."

111WH
Will the Minister tell us what that package is likely to comprise? We are now well advanced into 2002. Are the negotiations well advanced? How many more new taxes will emanate from the European Union and how much control of our tax policy is envisaged under the new tax proposals? Those matters will make it even more difficult for the applicant countries, because they will now learn that they are joining a club that has not only very centralised agriculture, fishing and social policies but substantial ambitions to transfer some of the powers of taxation from national democratic assemblies to the centre, the federal core, which may or may not become more democratic.
Will the British Government on this occasion speak the truth and speak out for a Europe of nations where we respect each other's differences? Will they speak out for a Community in which we do things together where we wish to do so and are able to reach voluntary agreement? Will they speak out against a more centralised Community? Will they speak out against a Community that wishes to tax us more and involve us less? Will they speak out against a Community that thinks that the treaty of Nice is the answer to enlargement, when the real answer is sorting out difficulties such as the budget and the common agricultural policy?
Will the Government speak out for a Community that believes that democracy, freedom and enterprise can best be spread by making more decisions locally than centrally and by encouraging the brave, democratic forces in the eastern European countries, rather than trying to take powers away from them and give them to bureaucrats at the centre? Above all, will they take on board the message of the Irish referendum and be prepared to face the British people on the issue by putting the resulting package to a sensible referendum test?
Several hon. Members rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is the custom in Westminster Hall to start the three final speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate. As you will see, there are 17 minutes left and four Members seeking to catch my eye, so I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the lack of time in terms of their own delivery and when considering whether to accept interventions.
10.13 am
Joyce Quin: I take note of your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing this debate. I also congratulate him on choosing this subject and on the way in which he introduced it, with which I strongly agreed.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned the tremendous exhilaration and hope that we all felt when the Berlin wall fell at the end of the 1980s and wonderful, undreamed-of changes took place across our continent. We have moved on
112WH
from those days, of course, and in many respects we now face problems rather than opportunities. That is particularly true now that we are in the most difficult phase of the enlargement negotiations, but the hope and optimism that we all experienced at the end of the 1980s should give us a sense of purpose as we approach the issue.
I could not quite tell from the contribution by the right hon. Member for Wokingham whether he was in favour of enlargement; he certainly emphasised all the problems. Although it is right to be realistic about them, we must maintain a sense of purpose and a commitment to enlargement, which practically everyone across our continent is in favour of.
Although enlargement is a complex issue, good progress is being made. The European Commission is making good progress through its structured approach of breaking down the policy issues into different chapters. Several applicant countries have also made good progress, despite the huge legislative programmes and administrative burdens that they have had to adopt to meet the enlargement criteria. We should congratulate them and recognise the progress that they have made, but we should also ensure that they properly tackle issues on which further progress is needed. There have been welcome changes in their approaches to nationality and minority issues, although their records are not perfect, and one or two countries still need to make progress. None the less, the overall balance sheet is increasingly positive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly rightly referred to issues that are likely to influence public debate in applicant countries and EU member states. If enlargement is to be successfully completed, there must be a positive outcome in member states and applicant countries, which are trying to show their populations that EU membership is a positive move. That is particularly true of countries that hold referendums.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly raised some tricky issues. On immigration, he was right to stress that people on the whole want to live and work in their countries of origin. We should recognise that previous enlargements have successfully ensured that that has happened. When Spain, Portugal and Greece joined the EU, many people used emotive language to express their fears about waves of immigration into existing EU member states. In fact, the opposite has happened, and it has been good to see those countries make economic progress and become increasingly able to provide satisfying living and working conditions for their people and to welcome people from other member states and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend was right and honest to say that there are worries about structural funds, particularly among present recipients. In negotiations on the issue in 1999 in Berlin, however, the Government achieved a good settlement for Europe and the United Kingdom. That resulted in good transitional arrangements and good settlements for objectives 1 and 2. People in Ireland have had difficulty with that, but we must be realistic about the fact that entitlement to funds cannot remain exactly the same as countries rise up the prosperity league—that is the honest approach. However, I would not be happy if enlargement meant that no structural funds remained for existing member states. Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner for regional policy, said that

113WH
the EU's regional policy is an important sign of solidarity with many regions in existing member states with structural problems. It is extremely beneficial for the European Union and its member states to have an active regional policy and help in that process. I have seen the benefits of that in my own part of the United Kingdom, the north-east of England.
Agriculture has been mentioned, but, given your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not discuss it in great detail. I merely express the hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will work with other Governments to ensure that the rural development funds available for applicant countries are used more effectively than they have been up to now. Rural development is the way forward for the common agricultural policy, and it is important that we make better use of those funds, here and now.
I refer to a remark made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. He seems to regard the convention on the future of Europe as a centralising plot, whereas it is much more complex than that. Rightly, it includes representatives from all the Governments, from national Parliaments, the European Parliament and from the kaleidoscope of political parties that make up the European Union. [Interruption.] I am being reminded that some members of the convention take a critical view of the existence of the European Union itself. I see no reason why the convention should not consider areas that are over-regulated in the European Union.
The agricultural policy is one area in which greater flexibility is needed for countries and for regions within countries, and in which there has been too much centralising. However, it is unjustified to approach the convention with the fear and dread implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am glad that the candidate countries are associated with that convention process, as they will be able to play their part in the reform process.
Finally, I cannot believe that the applicant countries are interested in creating a European superstate. They value their newly-won freedom and independence too much for that, and they know that they are entering an association in which they can play their full part, so they would not want to be subjugated by some superstate based in Brussels.
Several hon. Members rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal once again for brief contributions, otherwise some hon. Members will not be able to speak.
10.23 am
Mr. John Randall: I shall be as brief as possible. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing the debate.
I welcome the enlargement of the European Union. When I was a student at the London University School of Slavonic and East European Studies, it would have seemed incredible that some of the countries now applying could be in such a position. Some of them were not even independent countries. The advances made in democracy in those countries amaze me, and anything that we can do to help preserve those democracies will be welcome.
114WH
I am not an expert on agricultural policy, but I take the view that the inexorable move to industrialisation of agriculture, caused in part by the common agricultural policy, has resulted in the deterioration of the environment in many countries. That has happened in the United Kingdom, western Europe and Hungary, which I often visit, and it may well be happening in Poland, too. We must be careful of that as we progress towards enlargement.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, the danger of enlargement is that if we are not careful we shall fall between two stools: either it will become too easy to join the EU, in which case it will become a meaningless organisation; or the EU will become too restrictive and centralised, in which case it will become an exclusive club. The peoples of those countries and their Governments see membership as a positive move not only for economic reasons but to preserve and strengthen their relatively recently found democracy.
It will become important for small states—some of which are already applicant countries and others of which, such as Macedonia, will hopefully apply much further down the line—to be members of the EU if they are to exist as states. I also hope that Yugoslavia—it may well be the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro—will apply in a relatively short time. I hope that the Minister will tell me that the Government will support Yugoslavia's application to join the Council of Europe. I have studied Yugoslavia and have spent much time there. One of the problems in Yugoslavia, which was after all a federation, was that it was too centralised. Old rivalries and hatreds ran very deep, and it might be necessary for that region to be encompassed in the EU to solve some of those difficult problems.
Those countries must not regard EU membership as a panacea, otherwise people will be disappointed when some of their dreams do not become reality, and disappointment will become resentment. As my right hon. Friend said, we must recognise that there is a strong feeling of nationhood and independence in those countries. We must work together to make sure that we preserve that feeling of independence.
10.27 am
Ms Joan Walley: Three minutes is insufficient time in which to do this subject justice. I have some interests to declare: my father-in-law, who was a member of the Polish air force, flew with the Royal Air Force during the second world war. I strongly believe that this country owes a huge debt of honour to him and his fellow veterans. I also want to tell hon. Members that his uncle was President of the Polish Government-in-exile.
I do not declare those interests lightly, and I speak as a member of the all-party Polish group, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) is also a member. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), we visited Poland in January. The changes that I saw in Poland compared with my previous visit 10 years ago with an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation showed how determined that country is that EU enlargement will go ahead. We have heard a great deal this morning about historical background, such as the

115WH
Berlin wall and people's experiences when Stalin annexed part of Poland. I want to remind hon. Members of the words of Winston Churchill, who on 1 October 1939 said:
"The soul of Poland is indestructible and she will rise again like a rock, which may for a spell be submerged in a tidal wave, but which remains a rock."
On EU enlargement, we must do what we can to address the outstanding concerns on the chapters that have not yet been completed, particularly in relation to Poland's accession. I was impressed by the progress that has been made in respect of the chapters that have been closed.
We have heard a great deal about agriculture, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take into account the wealth of information, not least that supplied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, who was formerly a Minister with responsibility for agriculture. We need to use all information, expertise and specialisation—especially environmental specialization—to make sure that a twin-track approach is taken in reforming the CAP while ensuring that it will be relevant to Poland.
I was heartened to see that great progress has been made in respect of the chapter on the judicial system. Poland has increased capacity, so those concerns no longer exist. I hope that we can secure a resolution on that matter, so that Poland can take part in the European elections in 2004. If all goes to plan, Poland will be a fully fledged member of the European Union and will take its place alongside other Governments. I think that Poland will be a particular friend of the United Kingdom. We must work closely with fellow EU members, via all the twinning arrangements, to take account of Polish interests and ensure that our vision of European enlargement makes practical sense in terms of delivery in the United Kingdom and Poland.
10.30 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This has been a very important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing it. As others have remarked, he made a genuinely upbeat presentation of the benefits and importance of enlargement, which I endorse.
We have heard the usual wide-ranging set of opinions about the meaning of enlargement. We all seem to agree that it is a good thing, even if our analyses of what it means for the European Union vary significantly. The Liberal Democrats have been strong supporters of the process of enlargement for a long time. We recognise the historic role of the European Union in advancing security, democracy and prosperity throughout a part of the world that has characterised most of its modern existence by fighting bloody wars. It has lived through many forms of government, with too many parts of it living under regimes that are other than democratic for a long time. As the cold war fades from memory, it is important not to lose sight of the progress that has been made.
The hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) highlighted the Polish example. I cannot claim such close connections to
116WH
that country. However, 20 years ago while I was still at school and Poland was under military rule, I recall campaigning on behalf of the Solidarity trade union, wondering whether Lech Walesa would ever be in a position to challenge General Jaruzelski. It is incredible that in a relatively short time, Poland has become a democracy. It no longer poses a security threat in its wider association with the Warsaw Pact countries, and its economy is much improved. I believe that European Union membership will strengthen and enhance those trends not just for Poland, but for many other applicant countries.
Enlargement is important for longstanding members of the European Union, such as this country. The negotiations cannot be taken for granted. As with everything in Europe, the process of the negotiations has been slow and, at times, painful. Undoubtedly, more pain will be experienced. In recent weeks, the Minister has been responding to parliamentary questions, explaining how the different chapters of the negotiations have been successfully concluded. However, we appreciate that the timetable is pretty unforgiving, and many issues have yet to be resolved. Before we get to that point, there is the small matter of the ratification of the treaty of Nice. The conclusion of that process is fundamental to the success of enlargement, but we cannot ignore the fact that last June's Irish referendum result represents a major stumbling block to the process. European Union leaders confidently stated after the referendum result that the enlargement process was irreversible, but it is important that we hear from the Minister today how he anticipates the Irish can be persuaded to reverse that decision. There is an election campaign in the Republic, and he may pray that in aid for not meddling in another country's affairs, although we know that he is a brave Minister who often pushes matters further than some of his colleagues want. Perhaps I can tempt him this morning to comment on that issue.
Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is a good democratic principle that if people vote no in a referendum, they must vote again, but if they vote yes the result is accepted? Does he recognise that as being democratic?—[Interruption.]
Mr. Moore: As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said, it is for the Irish to decide how they want to proceed, but I suspect that that helps his argument for independence in Scotland, so I shall not push it too far.
If the Irish reject the treaty a second, third, fourth or fifth time, there will be a serious problem. We know that it is technically possible to get around enlargement, but what will happen if ratification is not forthcoming? The difficult issues in the Nice treaty will be academic for applicant countries if negotiations are not concluded. A number of issues affect individual countries and the whole European Union generally. Three broad categories of eligibility criteria cover politics, the economy and administration.
With the exception of Turkey, candidate countries have passed the political test, but they have demonstrated mixed success with their economies and administration of judicial capability. Political eligibility is sometimes taken for granted, but we must not

117WH
overlook issues that are causing concern to the enlargement debate. It would be helpful to the House to understand the Government's current view on the situation in Cyprus, the prospects for resolution of the long-standing and difficult dispute between the Turks and the main island of Cyprus, whether there is any prospect of a resolution and, if not, what procedures will follow for Cyprus. Likewise, in the Czech Republic the Benes decrees have caused concern to surrounding countries. There has been an inconsistency in the enlargement Commissioner's view of whether that is crucial to its entry, and it would be helpful to understand the Government's position on that.
The economic position in each country varies, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the economic opportunities are at the heart of the appeal of EU membership. I shall touch on a couple of issues that have been raised in this debate.
Agriculture was the focus of earlier contributions and there is no doubt that the common agricultural policy is a key focus for all negotiations. We are in the early stage of those negotiations and the gloss may be wearing off for some applicant countries. Great concern has been expressed in recent months about the way in which they might be integrated into the CAP, the nature and time scale of entitlement to subsidies and the period preceding their eligibility for full membership. My view is that an unreformed CAP is damaging and unsustainable for existing member states and those who seek to join. A mid-term review of the CAP is under way, neatly seeking to dodge the French, if not the German, elections this year, which will be fundamental to the conclusion of negotiations with candidate countries. Again, it would be useful to understand the Government's attitude to that. They have not earned a great deal of credibility among Britain's farmers in recent years for their commitment to agriculture and for what they seek to do about it. It is important that we understand their attitude to the agricultural policy.
Will the countries concerned be second-class citizens in the CAP? Does the Minister see any danger that the nature of the negotiations might delay those countries' anticipated involvement in them?
Mr. Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moore: No, because I can speak for only one more minute, or I will be in trouble.
On regional funds, I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). Unless we look seriously at how British regions will be affected after enlargement, there will be much difficulty in selling that proposal to the UK.
I hope that the Minister can give us some positive signs of progress on the important issue of EU enlargement.
10.40 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on initiating the debate. He has a very considerable knowledge of, and interest in, European Union enlargement.
118WH
Enlargement is not only about economic benefits or politics; it is a moral obligation. For years, the European nations east of Stettin and Trieste were excluded from the freedom and prosperity of the west. Thanks to the west's victory in the cold war, through the firm leadership of such people as my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and the American Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and through the bravery of such people as Lech Walesa and Vdclav Havel, eastern Europe is now free.
The Conservative party feels its obligation towards accession with particular strength because of its experience in government at that time. I echo the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on that. I pay tribute to previous Ministers and Foreign Secretaries who did everything possible to ensure that the peoples of Europe knew that Britain was their friend in those difficult times. That has greatly redounded to Britain's credit. I freely acknowledge that this Government have carried on that process, but I have been personally touched by the gratitude expressed to me by so many diplomats, politicians and others from the accession countries who have acknowledged the special role that we played. They know of our continuing, passionate but practical commitment to the enlargement process.
We can all be well satisfied that in this country, unlike in some member states, there is virtually no opposition to enlargement. Of course, we can expect enlargement to impact on the British economy. Because of the lower wages typical of many candidate countries, there can be little doubt that some sectors of the British economy will face stiffer competition after enlargement. We are all interested to hear from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure that British business and the British public are prepared for the impact of enlargement, despite the transitional arrangements in place. I do not believe that the British public are as well informed about enlargement as they should be. I look forward to hearing how the Government will help prepare the country for that development.
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spring: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand and forgive me if I do not take any interventions.
Let me turn to some of the obstacles to enlargement. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that the broad outlines of common agricultural policy reform be agreed before 2004? We cannot afford for that failed, costly system to carry on as it is, never quite at the top of the EU's priorities. Unreformed, we know that the CAP will be an unsustainable burden on our budgets as European enlargement unfolds.
No one wants the accession of the candidate countries to be hindered by the mess that current member states have made of the CAP. None the less, the problem must be resolved, and soon, if the great task of enlargement is to succeed. To that end, can the Minister explicitly assure us that reform will be under way by 2004? Does he agree that the Commission's phase-in proposals can be no more than a holding line? I appreciate that CAP reform should not become a central negotiating issue for enlargement, but the Government must recognise the dangers inherent in lack of reform in the longer term.

119WH
Several hon. Members have discussed structural funds. Here, too, the Commission is proposing only a temporary solution for dealing with the problems that enlargement throws up for EU subsidies. Without reform, expenditure on structural operations will increase from about 32,000 billion euros to more than 68,000 billion euros by 2010 because of enlargement. I hope that the Minister agrees that we cannot afford such growth in expenditure. What are the Government doing about that particular aspect of enlargement? We look forward to the Minister's comments. He expressed his interest in the matter last month in European Standing Committee B, but we have heard little about it from the Government.
We expect a third report from the European Commission early next year. What do the Government desire to see in the report? We need a reformed system of structural funding that is fair to existing member states and to those in the accession process. There must be no second-class members of the European Union.
The Minister will reiterate the charge that, by opposing the Nice treaty, the Conservative party is against enlargement. We warned when the treaty was made that hastening integration rather than preparing the EU for enlargement was not helpful to the candidate countries, and I believe that we have been proved entirely right. The Irish may ratify the treaty, but there is no guarantee that they will. Given the importance of enlargement, what will happen if the Irish again reject it? It would be intolerable if enlargement were held up yet further because of a lack of a plan B. I assure the Minister of our unqualified support for provisions that are genuinely necessary for enlargement, such as the redistribution of votes in the Council of Ministers.
The imminence of enlargement brings our attention to what may lie beyond. What are the European Union's potential limits? Do we foresee a day when Belarus and the Ukraine, or countries such as Russia and Georgia, have closer links to the EU? When the matter was brought up in European Standing Committee B last month, the Minister declined to discuss it, but the issue is becoming more and more important. Clearly, there will have to be closer engagements with neighbouring countries as the EU expands eastwards. We should take as an example the positive and constructive discussions on 9 April at Weimar between Germany and Russia about Kaliningrad.
I wish to mention the issue of the accession application of Cyprus. It is one of the best prepared of the candidate countries, but there is an unhealed split between the island's two communities. We hope that discussions between the leaders of those communities will bear fruit. The split should not be a barrier to the country's entry into the European Union. We welcome Turkey's intentions to become a member of the EU and call on it to use its influence to help construct a process that will solve the problem of Cyprus divided. An end to the tragic conflict would be another most welcome by-product of the enlargement process and must be a priority for Britain because of our historical and present links with the island, because it is a fellow member of the Commonwealth, and because of the importance of the Greek and Turkish communities in the United
120WH
Kingdom. We also very much welcome the accession of Malta, another valued Commonwealth member, to the EU.
The process of embracing the countries of central and eastern Europe into the European family of democratic nations has been long and difficult, but I hope and believe that we are almost there. The architecture of an enlarged European Union is hugely important, but that is an argument for another day.
10.49 am
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) made a very good speech. I agreed with most of it, but he will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with his comments on the Nice treaty.
This year, 2002, is the year of enlargement, and I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) in holding this debate. As he said, it is one of the great issues of our time. He was the distinguished leader of the European parliamentary Labour party when he was an MEP, and he has done much work with Bulgaria, which is a candidate nation. I agree that it is ahead of Romania on its track to European Union membership—it has already closed 14 chapters. We hope that such progress will be encouraged.
I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). I had the privilege to meet her father-in-law, who was a distinguished wartime pilot in the battle against the Nazis. She spoke eloquently about Poland's application, which we strongly support. Under the new Polish Government, the country has made much progress and has closed 22 chapters. We hope that that will accelerate.
On the question about Ireland from the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), I remind him that at last month's Barcelona summit the Irish asked for a statement during the Seville summit in June that would address the concerns that were raised by many at the Irish referendum, specifically confirming that the Nice treaty does not affect Irish neutrality. I am confident that such assurances can be given and that an opportunity will be paved for a fresh referendum should the Irish Government choose to call one. I hope that they do, because Ireland must ratify the Nice treaty for it to come into force.
I acknowledge the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) has done with Belgium. She has done valuable liaison work with the Belgian Government and the Belgian political system. I also acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) who does similarly valuable work with Romania and Slovakia, two accession countries that we want in the European Union.
We want the European Union to conclude accession negotiations with as many countries as are ready by the end of this year, which is in eight months. That will be the culmination of many years of hard work by this Government, and—above all—by candidate countries that have transformed their economies and societies in the aftermath of the collapse of the Berlin wall. They

121WH
have been waiting in the queue to join the EU for more than a decade; now the EU must act decisively to bring them in. To do otherwise would imperil the credibility of Europe in the eyes of the candidates and the world.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk on the question of CAP reform. Its quick reform is imperative, and it will not bear the weight of enlargement without it.
The Government have been a champion of enlargement and I acknowledge that the Conservatives in government were far more constructive than they have been in opposition—I freely acknowledge that they moved enlargement forward. However, negotiations with the first candidates began under our Government during the British presidency in 1998. To remain on target, candidates must keep up with their reforms, not only by introducing new laws and systems required for membership, but by making them work on the ground. We need to know that our citizens' rights will be protected by the police forces, and upheld by the judiciaries, of new member states. The food circulating in the wider single market—the largest single market in the world—must be safe for our citizens, and border controls must be effective. Candidates have made huge strides in those areas.
We have bilateral action plans with each candidate country that will finance projects designed to support the accession process. Under the EU's twinning programme, British experts have been involved with more than 100 projects, and many of them have been seconded to work alongside their counterparts in candidate countries to help implement European legislation and standards for border management, the environment and tackling corruption and crime.
Enlargement is good for Britain and for Europe. We are doing a favour not just for the candidate countries but for ourselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly argued so eloquently, enlargement builds peace and stability in our continent. In preparation for European membership, candidate countries have had to build good neighbourly relations and respect for their minorities, from Russian minorities in the Baltic states to Roma minorities in central Europe. Their performance in such areas is monitored closely. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West said, there is considerable progress as a result of the succession momentum.
Last week, I saw for myself in Cyprus how the prospect of enlargement is encouraging both sides to try to mend historic divisions. The hon. Members for West Suffolk and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale asked about progress. There is progress. I said to Mr. Denktash that he must get more closely involved in the detail of the negotiations, rather than just in the meetings—at which we welcome his presence—because that is his best opportunity to get a deal for the Turkish minority on the island that protects their security and their interests. Equally, when I met President Clerides and Foreign Minister Kasoulides, I said that it is important for the Government of Cyprus to continue to make progress on the negotiations and to come up with constructive ideas. They are doing so. We want a united Cyprus to come into the European Union. It would be damaging for all concerned if that were not the case.
122WH
The prospect of enlargement has helped to resolve causes of tension and conflict. It has created stable, democratic partners for the future. It costs European citizens far less financially, politically and socially to help a neighbour country to make the transition to democracy in a market economy than it does to rebuild it after conflict. One need only consider the contrast between a candidate country such as Slovenia and Milosevic's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, both parts of the former Yugoslavia, to recognise that truth.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) invited me to comment on the prospects of Serbia and Montenegro for EU membership. We see them as potential candidates. I hope that that will accelerate modernisation and democratisation in that part of the world.
Enlargement will enhance prosperity. Every enlargement has given a boost to EU economies, including Britain's. This one will boost our economy by about £1.75 billion, or some £100 for each British household. That is a great opportunity for us. British exports to central Europe increased by 19 per cent. between 1999 and 2000 in anticipation of enlargement, and by as much as 25 per cent. to the Czech Republic and Hungary. It is estimated that enlargement will create 300,000 jobs across the EU, including thousands in Britain, as companies take advantage of trade opportunities.
Enlargement will enhance co-operation, helping us to tackle problems that do not recognise borders, such as pollution, drug smuggling and people trafficking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West was right. The same fears were expressed about the accession of Spain and Portugal. In fact, the reverse was the case. People went back to Spain and Portugal as those countries gained prosperity through membership of Europe.
Industry in the candidate countries is starting to implement EU environmental standards, improving the air that we breathe and the water in Europe's rivers and seas. The beaches in Cyprus, which attracted some 1.5 million UK tourists last year, will have to meet EU standards for cleanliness and safety.
The candidates are not just our partners of tomorrow. They are already our partners today. We co-operate with many of them on the European convention, in respect of which I represent the Government, to shape the European Union of tomorrow. Having found their own sovereignty, they are in no rush to lose it. Like us, they want to keep decision making at national level wherever it is best to do so.
I welcome the contribution of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He is an under-used talent on the Conservative Benches. However, it is important that we dismiss his idea that enlargement will create a grand federal Germany. It will not be anything like that. We are building a European Union of freely co-operating, independent nation states. That is the Government's vision and the vision of all the candidate countries that have recently gained their national independence, free from the Soviet yoke of oppression. They are in no rush to give up that independence, and we share their vision.

123WH
We look forward to all the candidate countries joining us in a Europe of full employment and social justice, a Europe that can master the threats to our environment, a Europe of stability and prosperity, peace and security, that guarantees food safety and consumer protection, a Europe of human rights and independent nation states, not a federal superstate, a Europe of the people, for the people, by the people, in which every candidate can take its place proudly as an equal among equals.

Teacher Recruitment
11 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this debate, especially as I made three or four applications before I was successful. My reason for initiating it relates specifically to a constituent, Mr. Christopher Read, who teaches at the Hewett high school in Norwich, the largest school in Norfolk, which has 1,800 pupils and about 115 full-time equivalent teaching staff. It was not until I had been successful in my application for a debate and started to talk to colleagues about the subject that I became aware of how widespread the problem faced by my constituent is. I shall start with the particulars of his case, and then move on to discuss the more general themes that it illustrates.
Mr. Christopher Read, who lives in my constituency and works in the city of Norwich, is a qualified electronic design engineer. He worked for some 30 years for a local engineering firm, and has an impressive curriculum vitae. For example, he designed electronic control systems for Trident nuclear submarines. He also designed the electronic vane control systems for the Heysham and Torness nuclear power stations, as well as working on projects for clients such as the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Air Force, British Aerospace, British Steel, British Coal, BP, ICI and the former Government Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Read was made redundant from his engineering firm some time ago and decided that before the end of his career, he would like finally to do what he had always wanted to do at some point—go into teaching. We have all seen the advertisements that the Government have sprayed liberally over every medium known to man, including newspapers and cinema, asking people to go into the teaching profession. He responded to that call and, having a background in physics, he was particularly suited to help meet the shortage of teachers in maths and science subjects. The only problem was that because he had an HND, not a degree, he could not be taken on as a fully qualified teacher, but would have to work within the school environment towards fully qualified teacher status.
An additional problem was that because Mr. Read took his HND in 1968, it is not regarded by the Open university, with which he would need to study to gain the required number of points to obtain full teacher status, as attracting the same number of points as a more recent HND. Apparently, that is because before 1971 the HND was not modular—one had to learn everything and sit the exam at the end of the course—so it is said that there is no sensible way of comparing the old and the new HND. I may not be alone in thinking that that may be a point in favour of the old HND, and that it required more intellectual accomplishment than the new modular HND.
Indeed, in a widely quoted book, "Class War: The State of British Education", Chris Woodhead mentions the subject of modularity on pages 14 and 15. He says:
"The move to 'modularity' is a second, highly significant development. Nowadays many, if not most, GCE and A-level syllabuses are divided up into modules, or units, of work. The candidate is tested on each module once it has been completed.

125WH
Headteachers worry about the impact this has on teaching and learning and extra-curricular activities. Most feel that the introduction of the AS examination has reduced the sixth form to a treadmill that allows no time for anything other than preparation for the next wretched assessment. Many worry that a student who is unhappy with the grade he has achieved in a particular module can take the assessment again in the hope of achieving a better mark. Mr. Timms needs to tell us whether he thinks this new facility has made public examinations more or less intellectually challenging".
The Department told me last Thursday that Mr. Timms, the Minister for School Standards, would reply to this debate, but as he cannot be with us, I hope that the Minister for Young People and Learning, who is here in his stead, will answer my question. I am sure that young people are delighted that he represents them. [Interruption.] Indeed, do they know that he does? Can he tell us whether the introduction of modularity is an advance in creating an intellectual challenge?
My constituent is being discriminated against for the simple reason that he took a course and completed an HND before the introduction of modularity. In his case that has a particular effect, as he is 55 now—he was 54 when he began teaching. As a result of his HND not being valued as it should be and as a more recent HND would be, it will take him three to four years, rather than the 12 to 18 months that it would otherwise take him, to gain an honours degree equivalent and then the additional qualified teacher status—which would take him only two or three months, because of his extra experience. Mr. Read will be 58 or 59 by the time he achieves qualified teacher status. In the interim, not only will he be paid less than a fully qualified teacher—although I imagine that his greater experience allows him to impart more to physics students than some younger teachers can—but his job will not be secure because his "instructor" status means that he does not have a permanent contract.
The statutory instrument that deals with the matter is the Education (Teachers' Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999. Paragraph 3 is about
"Instructors with special qualifications or experience".
I should have thought that being trusted by the nation to design electronic components and control systems for Trident nuclear submarines qualified Mr. Read under that heading. The paragraph says:
"This paragraph shall apply in the case of an unqualified teacher appointed, or proposed to be appointed, to give instruction in any art or skill or in any subject or group of subjects…the teaching of which requires special qualifications or experience if, at the time of his appointment…the local education authority…are satisfied as to his qualifications or, as the case may be, experience; and…no suitable qualified teacher, graduate teacher or registered teacher is available for appointment…Such a teacher may be employed at a school to give such instruction as aforesaid, subject to paragraph (3), for such period as no suitable qualified teacher, graduate teacher or registered teacher is available for appointment or to give the instruction."
The effect of that is that the school is not empowered to give him a permanent full-time contract as a teacher, and was recently obliged to advertise his post. Mr. Read had to apply for his own job, despite being trusted by the school and the head teacher and providing a valuable service to the students. Five people applied for the job in addition to Mr. Read, one of whom was interviewed. Mr. Read was also interviewed and, I am pleased to say, was successful in being awarded his own job.
126WH
Hon. Members may find that laughable, and it is rather extraordinary. The Government have a stated commitment to encourage more people to go into the teaching profession. Indeed, when one opens the broadsheet newspapers or goes to the cinema one cannot fail to see their advertisements, which show glowing pictures of people saying how much they owe to their teachers, and ask whether those in the audience have ever thought of going into teaching. In the light of all that, we should consider the ludicrous situation in which Mr. Read and others find themselves.
Mr. Read's head teacher at the Hewett school, Mr. Christopher Wade, says that there is much hype about the graduate teacher programme, through which a graduate without a teaching qualification can train on the job. He says, however, that in fact it is hype about nothing, because it is virtually impossible to obtain the required funding, unless it is for English or maths, and also in an education action zone. There are only 235 fully funded places across the country. He goes on to say:
"You can do it if the school funds it itself '—
and that his school is doing that with two of its teachers—
"But if there were teachers out there we wouldn't be doing it. We are not primarily a training establishment."
None the less, many schools have been turned into training establishments, paying out of their own budgets to train the teachers they need.
As a result of securing this debate and talking to colleagues about it, I became aware that the problem was not confined to my constituency. A colleague mentioned a case to me—I have not had an opportunity to speak to the individual involved, so I will not identify him. The case concerned a 49-year-old retired police officer who wanted to be a teacher, preferably in a junior school.
The local education authority concerned sent a letter to all parents asking for help from people wishing to enter the profession. The man duly contacted them in the hope that he would be able to join the registered training scheme for those who do not have a degree but have attained a good educational standard. He was informed that the RTS exists in name only—no school in the LEA concerned has taken on a teacher under the scheme because it is too expensive.
The Government have the system in place to solve the teaching shortage, at least in part, but they are unwilling to finance it. They must either pay up or shut up. As an aside, the individual concerned said:
"From what I've seen the possession of a degree doesn't necessarily make a good teacher—some experience of life would be more useful to those that have only gone from school to university and then back to school again."
One cannot help thinking that a 49-year-old police officer would have a lot to contribute to a classroom, especially as the first requirement in any classroom is the maintenance of discipline, without which there is no possibility of learning.
Another hon. Member mentioned to me another constituent, to whom I have spoken. This lady does not wish to be identified in case it should hinder her future prospects of employment. She is a qualified teacher with 17 years of classroom experience. It is my understanding, based on what she said at Education

127WH
Question Time, that the Secretary of State, too, had 17 years' teaching experience when she took her career break to go into politics.
The lady whom I have mentioned took a career break to have a family, then, in answer to the nation's call for more teachers, applied and was told that she had to have recent classroom experience. She pointed out that she was a fully qualified teacher with many years of experience but, as she says:
"I seem to be in an impossible situation. I am disqualified from even applying for the work that I would like to do, because my qualifications and experience are unacceptable, yet I cannot fulfil their requirements for registration without having worked."
There are many other examples. I shall quote that of Mr. Stuart Ballantyne, the head teacher of Diss high school, in my constituency. Diss high school is one of the best comprehensive schools in the country. It has been named twice by the chief inspector of schools in his annual report as one of the top 60 schools in the country. Mr. Ballantyne received an expression of interest from a police officer with years of experience and a master's degree in biology. I am pleased to say that that person is teaching at the school. However, he had to be given an enormous amount of reassurance by the headteacher because of the temporary nature of the contract under which Mr. Ballantyne was forced to employ him.
Mr. Ballantyne nearly lost the services of this individual on a number of occasions because he was so fed up with the runaround that he was getting from the Teacher Training Agency. According to Mr. Ballantyne, the forms that he has to fill in for teachers seeking qualified status are 26 pages long, and even after he has gone to the trouble of completing them, officials from the Teacher Training Agency telephone him and ask for information that has already been provided. He says that the service is neither impressive nor slick, and is not what one would expect.
Mr. Wade, at the Hewett school in Norwich, told me that coping with teacher job applications more or less required the attention of a full-time senior member of staff—someone who should, of course, be preparing and teaching classes. Mr. Ballantyne told me about a female modern languages graduate who had been working at a school in a clerical capacity for seven years. She had thought for some time about becoming a teacher because of her gift with modern languages and her degree. With the school's encouragement, she applied for the requisite programme, but the Teacher Training Agency turned her down flat, with no adequate explanation, despite the fact that the school had come to know her well over several years and wanted to take her on.
The Government talk about autonomy and about trusting schools and professionals. Paragraph 1.6 of the White Paper "Schools—achieving success" lists the secondary education reforms that the Government are dedicated to achieving. They include:
"Giving successful schools the freedom they need to excel and innovate."
Paragraph 5.17 makes a similar point:
"Where schools are successful, well-led and have a record of school improvement, we want to free them from those conditions and regulatory requirements which they tell us stand in the way of yet higher standards and further innovation."
128WH
The Secretary of State makes the point again in a pamphlet published by the Social Market Foundation called "Professionalism and Trust—the future of teachers and teaching". When I first came across the Social Market Foundation, it was run by a friend of mine, who was a good Conservative, but things have moved on, and it now publishes pamphlets by Labour Cabinet Ministers. In the foreword, the Secretary of State says that the pamphlet
"signals a new era of trust in our professionals on the part of Government."
She goes on to say:
"Recruitment and most especially retention remain a real concern."
I was prompted to take an interest in this issue partly by a front-page article in The Guardian on 28 August 2001, which appeared under the headline "Teacher shortage worst ever". I then read the chief inspector's report when it was published on 5 February 2002, and it alluded to serious problems in the recruitment and retention of teachers. The single biggest problem is not recruitment but retention. Many people want to go into teaching.
I have read the recent study published by the Centre for Education and Employment Research, and I am grateful to the National Union of Teachers for supplying it. This study, entitled, "Teachers Leaving", whose authors are Smithers and Robinson, says that teachers go into the profession overwhelmingly because of the prospect of "intrinsic satisfactions". It states:
"The most important reason, accounting for about a third of all responses, was 'working with children/young people'. This was particularly the case for primary teachers who gave this as a reason. About half the secondary teachers did so. Some teachers expanded the point as 'the pleasure of seeing children learn', 'wanting to do something useful', or 'wanting to make a difference'."
In other words, people enter the profession with a strong sense of vocation. Love of the subject—the desire to convey knowledge and the excitement and pleasure of teaching the subject to young people—came second.
Yet people do not stay. The study noted:
"About 12 per cent. of those admitted to PGCE courses, or reaching the final year of BEd courses, do not successfully complete. But this pales beside an inexplicable post-training wastage of over 30 per cent. Of every 100 final year students, 40 do not make it to the classroom. With the initial teacher training budget currently standing at £245 million this represents an annual loss of £100 million."
I have spoken to the National Audit Office about that shockingly huge figure. Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am sure that he will be as interested as I am in understanding how the Government can spend so much money on training teachers who do not stay in the profession.
That raises the question of why teachers are not staying in the profession once they have entered it. The Smithers and Robinson study identifies that among secondary teachers the most frequently given reasons for leaving were work load, 57.8 per cent., pupil behaviour, 45.1 per cent. and Government initiatives, 37.2 per cent. It is interesting that salary is not mentioned in the first three. It is included in the survey—it is fourth, with 24 per cent.—but it is clear that money

129WH
is not the main motivating issue. Issues such as work load, pupil behaviour and Government initiatives are far more important.
I am again grateful to the NUT, which supplied with me a copy of a study by the Warwick institute of education, which quotes a teacher who said:
"I have the right to work without being abused—in industry it wouldn't be accepted, yet day after day it's now just 'part of the job'".
I was recently sent a poster by the Norfolk Mental Healthcare NHS trust. It is running a campaign called "NHS zero tolerance", saying:
"Staff working in the NHS do so to care for others. They do not go to work to be victims of violence or threatening behaviour."
Where are the Government schemes for the education system, highlighting the fact that teachers go to work to teach, not to be the victims of violent or threatening behaviour?
Mr. John Randall: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that when I tried to ascertain the figures for teachers who have been assaulted either inside or outside the classroom, I was told that those figures are not collected. What does he think about that?
Mr. Bacon: It shocks me. It seems to me that there is no possibility of doing something about a problem unless one measures its scale. On the other hand, if I were speaking for the Government, which fortunately I am not, I would probably say that the numbers are so scary that it is best not to collect them, because they might frighten the horses, and even fewer people would be encouraged to go into the teaching.
The recruitment and retention of teachers is a serious problem, and I have identified pupil behaviour as the single biggest problem. The current state of discipline in schools is a direct result of the policy, which the Government promoted for several years, of having targets for exclusions. It meant that fewer difficult children were excluded from schools, and as a result discipline problems increased. I am pleased to say that the Government have recognised that that policy was flawed and have reversed it. Until they take the question of discipline in schools seriously and make it clear to teachers that they are backing them, rather than pupils who are violent or disruptive, there is no serious hope of improvement. That is a sine qua non for an improved situation.
Secondly, the amount of bureaucracy, paperwork and Government initiatives must be reduced. The Government say that such paperwork is necessary. At a recent Education Question Time, I think I heard the Secretary of State say that less paper was not the answer. That shocked me, and I have also heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) quote a similar line from her in a recent speech. I am sure that my ears were not deceiving me. If the Government do not believe that the answer must include reducing the amount of paper and trusting teachers more, they have a long way to go before they have any chance of restoring the education system. If there were ever a time to be creative in appointing teachers, it is now. From what I have seen, and according to the teachers to whom I have talked, the Government do not seem to take that problem seriously enough.
130WH
There is one further issue that I feel that I must mention: spending. Yesterday I was flicking through last Friday's Hansard, and more or less by chance came across a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about whether she would
"list the (a) title, (b) subject and (c) associated funding of each (i) project, (ii) scheme, (iii) initiative and (iv) policy announced by the Department for Education and Employment since 1997".
The Minister for Young People and Learning, who is here today, took it upon himself to answer the question for the Secretary of State. His answer was:
"Information is not held in the format requested"—
that will not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)—
"and generating it would incur disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 160W.]
It did not seem to me to be that odd to ask about the costs of each project, scheme, initiative and policy run by the Government. Without an accurate record of what is being spent and what it is being spent on, it does not seem very likely that education can be successfully managed.
I have been flicking through the appropriations accounts for the Department for 1999–2000, the most recent figures available, and some of the detail will assist my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford a little, although perhaps not quite as much as he would like. On page 8, under the headings "Class 1, Vote 1" and "Central government's own expenditure", an item is given as:
"Ensuring that all young people reach 16 with the skills, attitudes and personal qualities that will give them a secure foundation for lifelong learning, work and citizenship in a rapidly changing world".
The cost of that is given as £83.625 million. However, from the second column, one can see that the Government actually spent only £64.336 million on it.
On the next page, the item of expenditure given involves:
"Developing in everyone a commitment to lifelong learning, so as to enhance their lives, improve their employability in a changing labour market and create the skills that our economy and employers need".
That was to have cost £340 million, but the Government spent only £312.967 million. And so it goes on. Mr. Syms, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, asked about the total underspend in the Department for Education and Skills. Those figures might be one reason why the total underspend in education spending overall, both capital and current, for the most recent available year, 2000–01, was £1,454 billion.
There is degenerating discipline in schools and pupil behaviour is cited as one of the single most important reasons for teachers leaving the profession, because of the Government's flawed policy on exclusions. The Government continue to bombard teachers with paperwork, despite huge evidence that they want to be left to get on with the job and be trusted to do so—one only has to go round one's constituency and talk to teachers, as I have, to find that out. Experienced people coming in from the outside—such as people who have designed electronic control systems for nuclear submarines or who have worked for 20 years as police officers, dealing with more dangerous behaviour than

131WH
one would ever hope to find in a classroom—are stymied at every turn before they are allowed to get on with the business.
Mr. Phil Willis: I apologise for not intervening on the hon. Gentleman earlier when he was talking about Mr. Read and the Hewett school in Norfolk, but as he has returned to that subject again in winding up his speech, will he say what the Conservative party's policy is for solving the problem that he has rightly identified? It is a very real problem, but what is the solution? Is it to allow anyone to join the teaching profession simply because they have good skills and abilities? Would that qualify David Beckham, for example, to become a PE teacher?
Mr. Bacon: I certainly hope that someone who is probably one of the most valuable footballers in the world would be qualified to be a PE teacher—subject to his foot being healed, for which we are all, of course, praying. I would have thought that any school where he were a PE teacher, in either the maintained or the independent sector, would have substantially higher applications as a result.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's more serious and general point, plainly one does not want to take simply anyone off the street—but the danger is that we have almost been in that position. Another facet of the issue is that so many higher education institutions are now keen to get Government funding that they are offering education degrees in the hope of attracting students who might not have made it on to any other degree course.
In a recent conversation that I had with a head teacher in my constituency, I asked where he was getting his teacher applications from. He said that he was lucky if he got a decent number to select from, and that when candidates come through the door, he, like other heads in a similar position, is more or less obliged to insist on watching them teach a lesson. That is because it is no longer possible to establish on the basis of the recommendation and reference that comes from the institution attended—in many cases, an institution of which one has not heard—that someone has undertaken a reputable teacher training programme and can be relied on, either as a teaching practice candidate or as a full-time employee.
The situation has got much worse. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is right to say that it requires much thought. Taking people from industry and other backgrounds, such as the police service, is not the only answer. However, that is almost certainly part of the answer. People with much experience of life have a lot to impart. My personal view is that people should not seek to become teachers, even if they have a vocation for it, until they are in their late 20s. I worked as a teacher for seven months, which I did not do until I was 29. I worked in East Berlin, teaching East German factory workers just after the Berlin wall came down. I am sure that I was better at doing that in my late 20s than I would have been at 21, just out of university.
Part of the answer is finding people from other backgrounds, but we should also ensure that people who have a vocation for teaching and obtain a teacher
132WH
training qualification actually then choose to go into teaching, because they see it as an attractive profession rather than one from which they are scared off because they are likely to be attacked, abused or have low professional status.
Teaching is one of the most important professions in this country. It should be one of the first careers that bright graduates from the best universities should consider. That is not the case at the moment. The Government's present policies mean that it is not likely to be the case, either, and it is about time they woke up to the seriousness of the situation and started to do something about it.
Several hon. Members rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It might be helpful if I offer hon. Members two small pieces of advice. First, it is a common convention in the House to refer to fellow Members by their constituency rather than by their first or family name, unless a Member is occupying a Chair. Secondly, we shall commence the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate, so we have 28 minutes left for speeches from the Floor. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind both when making their own contributions and when seeking to intervene.
11.32 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) made several valid points. However, he party-politicised his arguments too much, which took away some of their force. It is ridiculous to argue that the problem of classroom discipline can be resolved simply by recognising its scale. We know that there are problems of classroom discipline, and they need to be dealt with institution by institution, not by some longitudinal study of this country. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman made several important points, which I hope that the Minister will take on board.
There are problems in teacher training and recruitment, and I would like to illustrate how they relate to inner-city areas such as my own, which is sometimes described as a challenging area, in which it is difficult to teach. It would not be adequate for us to recruit people with no aptitude for the vocation of teaching, however skilled they may be in other areas. That is not a good basis for the imparting of education to young people. I grew up in a generation when, because of shortages, many people had come into teaching, particularly in specialist subjects, with no formal teaching qualification whatever. They may have been excellent physicists, engineers or whatever, but they were useless as teachers. We need to say that loudly and clearly. We want teachers who are competent, as well as those with the requisite skills.
Schools in my area have queried the nature of the current training process. I ask my hon. Friends to take on board the fact that there is still a strong feeling that teachers coming out of the training process are not properly trained to go into the classroom environment. It is a common observation that the present training process leaves them without practical preparation to take on the role even of probationary teacher. They do

133WH
not have proper experience of the classroom environment, particularly in inner-city areas where there are difficulties with classroom discipline and behaviour.
I have been told that those people do not have an adequate background in the Government's strategies—for example, they do not have proper knowledge of the literacy and numeracy strategies. In some subjects that are sometimes thought of as the ephemera of education, but are not—such as gymnastics, PE and dance—new teachers have sometimes not had proper access to how those subjects fit in in schools. If such problems arise for those with BEd degrees, they arise even more for those who take the PGCE route because the length of their training is so much shorter. Newly qualified teachers face problems when they come into the classroom.
Everyone agrees that intensive mentoring is necessary for newly qualified teachers, but that is resource-intensive. Mentoring requires the resources of other trained and skilled staff. Probationary teachers already incur resource costs because they normally have non-contact time of half a day a week, so schools must consider carefully the prospect of employing newly qualified teachers.
However, most of the teachers and school managers to whom I have spoken say that newly qualified teachers have many advantages, particularly in inner-city areas. A newly qualified teacher who is properly mentored becomes a better teacher in such schools than teachers who come in from different kinds of schools with different expertise, and receive mentoring at a later stage of their career. The point that is made consistently is that mentoring must be provided by people with experience of a difficult school environment. There is no point in mentoring being "academic", or based on different experience. It must be relevant to inner-city schools.
My next point concerns newly qualified teachers who do not continue to teach, but disappear from schools after a couple of years. Retention of staff is a problem in inner-city areas and perhaps elsewhere. Teachers who find job satisfaction in inner-city schools can also find job satisfaction in schools in leafy lanes. The head teacher of a very good inner-city school told me that a quarter of the staff in her school were planning to leave and were looking for something more compatible with their lifestyle in the suburbs.
There is an overall problem of teacher shortage in inner cities. Jobs in such areas are more challenging, and the behaviour in schools there makes them much more difficult, so it is more difficult to recruit and retain teachers. Such schools are generally grateful for initiatives such as the school achievement awards, which are a signal to all those working there that their efforts are improving the quality of education.
Education is improving in inner cities. Opposition Members have failed to accept the fact that there was no golden era under Conservative Governments. The quality of education in inner-city areas has risen significantly because of some of the Government's policies. The school achievement awards are welcomed because they recognise the contribution of different people to the raising of standards. However, we should also consider retention allowances or city allowances for
134WH
schools in hard-pressed areas. There used to be a social priority allowance, which allowed schools in social priority areas to retain teachers by providing incentives for them to stay on.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: One point that the hon. Gentleman has made is wrong: not only inner-city schools but rural schools have a retention problem. My constituency, which is deeply rural, also has problems with teacher retention. They are not comparable with those of the inner city, but they are none the less real. When the hon. Gentleman refers to his constituency, he should bear in mind the fact that retaining teachers in rural areas, too, is a serious problem, although of a different nature.
Mr. Lloyd: I am not saying that there are no retention problems elsewhere. We would be very stupid to pit teacher shortages in one area against those in another. We must recognise where the problems exist. As an inner-city MP, I have a responsibility to the schools and young people that I represent to point out the retention problems that relate to certain well defined features—but that is not to deny that problems exist elsewhere.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to a group of people whom we should encourage back into education—those who have experience of different walks of life. They should feel that they have something to offer, and enter teacher training.
I hope that the Minister will also consider another problem that crops up among my constituents: the benefits system deems people to have taken student loans. For somebody with a family, and a partner who is already working, loans have an impact on how they can use the benefit system. I know of families whose whole finances are derailed because it is deemed that they have access to, or take advantage of, the student loan system. We should not pile on extra disadvantages by adding a financial disincentive for those who want to re-enter the world of work and contribute to teaching where their experience will be relevant. I hope that the Minister will take on board those issues, both in the city of Manchester and elsewhere.
11.42 am
Mr. George Osborne: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on securing the debate. We serve together on the Public Accounts Committee and see many examples of Government waste. Later, I shall move on to the waste in the Department for Education and Skills budget and the way in which the Department tries to recruit and retain teachers.
My hon. Friend began with the example of his constituent—the man who worked on the electronic control systems for Trident nuclear submarines—who was trusted with our nation's defences, but not with teaching our nation's children. That is a powerful, if anecdotal, illustration of the problems that many public servants find on re-entering public service. I know of a nurse who had a similar experience. She worked for several years and then took time off to have a family. When she tried to rejoin the nursing profession in my county, which is short of nurses, she found that she would be forced to requalify and go through a year's training.

135WH
As my hon. Friend said, that experience suggests at least one explanation for the chronic shortage of teachers and nurses; another is the despair felt by many in the teaching profession. Politicians talk about teacher morale, but when one visits schools in one's constituency, one finds a sense of despair. National Union of Teachers press releases and comments from the Conservative Opposition do not create that. Teachers are deluged by red tape, Whitehall directives and Government initiatives, which are substitutes for substantive Government policy. Within minutes of walking through any school's door, one is told about the latest Government initiative, piece of red tape or forms that teachers are required to fill out. The performance-related pay scam is a classic example: anyone who jumped all the hurdles and filled out the paperwork got the pay. Head teachers spent days completing various Government forms. The only performance being measured was whether they could fill all the forms in, which is, I suppose, what teachers need to do these days.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) touched on the problems with classroom discipline. They have not emerged in the past couple of years, but are of long standing. It is definitely the case that teachers feel that they are being second-guessed and that their authority is being undermined. The problem has been made worse by unnecessary exclusion targets, which have encouraged certain behaviour in schools. I recollect a recent newspaper story about a head teacher who expelled two children for drug dealing. The local authority put them back in the school. We all know how a classroom works and how children can sense whether teachers have authority. I imagine that there is a serious discipline problem in that school, to which pupils were returned after being expelled.
Public servants in all public services are alternately bullied then praised by Ministers, including the Prime Minister. The crisis in teacher morale is unprecedented, and the problems of education are spelled out in the extraordinary book by Chris Woodhead, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and which I have had the pleasure of reading.
To the Department for Education and Skills and, perhaps, some teachers, Chris Woodhead is now public enemy No. 1, but one should not forget that a few years ago, in 1997, he was a great hero of the incoming Labour Government. They reappointed him, he sat next to the Prime Minister and he was held up by new Labour as a totem of how serious it was about improving school standards. Now he has come back to bite the Government with his extraordinary book, which is subtitled, "The Book Every Parent Should Read". Certainly, every Minister in the Department for Education and Skills should read it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us his thoughts.
The current state of affairs developed under a Government who said that "education, education, education" was their priority. I know that the Government's priorities change every year—it was transport, now it is health—but they began by saying that education was the priority. The Minister will tell us that more money is going into education to recruit more teachers and refer to the various targets that the Government have set, but I expect that the Department
136WH
will not do as well as some others in tomorrow's Budget, partly because of its extraordinary underspend, although we must wait and see. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk touched on that point towards the end of his remarks, and I hope that the Minister discusses it.
Yesterday, Andrew Dilnot of the Institute for Fiscal Studies treated Conservative Members to an excellent presentation on the Budget. Labour Members have the same opportunity today, I believe. According to Andrew Dilnot, the total Government underspend in 2000–01 was £6.2 billion. As my hon. Friend said, that is the last year for which we have figures. In other words, the Government did not spend £6.2 billion that was allocated to them. The Department for Education and Skills underspend was £1.4 billion, which is a quarter of the total and the largest sum for any Department.
Labour Members cheered when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced all the extra money in the Budget a couple of years ago, but they did not realise that the Department was not going to spend it. I believe that the underspend amounts to about 7.6 per cent. of the departmental budget. That is what Andrew Dilnot said, and he is generally right about such matters. According to "The IFS Green Budget 2002":
"Underspends in these areas of education, transport and health will make it more difficult for the government to succeed in delivering significant improvements in these services".
One reason suggested by the IFS for the underspend—a reason that certainly makes sense to me—is that the Government are finding it almost impossible to recruit the teachers for whom money is available. It is not the money that is lacking; it is Government education policy.
11.49 am
Mr. David Drew: Given the earlier remarks from the Chair, I shall obviously take careful note of the time. The debate has enabled a useful airing of issues and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on the first part of his important speech. It introduced many issues and failure to address them would represent a lost opportunity.
I must comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's speech and on that of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). I taught for 10 years and then spent 10 years in teacher training, facing year after year of cuts in teaching staff and resources, so I do not enjoy being lectured about the problems involved with having more money to spend. Was morale better then? I visit my schools regularly, and I do not think so. The morale of the teaching force is affected by many issues, some of which have been mentioned, and the fact that my area is at or near full employment—people can easily move in and out of the teaching profession—makes a dramatic difference to recruitment and retention.
I entered teaching on the basis that I would be a 40-year time-server. I hope that that is not a derogatory term. For many who entered teaching with me, that was the nature of the job. One entered it as a vocation; it was for life. That is not the case any more, and we must reflect on that when considering how to recruit and retain staff. We must take account of the fact that people move in and out of teaching much more frequently.

137WH
I take little notice of the bouquets being thrown to the former Office for Standards in Education chief inspector. Some Labour Members were more than unhappy when he was reappointed and tried to persuade our colleagues that the sooner he went the better. He was not an outstanding success in the classroom. There is a view that one should appoint those who have seen the other side of a job, because their insight will inform their decision making, but, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not think that his tenure was the great period that some, let alone he like to pretend it was.
I want to touch on issues unearthed by the debate, which we need to examine in more detail. Changes in our society have, understandably, affected teaching as they have affected all other aspects of life. The most important is that the majority of people now enter teaching as mature students. The balance between younger and older entrants changed in the 1980s and it has continued to shift dramatically towards mature people for some time. We must recognise that people enter with experience—that is a good thing, as previous speakers have acknowledged—and consider carefully how to help those people to enter the profession and how to retain them.
I am pleased that we have considered retention, because we must recognise that we have to make the job worth while. People must be rewarded and, whether we like performance-related pay or not, more money is going into teachers' pay packets. However, we must also make the job one in which people see a career path. We are recruiting many more teacher assistants, and a jolly good thing too. I hope that some of them become the teachers of tomorrow.
We must ensure that assistants can make the transition from entering the classroom to do one job to using their skills to advance to another, if people realise that they would make good teachers. That will involve a period outside the classroom, and I am sure that we can think about that carefully. I denounce the derogatory comments about people who are now entering classrooms. They are not a "mums' army" or people who are taken in off the streets. They are dedicated people who can bring an awful lot to the job that they do now, and to the jobs that they may go on to do.
I want to discuss recruitment and how to deal with a diversified intake. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place because, among other things, he has responsibility for the 14-to-19 curriculum. Although we are bringing the age of vocationism forward, we should realise that not everybody wants to pursue a purely academic curriculum. That obviously backwashes into who should be recruited into teaching. As someone involved in teacher training and who specialised in business education, I know that some teachers were very undervalued, perhaps because they had worked in an office or as typists. They took all their experience into teaching, but were never paid appropriately for the job that they did.
As we start to allow different ways to enter teaching, and other jobs, we should ensure that everyone is properly rewarded. We do not want to dilute standards, but we should consider the structures to ensure that such people have access points. My experience is that some of the best entrants to secondary education came through the old two-year BA course, which was sometimes still referred to as a two-year BEd course. They came with a
138WH
rich diversity of experience, and they had the necessary teaching qualifications. It may have been hard for them to make the transition, but they brought richness to the classroom. We must encourage that and build on it.
The fact that teaching is an ageing profession brings its own pressures. Some classrooms are heavily skewed and the retirement of a number of staff at the same time may cause difficulties, so we should always try to achieve a balance of ages. I have always warned of the dangers of early retirement—not that I begrudge it, as friends and, indeed, relatives have taken early retirement. Nevertheless, the ongoing cost has an impact and we must grapple with that problem at some stage, just as we are trying to grapple with the problems of the police pension scheme.
On the next issue—maths and English requirements—I do not say that we should wash them away, but some who wish to teach have not acquired either English or maths. I know that equivalence is involved, but I ask the Government to look at that question again—not to get rid of it, but to consider whether it bars some people who would otherwise make good teachers. We must consider other ways of letting them enter the profession and ensuring that English and maths skills are brought up to an appropriate level.
Subject relevance is important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made it clear that those who come with the best academic records are not necessarily the best teachers. Although people can choose from a diversity of degrees, they may have to narrow their subject and even specialise. That will not make them any worse as teachers. They must prove capable in their subjects, but for heaven's sake let us realise that the world has moved on. The quality of teaching is paramount, but that does not mean that we should dilute the subject content for secondary school teachers. For primary schools, first and foremost is the ability to teach, and subject knowledge comes second. That may be slightly different for secondary schools.
We have something to be proud of in our schools. The Government have raised teacher numbers—not quickly enough perhaps, although that is partly due to economic success in other areas—but there is no substitute for quality and we must continue to build it in, especially in training. There is a bias towards on-the-job training. Although I do not deny that that is the sensible way forward, good teaching is not only about doing the job.
That is recognised not only in teacher training, but in the ongoing training that takes teachers out of the classroom and allows them to build their subject knowledge and other skills, which in turn enable them to handle some of the difficult issues that have been alluded to. As one who did the job for a long time, I do not deny that such problems exist, but I do not think that they have got worse. They sometimes appear to have done so, however, and they must be grappled with, which means that the Government must get it right and members of the teaching profession must support each other.
11.59 am
Mr. Phil Willis: This has been an interesting debate, and I hope that when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke about time-serving, he was not referring to my 34 years in the profession. I can assure him that people get less for murder.

139WH
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) spoke, as ever, with enormous common sense. The problems that face us in our classrooms did not arrive overnight and it will take a lot of time to address and work through them. He mentioned an aspect of Government policy towards teacher recruitment and retention that causes me great sadness—we are failing to get our inspirational teachers to the areas where they are most needed. None of the parties has a solution to that problem, but we must find one if children are not to be denied access.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) should buy another book besides Chris Woodhead's diatribe against his former employers and the world in general. I have no doubt that he could found his own organisation if he wanted to. If the hon. Gentleman talked sensibly to the teachers in schools in his constituency, he would find out that Chris Woodhead, with his regime, did more to undermine morale, turn teachers from our schools and send them packing than any other individual in the history of education—except John Patten.
The introduction to the debate provided by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), particularly on people without regular qualifications gaining access to the teaching profession, is an important contribution. He deserves credit for raising it on behalf of not only his constituents, but a significant number of other Members' constituents. However, he spoilt his speech by attacking the trainee teachers emerging from our training establishments.
My experience in meeting newly qualified teachers all over the country is that they are the most dedicated, highly qualified and motivated group of entrants that I have ever seen. In the 1980s, and during the 20 years that I was a head, I would have died for the opportunity to recruit some of the people who are entering the profession now. There are not as many as we would like—I accept that point—but please do not denigrate our training establishments and training schools, because superb work is being done.
Like most Conservative Members, those present suffer from selective memory syndrome and fail to recognise that all those problems existed, but none was tackled, in the 18 years under the Tories. The greatest disservice that the Tory Administration did to education was having no policy for teacher recruitment and retention. Their main policy was to put the economy in recession, which they did very successfully between 1991 and 1994. That was the only period in which the number of people applying for teacher placements increased significantly, which is rather sad.
The previous Administration's second policy, which the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) introduced in 1996, was to stop early retirements. The hon. Member for Stroud might not have got his—he looks far too young for that scheme—but I was eligible in 1996–97. If I had not been downgraded and come to the House of Commons, I would probably have taken advantage of the scheme before the right hon. Lady could stop me.
Every year from 1979 to 1997, when the Conservatives left office, with the exception of the three years from 1991 to 1994, the training targets were
140WH
missed. In key subjects such as mathematics, even in the years after the recession in the early 1990s, the number of people entering teaching fell by 33.4 per cent. I am grateful that the hon. Member for South Norfolk now reads some of the National Union of Teachers' excellent literature.
Those problems were disguised in that period, during which there was a massive increase in the number of students, particularly in secondary schools. Numbers rose from 7.5 million to 7.9 million in one year before the Conservatives left office, and teacher shortages were disguised by a massive increase in class sizes. We should not return to that situation, and I compliment the Government on recognising the problem and at least trying to make progress.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: I prefer not to, as I want to use my remaining time to complete my remarks.
We knew about the problem, because in 1996 Sir Malcolm Thornton, the Chairman of the Education Committee, wrote a good report on teacher shortages and retention. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, as the Chairman of the Select Committee in 1997 when new Labour came to power, published a back-to-back report on the subject. Both reports pointed to the fact that we needed solutions desperately. Sadly, Labour's record in office is absolutely lamentable in that respect.
The Minister will no doubt say that the number of teachers has risen dramatically during that period in office—to 457,890 in January 2001—and that it will rise again this year. He would be right to do so, but I hope that, as he is a very honest young man, which is appropriate for his brief, he will admit that the number of full-time teachers has barely changed. In secondary schools, the number of teachers has risen by little more than 2,000 during Labour's time in office, despite an increase in pupil numbers of more than 190,000. To accommodate that number of students in secondary schools, using the Government's ratio of 1:17, requires another 11,188 teachers. That statistic shows the discrepancy between what has been achieved and what is needed.
The Government are fiddling around the edges. The idea that one can simply introduce classroom assistants to supervise classes and the belief that that is a recognised policy for dealing with the situation are ludicrous. The hon. Member for Stroud is right to say that classroom assistants do an invaluable job—indeed, I compliment the Minister and his Government on targeting an extra 20,000 places in our schools—but they are not substitute teachers. Recently completed research from Europe, the Social Market Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research states that most classroom assistants do not want to be teachers. They do not want to face full classes of youngsters, so we should knock that idea on its head.
The Government have given us a plethora of silly little initiatives, such as fast track. An enormous amount of money—£4.3 million—was invested in that project in its first year, but it recruited only 111 people to training. Eleven of those have gone and of the 100 who remain, at a cost of £43,000 per entrant, at least 10 are not going

141WH
into teaching at all. Some are taking up jobs in the private sector. Before the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) intervenes, I should say that they are entitled to do so, but fast track has been a huge flop. Recruiting a person costs £17.68 through the graduate teacher registry scheme, but £43,000 through the Government's fast-track scheme. That is nonsense, but it happens over and over again.
Work load, initiative overload and Government directives are central to teacher retention. Unless the Government carry out research to find out how many teachers are required over the next 10 years, we shall continue to fail. We have constantly asked them to conclude the curriculum and staffing survey, but they refused to do so in 2000 and have refused to do so since. We asked Baroness Ashton in another place why that is, and she told us that there are not enough bureaucrats. I rest my case.
12.10 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I begin by congratulating not my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), but the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who kept perfectly to time. That is probably a first, and we are all grateful to him. I should also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an excellent and important debate, during which we have heard good and useful contributions.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) spoke about the problems of the inner cities, and we fully accept his point. To start on a note of harmony, my party must get to grips with those problems and have a convincing policy to tackle them. Indeed, all parties must recognise them.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke about Tory cuts, but if he is fair, he will accept that there were no education cuts under Conservative Governments. In the same way, I am prepared to accept that more money has been available under the current Government. However, my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) alluded to the genuine problem of failure to spend the education budget, which is largely due to the failure to recruit.
One issue that has not been dealt with, perhaps because of time pressure, is the consequence for other countries of the Government's panic response to the teacher recruitment and retention crisis. The attempt to fill teacher vacancies from countries such as South Africa, New Zealand and Jamaica has been referred to as plundering the world's schools.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that, in his experience, the newly qualified teachers appearing in our schools today are the most dedicated entrants to teaching he has ever seen. That begs the question, what is going wrong when a cohort of dedicated, committed and predominantly young people going into schools translates to record numbers leaving the profession for a variety of reasons?
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk sought the debate not least to air his concerns about his constituent, Mr. Christopher Read. Mr. Read is obviously an impressive man with a strong CV, and we should be delighted that he wants go into teaching, as I am sure the Minister will confirm.
142WH
My hon. Friend threw down an important challenge to the Department in terms of dealing with this problem. Mr. Read is not alone, and the hon. Member for Stroud referred to examples that we all come across—people who want to teach history or drama, but who are precluded from doing so by the lack of a maths O-level or GCSE. He asked the Minister to consider the way forward, and I concur that the Government have an important challenge to meet. People with an enormous amount to contribute in our schools cannot do so.
If we try to get an impression of the scale of the problems in our schools, we find that the number of teachers without qualified teacher status has grown steadily. A response to a written question that I tabled last October confirms that the number of teachers who do not have such status has risen from 2,940 in 1997 to 5,620 this year, although the Department was unable to say how that figure is constituted. Nor could it say how many people are on the graduate teacher programme, how many are on the registered teacher programme, how many are licensed teachers or how many trained overseas. If it does not know how that body of people in our schools is constituted, it is difficult to see how it will find solutions to the problems identified this morning.
We have a serious crisis. There is an exodus of teachers from the profession as well as a flight of qualified teachers from our schools and from normal, contracted, permanent full-time status to supply teaching. Some supply teachers provide an excellent standard of education but some, of course, do not. There is an accelerating trend of teachers teaching outside their subject, and a vast number of qualified teachers are choosing not to teach. Last year's figures for supply teachers in one local education authority area, Luton, show that more than 20 per cent. of full-time teachers were supply teachers. As Ofsted reported this year:
"Nevertheless, the percentage of unsatisfactory or poor lessons taught by temporary supply teachers is significantly higher than the figure for qualified teachers with more than one year's teaching experience. The figure is twice as high for primary schools and four times as high for secondary schools."
So, real problems result from the situation that the Government have allowed to develop. I am sure that we all accept, intuitively, that that is also a problem for children, who all too often encounter a succession of different teachers, one day after another, or one week after another, and are unable to develop a relationship with their own class teacher.
There is a crisis in teacher recruitment. The Ofsted report says:
"There are real problems in recruiting teachers and in retaining them, and these problems have got worse over the past two years."
Recruitment and retention of primary school staff is
"no longer just an inner city issue, but is beginning to affect schools in all regions and all kinds of locations…More teachers are being asked to teach outside their specialism."
We see the number of vacancies rising, as well as the number of teachers who are not teaching.
I return to the question of why teachers leave. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton referred to disciplinary problems. A recent National Union of Teachers report found that 45.1 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession cited pupil behaviour as the reason—a worrying statistic that underlines the

143WH
problem of discipline in the classroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred to the Department's failure to get a grip on what is happening in schools. That is underlined by the response—perhaps failure to respond is more accurate—to a written question that I recently put to the Minister for School Standards, asking how many teachers in maintained schools have been victims of serious assaults by pupils or parents in the past five years. The Minister replied:
"My Department does not collect this information"—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 195W.]
For the Department not to know how many assaults have been carried out, when 45 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession cite classroom behaviour as the reason, is a matter of huge concern.
Of course, many teachers leave through ordinary retirement or early retirement on health or other grounds. The number of those taking early retirement has fallen dramatically as the natural result of the changes to the early retirement rules, but the number leaving for other reasons has risen steadily in each of the past four years from 18,000 to 23, 000 to 24,000 to more than 26,000 in the last year for which I have figures.
The Government face huge challenges if they are to tackle those problems in our schools. They must stem the exodus of teachers from the profession and tackle the disciplinary problems in our classrooms. They must back up the supposed conversion on the road to Damascus that Ministers experienced when they recently reviewed the failed policy to reduce exclusions.
The Government must get to grips with the problem of the huge non-teaching work load—the weight of bureaucracy and paperwork—being piled on teachers. They are storing up new problems for themselves in the need, which they recognise, to train more teachers in vocational specialisms and for more language teachers. They know that they have those problems to deal with but, according to recent replies that I have received from Ministers, have no idea how to tackle them.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): There is a consensus on both sides of the House that the quality and number of teachers is central to any common objective of achieving the highest possible standards of education in this country. This debate is central to that objective, and we must pay tribute, as always in such debates, to the work of teachers at the chalk face throughout the country who are making a real difference to our young people's life chances and opportunities. It is important to start from that perspective.
There have been several interesting contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on securing the debate. He raised important issues, and in particular the case of his constituent. We can understand that gentleman's frustration and feeling that the situation is not working as it should. On the other hand, I thought that the hon. Gentleman's contribution was completely spoiled by his politicisation of the debate, and by an almost complete
144WH
absence of memory concerning the history of why we have got to this stage with teacher recruitment and retention.
It is interesting that the Conservative party always scoffs at the title "Minister for Young People"; I can assure Conservative Members that young people do not do so. They see it as an important representation of the fact that the Government are determined to re-engage with young people in a whole variety of policy areas. Those of us who care about the future of democracy should welcome that re-engagement between politicians, or the political process, and young people.
In the context of the debate, it is right to achieve an appropriate balance between a minimum threshold framework and the need to recruit the maximum number of teachers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, this must be about quality as well as quantity. It is not good enough simply to rush to recruit as many teachers as possible and sacrifice quality in the process. The analogy that the hon. Member for South Norfolk made was interesting. He suggested that because a retired police officer sought to become a teacher, he would inevitably be good at maintaining classroom discipline. I was going to use the David Beckham example as an analogy—although as a Manchester City fan, that would have made life difficult for me—but I have found a better one. It is a bit like saying that the underperformance of boys would be corrected if we had Britney Spears or Kylie Minogue teaching in our classrooms.
Some of our former political colleagues, whom we can all remember, have CVs that show that they were extremely distinguished—but would we want them to teach our children, just because they had a distinguished record in public life? No, we would not. That is not a reflection on the gentleman on whose behalf the hon. Member for South Norfolk raised the issue. I can see, not only from his CV but because he is already actively filling the role of a teaching instructor—a role in which he is valued and to which he has been reappointed—that he is making a contribution to the education system, and I pay tribute to that. However, there must be parameters—a framework in which to determine quality.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk said that schools were increasingly becoming training institutions. I must say to him that all good schools are constantly training, and that we want them to train not only new teachers but experienced teachers, classroom assistants and learning mentors, too, to ensure that our young people have access to the best possible quality education. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman—he did not refer to this in his contribution—that his own local education authority received more than £0.5 million from the recruitment and retention fund in 2001–02 and is due to receive more than £1 million over the next twelve months.
Mr. Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lewis: Much as I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, I do not have the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) raised several important issues concerning inner cities, such as low aspirations, the lack of opportunities for young

145WH
people in those communities, and the behaviour and discipline problems with which teachers have to deal. He talked about the special nature of teaching in the inner cities, and the special challenges there. I am sure that he would agree that the additional support through education action zones, excellence in cities, and the influx of learning mentors—all warmly welcomed—is making a significant difference to the quality of education in those inner-city schools. We have done a lot, but I acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount left to do.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) paid great tribute to the former chief inspector of schools. Even if one thinks, as I do, that that person was a necessary evil rather than simply evil, as some hon. Members think, one cannot say that he did much for teacher morale. I have never met a teacher who has had anything positive to say about the rhetoric that he used about education and teaching—and it was not always the policies introduced or the work of Ofsted itself that they criticised. The general flavour of the chief inspector's comments about the state of the teaching profession in this country did a tremendous amount to undermine teaching morale, even if he was a necessary evil.
Mr. Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lewis: No, I am sorry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised several important points. He welcomed the Government's commitment to restructure the teaching profession. While ensuring that there are more adults, such as classroom assistants, learning mentors, Connexions personal advisers and teachers, in the classroom, in the interests of young people we must also ensure that the balance of contribution is right from each of those professionals—and, indeed, that they are all professionals. My hon. Friend raised some important points about our determination to raise the status and esteem of vocational education. No Government have been able to crack that nut in the past, and it is an important challenge that we must face up to on a consensual basis.
146WH
I did not agree with all of what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, particularly the bit about the Government. However, I did agree with him on one point, which is linked with what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said. The reason for the current difficulties is, to a large extent, the fact that there has been no long-term planning in our education system for personnel and staffing needs. Since we came to power we have introduced a whole range of powers to tackle that problem. One may disagree with the measures, but from day one we have acknowledged the need to encourage more people to get into the teaching profession, and to do something about teaching retention.
In a whole range of public service areas, the crime of the party that was in government before was that there was no long-term planning, no investment, and no strategic approach whatever. It is not just in teaching that there is a serious shortage of skills or workers. There are shortages across the public services, because this country has not planned on a long-term basis, and during those years we did not invest in public services.
All the evidence suggests that we must address serious issues: for example, behaviour and discipline in secondary schools. That is one of the reasons why the Government have prioritised tackling the performance of secondary schools in this term of office, and in direct relation to that, discipline and behaviour matters, such as learning support units, pupil referral units and Connexions personal advisers. The idea that discipline and behaviour is a problem in our schools because of the Government's policy on exclusion is nonsense. It is due to complex social, community and family problems that have scarred children's performance for years.
During the 18 years of Tory Government there was a greater division in our society than ever before and social problems increased, which is one reason for some of the behaviour and discipline problems in schools today. We are determined to support teachers because we are not prepared to accept unacceptable behaviour, and we believe that parents should have greater responsibility in supporting teachers in that context. However, we are not prepared to take the blame for the fact that young people who grew up during the Thatcher years are now behaving badly.

Selby Coalfield
12.30 pm
Mr. John Grogan: My task today is to outline my view of the future of the Selby coalfield. To do so sensibly, I must examine the context of both British Government and European policy.
The coal industry in general and Selby in particular have had a real friend in this Labour Government. Time and again since 1997, when questions have been asked about the future of the Selby coalfield and the industry in general, the Government have responded with policy initiatives. The coal lobby has always had to argue its case hard with Ministers, who have never been slow to challenge our assumptions robustly, but that is as it should be. The demand has always been for fairness, not favours.
The argument that British coal has a significant role in the energy mix, not least so that the nation does not become completely dependent on imported gas, has won the day. It was this Government who gave the industry a vital breathing space by imposing a temporary moratorium on new gas-fired power stations while the electricity trading market, which was rigged against coal-fired power stations, was reformed. It was this Government who introduced a scheme of coal operating aid, which expires in July this year and has paid out more than £140 million to the coal industry—I understand that the figure will be £170 million when the scheme expires—and more than £40 million to Selby. There can be little doubt that without that aid Selby would now be closed. It was also this Government who steadily addressed the legacy of issues of basic justice in the coalfields, notably by introducing the largest ever industrial compensation scheme in the world to provide assistance to miners affected by vibration white finger and chest disease.
The Selby project is the largest deep coal mining project ever undertaken in the world. It covers about 110 square miles in the Vale of York and when it was developed in the 1980s productivity was five times that of the national average for United Kingdom mines. It took 20 years to plan and bring the complex into production. The project included the sinking of 10 shafts and driving some 124 miles of underground roadways at a cost of about £1.3 billion. The shaft sinking and access drifts had to pass through heavily watered ground, involving major ground treatment at different horizons and in different conditions. The mining engineers involved produced innovative solutions to those problems—solutions that had never been seen before but have since been copied all over the world.
The Selby mining complex is an example of a highly technological, flexible, modern industry. It is an example of which new Labour should be proud, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit it.
All the coal produced at the original five mines—Wistow, Riccall, Stillingfleet, Whitemoor and North Selby—is brought to the surface at one point, Gascoigne Wood, from where it is prepared and dispatched to Drax, Eggborough and other major power stations in the region. Its direct work force, supplemented by contractors, totals more than 2,500, making a major contribution to the local economy in
148WH
rates, wages and the provision of goods and services. Last year, wages, salaries and related costs were more than £100 million.
Wistow was the first of the five mines to begin production in 1983. At its peak in 1993–94, the Selby complex produced 12 million tonnes of coal a year and was the jewel in the crown of the coal industry. Output and productivity records were set as the complex harvested coal from the single Barnsley seam that it was authorised to work. As The Times commented only last month,
"unlike so many big British industrial and infrastructure projects in the second half of the last century, including the Vale of Belvoir coalfield, Selby fulfilled its promise and became one of the world's most productive coal mines".
However, in the face of increasing geological disturbances, some reserves had to be discounted and production began to tail off in the mid-1990s. Whitemoor and North Selby mines merged with their close neighbours Stillingfleet and Riccall to concentrate mining activities in areas with more favourable geology and fewer uncertainties.
By the millennium year, annual output, which five years earlier had been 11.4 million tonnes, was down to 4.4 million tonnes. That was also the output for 2001, by which time the Selby complex had produced 110 million tonnes of coal since production first began. Reducing output and falling coal prices have turned the once-profitable Selby mine into a heavy loss-maker. If UK Coal received the same value for its coal as the previous owners, British Coal, it would receive more than £40 per tonne, which would be about half the cost of mining 1 tonne of coal in Germany. However, UK coal prices are now less than £30 per tonne. As a result, the Selby complex lost more than £35 million last year, bringing losses in the past three years to £93 million.
On Thursday 7 March, I met the chief executive of UK Coal, Gordon McPhie, at the House of Commons. I received much the same briefing as union officials in Selby had received from UK Coal management some days earlier. UK Coal does not see the Selby complex being economically viable beyond 2005 at the latest. At about that time, Wistow mine will be exhausted. It would be possible to access some new reserves from Riccall and Stillingfleet, but the huge costs of maintaining Gascoigne Wood, which was designed for five mines rather than two, would mean increasing losses. Wistow coal is essential to the composition of the overall mixture offered to Drax, and Gordon McPhie could not rule out closure taking place much earlier than 2005.
Over the following weekend I pondered what to do. There are still millions of tonnes of coal left to mine at Selby, but with high standing charges and increasing geological risks, unit costs increase as output diminishes. More than 2,500 miners and contractors and their families are currently living with desperate uncertainty, and they expect the worst. Many of them told me that they fear a closure announcement within weeks, with a closure date of autumn 2003. That would mean that the industry's relatively generous redundancy terms would no longer apply, as UK Coal has guaranteed them only until March 2003.
Men who have rejected redundancy offers, in some cases on three or four occasions, in order to keep working in the industry, would lose their jobs with only

149WH
the minimum state redundancy terms to fall back on. An early closure announcement would bring chaos to the Selby coalfield. Electricians and engineers, whose skills are crucial to managing the complex, would bail out and secure alternative employment as soon as they could, and the complex would shut itself. The legacy would be one of bitterness and hardship, and Selby's economy would have to brace itself for an abrupt and devastating blow to its very foundations.
I had further telephone conversations with UK Coal in which I stressed that it was imperative that the coalfield stays open until at least 2005. It agreed to submit a further application for a subsidy to the Government to enable that to happen. On Monday 18 March, Gordon McPhie wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking for a meeting to discuss a package of closure aid for the Selby coalfield. He said that the company needed to come to a decision on how it proposed to operate the Selby coalfield in the next three months; the first of those three months is nearly up.
I have agreed to back the principle of closure aid, although I want the Coal Authority to undertake an independent analysis of whether 2005 is the economically viable limit for the Selby coalfield. Closure aid is an important weapon in the French, German and Spanish Governments' armouries to provide assistance to coalfield communities. It is allowed under the existing coal and steel treaty, which expires in July, and will be an important part of any new coal aid regime. We should embrace it and not shun it, not least because of its flexibility and practicality.
Devastated former mining communities do not exist in the rest of the European Union as they do in Wales, Scotland, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, which is largely because of closure aid. As The Times business leader recently put it:
"it is more civilised to run operations down in an orderly way over the next three years so that miners and other workers can be retrained and new employment can be attracted into the area. By smoothing the process and avoiding the disruptive shocks that have so damaged many mining towns and villages what is gentler might also prove cheaper in the long run for taxpayers".
Or, as the Yorkshire Post put it:
"The Government could sit on its hands and do nothing to avert the unfolding economic and human calamity. But Tony Blair whose maiden speech eloquently chronicled the devastation that pit closures can have on tightly knit communities knows that it is the role of Government to help to manage the decline of traditional industries in a way that minimises suffering and gives workers the chance to respond to new opportunities. It is for this reason that he should listen to those who are now asking him to provide so called 'closure assistance' to the miners of Selby. Such assistance which other Europeans make regular use of…would be used to allow Selby the time it needs to adjust to life after coal."
As far as I am aware, UK Coal has not yet had a reply from the Secretary of State. Indeed, a brief perusal of the press seems to indicate that she needs to be convinced of the case for further state aid to the coal industry, perhaps more than other Ministers do. It is time that serious discussions started between Department of Trade and Industry officials and UK. Coal in preparation for such a meeting. Mr. McPhie's letter makes no mention of the precise cost of any closure aid scheme. The costs and benefits need to be fully explored, and the Government, whom I support, owe it to the miners and the community of Selby to start the discussions.
150WH
In the rest of the European Union, redundancy payments are an essential element of closure aid. The miners in Selby who have worked in the industry from pre-privatisation days are still entitled to a relatively generous redundancy scheme, worth £900 for each year worked, with a cap of £27,000. The scheme was inherited by RJB Mining, now UK Coal, and was subject to Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 until 1998. The company has guaranteed to honour the redundancy package but only until March 2003. It would cost the Government just short of £40 million in closure aid to guarantee the redundancy payments.
The average age of a Selby miner is 44. Many have refused redundancy on several occasions to keep working in the coalfield. After a lifetime of undertaking what is still a physically demanding, back-breaking job, some are of an age that they are unlikely to work again once the mine is closed. However, for younger miners, resources will be needed for a closure aid package to fund the most ambitious retraining scheme ever seen after closure of a British coalfield.
We need time to make such a project effective. The Selby bypass is due to be completed by Christmas 2003. It will open up a huge amount of development land at the edge of Selby town with the potential for creation of a large number of jobs. On behalf of Selby district, I plead with my Government to give us time to bring those jobs on stream before the coalfield closes. If we had until at least 2005, perhaps we could avoid the despair, family breakdowns, hardship and suicides that have been a feature of other pit closures. Every miner must be offered a personal interview to examine the options for the future and then be assisted to seize that future. Every expert I have consulted tells me that it will take two or three years for such a project to be effective. If Selby mine closes abruptly, we will be left with a sticking plaster of regeneration and retraining money that cannot cover the gaping wound in the local economy.
As part of a comprehensive closure aid package, the Government should be prepared to consider further subsidies to UK Coal itself. As the complex moves towards closure, it may be that the current losses will diminish as development costs decline. Moreover, if a closure aid package is agreed, it is likely that morale will improve and productivity will increase. Clearly, the Department should carefully scrutinise UK Coal's projections, but it must get around a table to do so.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry forcefully asks why the Government should pick up the tab for closure aid. What is different about the coal industry or Selby? Just because it is good enough for Jospin and for Schroder, why should new Labour get involved? Such robust questions deserve robust answers. There is a joke—sort of—going around the pits in Selby. I overheard it in a local pub recently and felt a deep sadness. "What is the difference between Mrs. Thatcher and Patricia Hewitt? At least when Mrs. Thatcher closed the pits she made sure the men got their redundancy money." At that point, I stoutly defended the Secretary of State's honour, saying that that was a premature judgment, but the joke may be a salutary warning to us. How the Labour Government respond to UK Coal's request for closure aid for Selby will have a resonance across Labour's Yorkshire heartlands. I am

151WH
grateful to my Yorkshire colleagues for being here to support me on the day of a one-line Whip. If our values mean anything, we cannot pass by on the other side of the road. We must close Britain's largest remaining coalfield in a way that gives our movement pride—in a better way than occurred in the 1980s and 1990s.
Why should Selby be the first British coalfield to receive closure aid? None has ever asked before. For me, it is a credit to the local community that it is prepared to face up to its future. It has always been apparent that when Selby closed, because of its size, Government help would be needed to honour the redundancy payments.
Moreover, we have noticed in Selby that the Secretary of State is quite prepared to finance generous redundancy payments for postmasters and postmistresses. If we say no as a Government, and say that it is all the company's fault, what good will all the regeneration in the world be to a 55-year-old miner whom I know, who has worked most days of his working life down the pit, and tells me that there has never been a day when he has not dreaded it, despite the camaraderie of good mates? What shall I tell him when I say that he cannot have the redundancy of £27,000 that he has counted on and that, unlike his manager, he will have to wait until he is 60 to claim a pension? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry needs to provide me with a better answer than that he should apply for a computer training course and write a letter of complaint to UK Coal.
The Government must ensure that ordinary miners get a full pension at 50, if made redundant, as the pit deputies and the management currently do. At the time of privatisation, in order to try and keep the management on board, the Tories ensured that the British Coal staff and supervisors' pension scheme was more generous than the miners' pension scheme. It is simply unjust that if the Selby complex or the Prince of Wales colliery shuts, management get a full pension at 50, but the miners who labour at the coal face do not.
If a Selby miner can leave the industry with guaranteed redundancy terms and a full pension at 50, it will be with dignity. He will continue to be able to spend in local shops and the local economy and consider his options for the future. If he is thrown out of work next year with no additional redundancy or pension rights, many families will suffer badly. It will not just be mining families who feel the pinch, as turnover in local shops and pubs declines sharply and with little warning. The cost to the pension fund of making this change has been estimated by the actuary to be £99 million. The Government incidentally are currently receiving about £200 million each year in surplus from the miners' pension scheme—enough by itself to fund a closure aid package and to give a full pension at 50 if made redundant.
I have spoken today largely about closure aid, but as secretary of the all-party group on coalfield communities I am equally passionate about the need for investment aid. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are arguing in Europe that for the first time it should be possible to provide finance to help open up new seams and faces rather than simply to cover losses. Such investment aid would provide jobs at other mines for some men from Selby.
152WH
It is worth noting that, according to the European draft regulations, all Governments must say by October 2002 which mines will be given what type of aid between now and 2010. All closure aid must expire by 2007. The Government's stance that they will consider whether to give further aid to the industry at the appropriate time will not carry credibility much longer. They need to get involved and engage with the issues pit by pit. That is why I have written to both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeking meetings with coalfield MPs. That is why the all-party group will be organising a seminar in May in the Commons on the future of coal, and why a delegation of Selby miners and the wider Selby community will be coming to the House of Commons.
Our first challenge as a coal mining group was to persuade our own communities to face up to the future: to campaign for both investment aid where possible, and closure aid where necessary, in order to achieve a sustainable industry. Our next challenge is to persuade the Government to change their policy. Dylan Thomas famously wrote:
"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
In Selby, I hope that there is enough rage and righteous anger to persuade the Government to change their mind. Before the current children of miners in Selby's primary schools are fully grown, mining will have ceased. The proud memory of the craft and toil that went into making this huge project a success will long linger. The memories of the strike will linger, too, as will the many contributions of miners and their families to our community and our civic life. The current leader, chairman and vice-chairman of Selby district council work in the mines, or did so in the past. I hope that a final memory that will linger will be the way in which it all ended—not in chaos, despair and hardship but with dignity, planning, courage and foresight.
12.48 pm
Jon Trickett: I associate myself totally with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who speaks with passion and knowledge about the industry and is a distinguished advocate for his constituency. There is anger in communities that were devastated by Thatcher and the Tories, and have still not recovered. I represent villages that have never recovered from the pit closures, and that the present Government have barely touched yet in terms of regeneration. Those villages now face further job losses. My constituency still encompasses many miners who work in the Selby complex, and I estimate that about £75 million a year in wages is paid into the Yorkshire coalfield from Selby alone. The prospect that the Government would tolerate early closure and the sterilisation of resources is too horrendous to contemplate, yet rumours come from the Secretary of State's office that she intends to allow it to happen.
I am angry, as are the communities that I represent, that a Labour Government should betray the party's historic mission to regenerate those communities and to protect coal reserves. It will cause devastating political damage. I warn the Minister as gently as I can that the anger will spill over not only into the Chamber—I shall express my anger on every available opportunity should

153WH
the Government proceed down that course—but into the streets. Demonstrations will take place the like of which we thought we had seen the last of when we saw the end of the Tories. I shall join those demonstrations—I believe that other hon. Members will, too—and damage will be done to the Government in the heartlands. I do not wish to see such damage, but it would be self-inflicted if the Government proceed as rumour suggests.
I associate myself entirely with my hon. Friend's comments on pensions for manual workers and miners. It is a question not only of coal closures but of justice. It is not right that white-collar workers who have never worked down a pit should be able to retire at 50 on a full pension, but that manual workers who have worked for 30-odd years should not be similarly entitled. I ask the Minister, in all justice, to consider that issue.
12.51 pm
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing this debate. It has been an interesting one, although it was slightly curious in adopting a somewhat different tone from that which I had expected. I point out to the wider audience that it is somewhat unusual in that my hon. Friends the Members for Selby and for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) have already taken 21 minutes, which leaves me only nine minutes to reply. However, I shall do my best within those limitations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby was good enough to acknowledge, no one can seriously question the Government's commitment to the coal industry. We introduced reforms to the electricity market that were designed to correct some of the distortions that were, among other things, penalising coal. To help the United Kingdom coal industry over particular short-term structural and market problems, we introduced the coal operating aid scheme. As has been said, approximately £140 million has been paid out under that scheme so far. Selby has been a major beneficiary, with £23 million in the first tranche of aid and another £20 million in the second.
When UK Coal applied for subsidy under the scheme, it appeared that Selby had a viable future without aid beyond July 2002. On that basis, it satisfied the scheme criteria to comply with European rules on coal state aid. In the light of expert mining advice, Selby was judged to have a realistic prospect of a viable future without aid.
The chief executive of UK Coal wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 18 March requesting a meeting to discuss, among other things, the possibility of the Government supporting a closure aid package. We have replied agreeing to such a meeting. As has already been suggested, however, it is fair to say we shall have a lot more to discuss at that meeting than closure aid. That letter was the only formal approach made to us by UK Coal—we were given a few days' warning that the letter was coming, but it is the only indication that we have had that the company is carrying out a review, which is expected to be completed within three months.
That, formally, is the position as far as the Government are concerned. We have put in £43 million of aid under the scheme, and we have now been told in
154WH
a letter of 18 March that UK Coal is reviewing the future of Selby, and a meeting will be held. The Secretary of State and I will be happy to participate, and we shall presumably hear more then about the thinking of Selby's owners.
The case for operating aid under the scheme that is now drawing to a close was that it would create a future for pits such as Selby, which had clear longer-term prospects of profitability and viability. My hon. Friends have referred to closure aid, but that raises very different issues. It is claimed that it could soften the blow for the Selby area by allowing a phased reduction in jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said, it would be the first time that such an approach had been taken, and we would obviously have to ask many major questions before going down that road.
Would closure aid really be the most cost-effective way of dealing with the issue, if and when it arises? We should note that the benefits would go primarily to the company, not to those who suffer the redundancies. There must also be a read-across from Selby to other pits where the same questions will arise for geological reasons that are beyond the control of any of us. There is also the valid point that closure aid gives companies a direct incentive to shut down mines, so the very subsidy that is designed to help the industry and those who work in it could bring about its demise earlier than might otherwise have been the case, and we must take account of that when considering the arguments for such aid. None the less, I understand my hon. Friends' attachment to closure aid at this juncture, and I shall be happy to hold further discussions to hear the case for it—assuming that the context set out in the letter of 18 March remains the same when UK Coal comes back to us.
There has been widespread support for the idea of investment aid, and I can confirm that we are continuing to negotiate in Brussels to put in place a framework for possible national subsidy schemes after July 2002. Our aim is to secure an outcome that gives us the flexibility to put in place arrangements if they become necessary in specific cases. It is not certain that we will succeed in the EU in securing provisions for the payment of investment aid. Just as some countries are very much attached to different kinds of subsidy schemes, others are very much opposed to investment aid. However, we are pursuing the ability to pay investment aid when the current scheme expires. If we are successful, we can expect it to be limited to a proportion—perhaps 20 per cent.—of the investment costs associated with a project. Even if we are able to pay such aid, further work will need to be undertaken to ascertain the circumstances in which it might be applicable.
There are many issues on which I would like to comment, but let me briefly say something about cleaner coal technology. As my hon. Friends will be well aware, the Government believe that the future of coal is very much tied up with the movement towards cleaner coal. A review that ran parallel to the energy review considered the issue and concluded that the case for building a demonstration plant was weak, but that funding and support for specific technologies that are retrofittable to existing plant may be appropriate. It will be for those interested in demonstrating such technologies to make their case to the cleaner coal technology programme. We are also investigating

155WH
several important geological, engineering, economic and legal issues around carbon dioxide capture and storage to ensure that it is a feasible option.
To summarise, as matters stand, we have had one letter from UK Coal. We gave the firm £43 million in subsidy under the present scheme in the belief that that would give it a viable long-term future. If the situation has changed, UK Coal will doubtless inform us, and we shall take discussions from there. Frankly, however, some of my hon. Friends' statements about the Government's attitude to the coal industry and some of the direr warnings that I have heard are utterly incompatible with the Government's record. I hope that in the future we may be able to proceed on a more measured basis to achieve what we presumably all want—the best possible future for coalfield communities.
For reasons that have nothing to do with the Government, and in spite of the aid that they have given to the deep coal mining industry, other difficulties may arise as the context changes. Let us proceed on the basis of what is best for the industry and the communities, bearing it in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said, that few of the pits would still be there if it were not for the scheme introduced by the Government. If—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. Time is up.

Borehamwood Care Village
1 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to raise the subject of Borehamwood Care Village, the future of which has been a source of great concern for my constituents. The Minister is already aware to some extent of that concern through correspondence with me, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to meet her with a group of representatives from the home, including residents and family members. By coincidence, that meeting will take place later this afternoon, so what I say now is something of a preview.
Borehamwood Care Village is an important care setting for almost 100 elderly people in my constituency. It offers 40 residential places and 39 nursing bed places, as well as places for 16 close care tenants. It is a modern facility that was opened only 10 years ago, as I know, having opened part of it when I became the Member of Parliament for Hertsmere. It was opened as a modern facility offering continuity of care for people who, as they got older, were looking for stability more than anything else.
I should make it clear that the residents and the family members have no complaints about the fabric of the care village, nor about the quality of the care that they receive from staff. Indeed, I pay tribute, on their behalf, to the care and dedication of the staff, who have been as concerned as anyone about its prospects.
Just before Christmas last year, the residents and staff received the startling news that the home's proprietor, Assured Care Centres, was planning to close it. The company intended to sell the site to developers Bryant Homes for residential property development. That caused the gravest concern to the residents, their families and the wider community in Borehamwood and Hertfordshire, who all joined in a campaign to save the home.
In many ways, the name of the campaign tells us what we need to bear in mind. It is called STOP: Save the Old People—the action group working to save Borehamwood Care Village. The campaign has been vigorous, imaginative and well justified. It began with a packed public meeting in the Hertsmere civic offices, which was attended by a wide variety of people, including family members, councillors from both the borough and the county councils, representatives of the local churches and civic dignitaries, including the mayor of Borehamwood. The meeting was very well supported, reflecting the amount of interest in the matter in Borehamwood.
The campaign later held a march through Borehamwood, which was also very well supported and drew tremendous support from the people of the town. It was moving to see shoppers and shop workers coming out to give their support to the march. The people threw their full weight behind the campaign to save the facility.
There followed a widely publicised visit to Downing street by a delegation of residents and family members, who took with them a petition containing thousands of names of Hertfordshire residents. That delegation included Miss Rose Cottle, who is 102 and a remarkable old lady, and who is present for the debate, along with

157WH
other representatives from the STOP campaign. Following the impact of that visit, both ACC, the proprietors of the home, and Bryant Homes, the would-be purchasers, showed a desire to draw back from their proposals and made public statements to that effect.
Before turning to those statements, I pay tribute to all those who have played a part in the STOP campaign, including Mr. Bryan Mayson, its chairman, who is also present today, Councillor Martin Heyward, the mayor of Borehamwood, Rose Cottle and the other elderly residents of the Borehamwood Care Village, all of whom contributed remarkably to the campaign.
I should like to report that this story has a happy ending in that the home's future has become assured, but we are not quite at that point. Several issues need to be resolved, which I shall highlight through the debate. On 26 March, Bryant Homes wrote to Mr. Bryan Mayson, the chairman of STOP, stating:
"We have asked Assured Care Centres to release Bryant from the contractual agreement relating to the site of Borehamwood Care Village, and are currently in negotiation with them."
Bryant says that it cannot withdraw the planning application because of contractual arrangements that require the firm to consult the planning department of Hertsmere borough council.
Assured Care Centres, the proprietor, says that it accepts Bryant's offer to withdraw, but must observe legal requirements. The company says that it is discussing the sale of the care village with other parties who would retain it for its present use, which is what we all want to happen. We want Borehamwood Care Village to continue in its present state and to provide much-needed residential and nursing care.
I have no wish to pry into the legal arrangements of Bryant Homes and ACC, although I note that they are both expressing the same intention—one saying that it wants to be released from having to sell the property and the other saying that it wants to withdraw from buying it. It would be helpful if they could both make it clear that they have no plans at all for the sale of the site or any part of it for residential development and want to withdraw altogether from their original proposals. It would be helpful, too, if the issue of the planning application could be resolved as soon as possible, because, notwithstanding what they have said, the application remains extant and is still with Hertsmere borough council. It is clearly in the interests of the residents of the home, when they are being reassured about their future, that that planning application should be withdrawn and that ACC should go on to discuss the future of the home with other would-be purchasers who want to continue its present use, providing residential and nursing care.
What is happening in Borehamwood is part of a wider picture of what is happening in Hertfordshire and the rest of the country, in relation to nursing and residential care. The Minister may be familiar with the survey by Laing and Buisson, which reported that there had been a substantial loss of long-term care places since 1996. The loss of some 50,000 residential care places stands in contrast to the needs of an increasingly ageing population. Nursing home bed losses have been particularly serious, with 22,000 nursing care beds lost since 1998.
158WH
Hertfordshire represents no exception to that worrying picture. Nursing home beds have been lost, and the losses are continuing. The most recent market analysis by Hertfordshire county council states that 103 nursing home beds were lost in Hertfordshire between April and November 2001 alone—November being when the most recent survey was concluded. Hertfordshire could ill afford the further, substantial, loss of 39 beds in Borehamwood.
The corollary of nursing home bed losses is the problem of delayed discharges from hospitals and the difficulties that flow from that. The Minister may be familiar with the surveys and statistics relating to delayed discharges. Her own Department suggested towards the end of last year that, at any one time, 6,000 beds in NHS hospitals are occupied by people whose discharge has been delayed. Whatever the figures, it is clearly a serious problem, and leads to other problems, such as cancelled operations and longer waiting lists.
Those problems have been evident locally, as I witnessed on NHS day in February, when I visited Potters Bar community hospital, a facility valued for its care. I was told that 12 out of the 45 beds were occupied by patients who would not have needed a hospital bed if one in an appropriate care setting had been available. That is confirmed by Hertfordshire county council, which said:
"The high occupancy rates within Hertfordshire homes mean that it is increasingly difficult to find affordable care home vacancies for elderly people whether those people are awaiting discharge from hospital or the community."
Earlier this year, the Government announced £200 million of additional spending to deal with the problem of bed blocking, about £3 million of which will come to Hertfordshire. However, spending money will not solve the problem if nursing home beds continue to be lost. On the steps of Downing street, Rose Cottle drew attention to the connection between the loss of nursing home places and the wider problems in the health service. As she put it:
"What's the point of clogging up hospitals with people like me?"
On this, as on so many other things, Rose and the residents of Borehamwood Care Village are the voice of common sense. We can ill afford the loss of such nursing and residential care places. Such a loss would be a tragedy for the very elderly people there—people who have entered that care facility on the basis that it will give them stability and reassurance in the later stages of their lives—and for their families. It would also have a serious effect on the wider community and on the health service, bringing problems of which we are only too well aware today.
We owe it to Rose Cottle and the wonderful elderly people like her to keep open homes such as Borehamwood Care Village. That is my plea to the Minister. We need to keep such nursing home and residential care places available. We need to safeguard the future of the Borehamwood Care Village, and to have the proposals and planning application for residential development there withdrawn. It must be transferred into hands that will keep it open as a much-needed residential and nursing care facility, offering high-quality care to people who deserve no less.
1.13 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on having secured a debate on a subject that is important and significant to his constituents. I, like many others, have been impressed by the vigorous campaign run by STOP, and moved by the eloquence and dignity displayed by Miss Cottle throughout a period of undoubted distress for both her and her fellow residents of Borehamwood Care Village, and I am looking forward to our meeting this afternoon, when we shall be able to consider the background to the issue in more detail.
Nothwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's concerns, I am pleased that the residents' position now seems to be much more secure and there seems to be more certainty that they will be able to remain in their present care home. It seems that, in this case, good sense has prevailed. I understand that several organisations are willing to purchase the home as a going concern, which will provide some important certainty and continuity for those living there. He made some important points about issues that must be resolved elsewhere, regarding the position of ACC and Bryant, as well as the planning applications. I am sure that those points will have been heard and hope that they will be acted on.
We appreciate that the independent care home sector is facing a number of challenges at present. The Government are very aware that the closure of any care home causes considerable anxiety and disruption to its residents. I want to touch on the wider context and the particular actions being taken to ensure that, in Hertfordshire, it is possible to provide the range of provision and capacity necessary for older people to have security, stability and independence.
Many care homes are private businesses, and as such, each must take its own decision about how to conduct itself, including whether to close. However, when it comes to the standard of care provided in a care home, the Government have an important role. The new regulatory system introduced by the Care Standards Act 2000 provides stronger powers to monitor the financial viability of homes and contains requirements for residents to have contracts that specify their rights. I am concerned that any decision to close a home should be handled as sensitively and appropriately as possible. Councils and care home owners must work together to ensure that closures take place in a planned way, with maximum notice being given. Although it seems unlikely to happen in this case, in the event of a home being forced to close, the council should reassess the needs of those residents for which it has responsibility and arrange an alternative placement or service promptly and with as little distress to the residents and their families as possible. Even where people are funding themselves, councils should be able to offer advice on arranging alternative accommodation.
Mr. Clappison: Does the Minister agree that, however good the regulatory provisions are, and whatever other arrangements are made, it is desirable to keep very elderly people in the same home whenever possible, and to avoid moving them at that stage of their lives?
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why I hope that, in this case, there will be the
160WH
continuity that he outlined. I was just trying to point out that when homes have to close, it is crucial that the process is handled sensitively and appropriately.
Both today and on other occasions, attention has been drawn to the issue of funding and the ability of local authorities to meet the fees that are necessary to maintain capacity. There have been substantial increases in the level of funding provided for local authority social services departments in recent years. Since 1996–97, the overall level of funding for social services increased by just over 20.4 per cent. in real terms. That equates to an average real-terms increase of 3.1 per cent. per annum. However, we recognise that more is needed, and we are considering the future funding needs of social services as part of the current spending review, the results of which will be announced later this year. Hertfordshire county council has received above-average increases in its personal social services standard spending assessment allocation in each of the past two years. In 2002–03, its allocation increased by 5.7 per cent., compared with a national average increase of 4.9 per cent. That was on top of an increase of 7.6 per cent for 2001–02, compared with a national average increase of 4.7 per cent.
Last autumn, the Government further recognised the need to maintain and develop capacity in the care sector and to ensure that delayed discharges from hospital were reduced—a problem that the hon. Gentleman highlighted—by allocating not, as he suggested, £200 million, but an additional £300 million to local authorities. Hertfordshire county council is one of the authorities targeted for extra money from that £300 million. It received £1.7 million for the last financial year and will receive an additional £3.6 million this year.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health recognise that it is crucial that local authorities, in their commissioning of services, maintain the fee levels necessary to ensure continuity in the capacity necessary to provide our older people with the care that they need. We accept that local authorities need the resources. I welcome the fact that Hertfordshire has been able to use some of the additional £5.3 million to increase residential and nursing home fees above the inflation rate for 2002–03, and has undertaken to review the pricing structure in 2003–04.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that that extra investment has produced an important result: Hertfordshire has met its target for reducing delayed discharges—a planned reduction of 25 per cent.—since last September. I recognise his concern that the whole system—the health service and the care system—should work together. The fact is that the extra investment and the reforms and new capacity have brought important results.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's repetition of the Laing and Buisson figure of 50,000 care beds being lost. That survey showed a net loss of about 19,000 care beds since 1996–97: the 50,000 figure takes no account of those that have opened or been extended. The most recent figures suggest that there are now more residential and nursing care places in Hertfordshire than there were in 1997. I realise, however, that it is an important matter. The demand for placements in the county has been rising over the same period, so I am

161WH
pleased that the county council is actively working with its partners in care commissioning and provision—the district councils, primary care trusts and the independent sector—and using the extra resources made available by the Government to maintain and stimulate the market across the whole spectrum of care.
A number of projects are under way to develop additional community services such as intermediate care and extra care. I shall give two examples. I understand that a 40-place extra care housing scheme is being developed in Borehamwood in partnership with a housing association and the district council. I was recently able to announce an additional £46 million investment into intermediate care over the next two years, including support for a 60-place intermediate care facility to be developed in partnership with South East Hertfordshire primary care trust and the independent sector.
Intermediate care, although clearly not fulfilling the same function as residential care, can provide a crucial bridge between hospital and home. It can ensure that older people are able to regain independence. Since the base line of 1999–2000, there has been provision for an additional 1,188 people to receive intermediate care services in the Hertfordshire health authority area. Hertfordshire also has in place plans to increase the number of intensive home care packages that can be offered to support people in their own homes.
It is the Government's policy to promote independence for older people wherever we can and to enable them to remain in their own homes whenever possible. The number of people receiving intensive domiciliary care is increasing—about 76,400 households benefited in England in 2001, an increase of 6 per cent. on the previous year—and we want to encourage that trend where it meets people's needs.
Clearly, some people are too frail or vulnerable even to be supported by an intensive domiciliary care package, and they will need residential accommodation. However, we must not get bogged down in judging the success of policy simply by the number of people in residential care and nursing homes. The policy of community care, which I know that the Conservative party supports and implemented when it was in government, is designed to ensure that people can live in their own homes with intensive support. We must also provide effective, high-quality residential accommodation where necessary—it is a matter of getting the balance right for each local community.
Mr. Clappison: Since the Minister is quoting a mass of statistics, may I draw to her attention Hertfordshire county council's claim that since 2000 the number of nursing home beds has gone down from 1,272 to 1,045?
162WH
Does she agree that it makes no sense to lose modern, purpose-built facilities such as Borehamwood Care Village when the population is getting older and frailer?
Jacqui Smith: I accept, and have already said, that it is important to maintain the necessary capacity to provide stability for older people.
The care home sector can be assured that its services are very important and will continue to be needed in the future. Authorities need to do some long-term, sustainable planning. Short-termism is difficult for providers in the care home sector. It is important for commissioners and local authorities to have a strategy in place in order to provide care services for local people for years to come. That is why we established the strategic commissioning group, which I chair and which aims to give much greater direction to the commissioning of care services for adults—in particular, for older people.
We recently published an agreement between all the parties involved in the planning and delivery of care services in a document entitled "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care". That details the responsibilities and expectations of central and local government, providers and the NHS. It stresses the need for long-term contracts to ensure that there is planning in the system and that we do not end up with precipitate closures, such as that threatened for Borehamwood Care Village, which can have a very damaging effect on residents.
The document also seeks to push those involved to be a little more imaginative and to think of new ways of providing care that can help people to maximise their independence. I would like to underline the importance of that. It is time to move the policy on and to stop squabbling about how many nursing homes have or have not closed. All our efforts, and the extra resources made available by the Government, need to be concentrated on planning to deliver the services that older people want—not just the services traditionally provided—in the right amounts and at the right time.
I give the hon. Gentleman my commitment that the Government recognise the need to develop new capacity so that older people are able to maintain the independence that many of them have told us they need. I have given examples of how the additional investment in Hertfordshire is enabling that to happen. At the same time, we must recognise that what is crucial to the provision of services, whether it is from local authorities or the private and independent sectors, is the stability and certainty felt by older people. In conclusion, I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the campaign to safeguard the important provision of Borehamwood Care Village. I hope that a common-sense way can be found to ensure that residents receive the stability and continuity that we would all want for them.

Housebuilding Industry
1.30 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on consumers' rights and the housebuilding industry. My request for a debate was stimulated by two examples that arose in my constituency, but that, after close examination, raised wider issues that deserved an airing in Parliament, and action from Government. I shall focus on issues for which the Westminster Parliament has responsibility. In Scotland, some issues raised by local concerns are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, so I shall try not to overlap those two elements. No doubt, the Minister will pass on to our Scottish colleagues matters that fall outside our remit.
I shall provide details of the specific problems that have arisen in my constituency, and that have led me to table this debate. Both examples relate to new housing developments in my constituency. The first case is in the Granton mill development, which has been built by Wimpey Homes in Scotland, or a company associated with Wimpey Homes. The residents spoke for themselves when they wrote to me saying:
"The problem that the majority of us are experiencing is the lack of any drainage system on the estate. Our gardens, front and back are totally water-logged…We have everything from gardens sinking, paving that has sunk, people unable to go into their back gardens because of the water that has gathered at their back doors, water lying against people's houses and stagnant water lying for weeks on end all over the gardens."
They have further complaints about the development that relate to driveways, roads that are too narrow, unfinished boundaries and various other external issues, which I do not have the time to go into.
The second local example arose from a complaint from a resident of the Sovereign court development. That development was constructed by Barratt, East Scotland, or a company associated with Barratt. A constituent complained about a defect that the builder would not put right because the building company said that it was not a construction defect. However, the property management company, which had been contracted by the builders to provide the maintenance, said that it would not repair it either, because it was a building defect—a clear Catch-22 situation in which wherever the purchaser turned she was told that the problem was no one's responsibility. Over the past few weeks, that instance has now been satisfactorily resolved. Nevertheless, it raises the issue of the relationship between the home buyer of new housing and the management company appointed by the developer, and between the home buyer and the developer. The issues may be different, but they have a similarity in that they deal with the position of the individual purchaser of new build housing in relation to the developer that has built it.
The purchaser of such housing is in a different position from someone who buys an existing property from its owner. In the latter case, there are two parties with roughly equal bargaining power, and the purchaser can see the house that he or she is buying. In the case of new build, the situation is different. The purchaser is an individual, but the vendor is normally a large organisation with financial resources many times greater than those of the individual purchaser, and with
164WH
the ability to call on legal and other professional advice that the individual purchaser does not have. After occupying the new house, the individual is hardly in a position to move out should it turn out that they do not have the property for which they had bargained. It is a classic case of unequal bargaining power. As that is a case in which the consumer is in a much weaker bargaining position than the supplier, it is a prime candidate for the position of the consumer to be strengthened by legal intervention and/or voluntary codes of practice by the industry. In the limited time available, I want to suggest a number of ways in which the position of the consumer can be strengthened in what is for most people the most important purchase that they will ever make.
The industry's current voluntary schemes, which are designed to protect the rights of purchasers, need to be available to the consumer at a much earlier stage. In both the cases that I have described, the National House Building Council guarantee scheme, which is generally very good, was of no benefit to the consumers concerned, even in cases that at first sight would fall within it. In the first of my two examples, Granton mill, the developer did not dispute liability on many of the defects. Instead, it simply did not get round to dealing with many of the complaints. The current scheme ought to be strengthened to ensure that developers deal with complaints speedily, and if that does not happen that very delay should be a ground for compensation to the purchaser.
In the second case, Sovereign court, the delay in having the complaint dealt with led to another problem, which I want to highlight. Because of the delay in getting any action from either the builders of the property or the management company, the purchaser concerned eventually carried out the repairs herself. As she did not wait long enough to have the matter dealt with by the builders, however, it could no longer be dealt with under the NHBC scheme, even though she had made repeated complaints over a lengthy period. If that is correct, the NHBC scheme clearly has other shortcomings that need to be attended to. If the scheme cannot be changed as I have suggested, the Government need to consider other ways in which such changes can be made.
There needs to be a mechanism to give house purchasers an opportunity to obtain satisfaction when there are problems in areas that are not covered by the existing industry scheme provided by the National House Building Council. That issue was particularly important in the case of Granton mill. Most complaints in that development relate either to external works to properties that have, in the view of residents, been carried out incorrectly or not at all, or to work that needs to be carried out or completed in the public areas of a development, such as roads and other common areas. Neither of those types of problem seems to be covered by the current voluntary arrangements provided by the industry, but they should be. There needs to be a mechanism whereby complaints about such issues can be made to an independent body, and when they are not satisfactorily resolved, steps can be taken to ensure that they are dealt with or that compensation is paid to the purchasers affected.
Something needs to be done to redress the imbalance between the bargaining positions of the purchaser of a new house and the developer that sells it. The first of my

165WH
two cases is a very good example of that problem. The purchasers saw a show house, as the actual houses had not been built, which is a very common situation with new developments. When the purchasers moved into their houses, some of them discovered something unsatisfactory. In such circumstances, sometimes the only remedy for the purchaser is to refuse to proceed with the purchase. In many cases, such a remedy is of little use to potential purchasers because they have probably sold their old house, bought furniture and made all the arrangements to move in, in which case not proceeding with the purchase is not a real option. It might be said that the purchaser should deal with such problems by making detailed provisions in the contract to ensure that nothing is left unclear, but the nature of the bargain is that it is for a house that is unbuilt, and developers do not normally enter into negotiations over terms, which means that that is also not an option for the purchaser.
I know that that is a complex matter, especially in the Scottish context. Although consumer rights and sale of goods and services law is reserved to Westminster, property law is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. There is a real problem here that must be addressed. The purchasers of new houses need to have stronger rights when they buy property, and I ask the Minister to consider how that can be done.
The relationship between the purchaser of a new house and the property management company appointed by the developer must be investigated and clarified. I have described my concerns arising from the example of Sovereign court in my constituency, and add that those are not just my concerns. I note that the Scottish Executive's recent report "Issues in Improving Quality in Private Housing" states:
"In some cases, owners may consider that the professional manager concerned has been imposed on them by the developer…In these cases, there may be questions about whether the management agent is sufficiently independent or accountable to the owners…Owners may also be concerned about the quality and cost of the management services provided."
That excerpt from paragraph 100 of the report says it better, perhaps, than I can.
I call today for investigation, and if necessary action, by the competition authorities, which come within the responsibility of Westminster, to ensure that such arrangements are fair to purchasers and do not tend to favour the interests of developers and the management companies that they appoint. A management company might have several contracts with the developer and therefore have an interest in maintaining good relationships with it beyond the interest of a particular instance in which a purchaser has complained.
To clarify the relationship between property management companies and new purchasers on one hand and builders on the other, I suggest that, first, such management companies should, after the initial period, be selected by the purchasers collectively and be fully accountable to them. Secondly, there must be complete transparency to the owners of a property about the charges levied and the expenses incurred by such management companies. Finally, there should be a system that allows property owners to raise complaints about such management companies and that also provides for ensuring compliance and awarding
166WH
compensation when mediation fails. That scheme should, perhaps, be similar to the NHBC scheme, which, in my view, is very good as far as it goes.
I am aware that such policy areas are complex, and involve competition policy, a reserved matter, and property law, a devolved matter. However, they need to be tackled by the Government at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this matter today. I ask the Minister to examine what I have said and consider what further action can be taken. Most immediately, will she take up with the industry bodies the matters that require changes and improvements to the relevant voluntary codes, and pass on to and discuss with her Scottish colleagues any matters arising from this particular case that she considers would be better dealt with by the Scottish Executive and Parliament?
I emphasise that the issues that I have raised are not just local issues, of concern to a few residents in my constituency, or of Scottish concern alone. There are numerous new developments in my constituency, as in many other parts of Edinburgh, in which similar issues have already arisen or will arise in the future. As I have said, the purchase of a new house is often the single biggest financial transaction undertaken by a consumer. First purchasers must have rights, and an ability to take advantage of those rights that reflects the importance of that transaction to them and their families. That is why I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise the matter here today, and why I hope that the Minister can give an idea of what action she can take in response to my concerns.
1.44 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 Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing the debate and on choosing a subject of real concern: consumer rights in the housebuilding industry. He focused in particular on the problems for people buying new houses.
My hon. Friend may be aware that in February 2002 the Housing Forum published its second national customer satisfaction survey, which highlights the standards of consumer care in the housing industry. It backs up some of the wider messages about customer care that the industry needs to take seriously and to which he referred.
To put my hon. Friend's concerns in a national context, the survey shows that new home buyers remain generally satisfied with the design, amenities and value for money of their homes, but that those positive aspects are countered by a much less favourable view of build quality and after-sales service, about which he was concerned. Figures show that nearly half of those who buy new homes are neutral or critical of the builder, one third are not satisfied with the after-sales service, and only 54 per cent. want another new home or one from the same developer. That is a measure of the concern that he drew from his constituency experience.
My hon. Friend raised local issues, but the survey shows that there is a nationwide need for better quality and after-sales service in the new homes sector.

167WH
If he is prepared to write to me with more details of the cases that he cited, I shall ensure that they are taken up with the National House Building Council to discover whether lessons can be learned.
I want to examine some of the wider issues that my hon. Friend raised concerning new homes and consumer rights. The key to more consistent quality in the building of new homes lies with builders' quality management systems. The work of the Housing Forum is contributing and grew out of the "Rethinking Construction" initiative, which has been under the aegis of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy since June last year. The forum is showing the way in which to improve quality in housebuilding through the dissemination of best practice. Warranty schemes such as the NHBC's Buildmark scheme also have an important role to play in helping builders to achieve better build quality. Those schemes should first and foremost help to prevent defects, but they should also help owners to reach a quick solution when defects come to light after handover.
Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions keep in close touch with the chairman and senior management of the NHBC. We encourage them in their objective of continuous improvement in the terms and operation of the Buildmark scheme. The NHBC has made useful changes in the coverage of its scheme over the past three years or so, including contaminated land cover and 10-year cover for double glazing failure.
My hon. Friend said that the NHBC scheme does not cover various external features. He also referred to management issues, and I shall deal with those later. In fact, the scheme standards include a section on drives, paths and landscaping, and the definition of "home" in the Buildmark agreement includes common parts for which an owner shares legal responsibility with other owners. The definition also includes shared paths, drives, garden areas and paved areas. That means that in some circumstances defects in such areas can be the subject of claims against the builder under the Buildmark scheme.
My hon. Friend also raised concerns about defects that come to light some time after the occupants move into their new house. Changes have been made to the rules of the NHBC scheme relating to disputes between owners and builders when defects come to light within two years of completion. Those changes provide for the NHBC to intervene at an earlier stage to undertake remedial work in place of the builder if the builder is slow to carry out repairs that have been recommended by the claims investigator.
My hon. Friend referred to delay by builders in carrying out remedial work. The current NHBC procedures should mean that delays will not arise if the repair work has been recommended by the NHBC following a dispute resolution process.
My Department has no specific locus in cases arising in Scotland, but I will ensure that the NHBC examines the specific cases to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend called for Government intervention in problems of defects in new homes. I very much appreciate that buyers of new homes may experience
168WH
distress and inconvenience if defects arise after handover. However, from my perspective at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, I prefer to give the industry an opportunity to take voluntary action. Its efforts, aided by the work of the Housing Forum and by schemes such as the NHBC's Buildmark, should lead to better consistency in build quality, better after-sales service and higher customer satisfaction levels. Obviously, we will look for evidence of that in future customer satisfaction surveys and in other ways.
My hon. Friend raised issues about the management of common parts and about some of the management schemes for external areas on housing estates. As he said, the law on property management is different in Scotland. However, in England and Wales, several remedies are available under existing legislation to people who buy properties under leasehold and who pay for the upkeep of common parts through service charges, including the right to ask a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination of reasonableness of service charges, and the right to seek the appointment of a new manager if they feel that the existing one is providing a poor service. Service charges are payable only to the extent that they are legitimate and reasonable. That should provide assistance for some property owners in dealing with such issues.
An LVT will be able to consider whether the costs in question were reasonably incurred and whether the relevant services or works were of a reasonable standard. It will then determine what amount should be paid by the leaseholder. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which applies to England and Wales, introduces several changes in respect of service charges, including widening the definition of service charges and simplifying and strengthening leaseholders' rights to be consulted on major works and long-term contracts.
The Bill also makes a significant change to the rights of leaseholders who are subject to an estate management scheme. Since estate management schemes were first permitted under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Parliament has legislated to provide protection for tenants in respect of service charge payments. Leaseholders who pay service charges have rights and protections against unreasonable charges. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will improve and extend the rights, and introduce comparable ones for administration charges made under a lease.
However, there are no similar provisions in respect of charges made under estate management schemes. At present, anyone who enfranchises and is subject to a scheme will move from having protection against unreasonable charges under their lease to having no protection against unreasonable charges under the scheme. The Bill will provide that charges under estate management schemes should only be payable to the extent that they are reasonable and that an LVT will have the power to determine the extent to which such charges are reasonable.
It is worth mentioning that some protection already exists for buyers with respect to property misdescriptions. Hon. Members may be aware that it is an offence for a property developer to misdescribe any of 33 matters relating to the sale of property that are listed in an order made under the Property

169WH
Misdescriptions Act 1991. As my hon. Friend may know, the Act also applies in Scotland. The matters include aspect, view, outlook or environment. If the surroundings of a new property are misdescribed in a brochure or on plans, for example, the property developer may be subject to prosecution under the 1991 Act by the local authority.
My hon. Friend discussed at some length the position of people who buy new properties. In some instances, properties may be bought off plan: in effect, unbuilt homes are sold. He gave examples of the problems that can occur in such cases. Buying off plan is a popular method of buying and selling new homes. It can have a number of advantages for the developer and the home buyer. It might help if I mention some of them. For the developer, the main advantage is that a buyer is lined up at an early stage, which helps to ensure that the transaction can be completed quickly on completion of the building work.
For the buyer, buying off plan can provide more choice—for example, over plot location, fittings and fixtures, and appliances where the house is being sold with a fitted kitchen. Buying off plan provides buyers with early certainty that the home will be sold to them, and not to someone else, when it is completed. As my hon. Friend may know, in England and Wales, there are problems of gazumping—the law in Scotland is different in that regard—and buying off plan allows breathing space for buyers to sell their present home.
Often there are problems of uncertainty for off plan home buyers. Such uncertainties will decrease as construction progresses, but in the early stages they can involve issues that are particularly important for a prospective buyer. For example, the developer may not be prepared to give a firm completion date, either because of the vagaries of the weather or because of reliance on the availability of construction materials and skilled craftsmen to get the work completed on schedule. Whether or not that is acceptable to a prospective buyer will depend on the extent of uncertain matters and the priorities of individual buyers. It is a question of trade-off between the advantage of early certainty that the home is theirs when built and the possibility that in the interim there may be changes to the development that could impact on their enjoyment of their new home.
Uncertainty can also feed into price. House values can change markedly between the time a home is reserved off plan and the time it is completed. Therefore, particularly during early stages of construction, the developer may be prepared to give only an indicative price to a buyer seeking to reserve a home, in exchange for a small, non-
170WH
returnable deposit. Professional advice is particularly important in identifying potential obligations and liabilities that will pass to the buyer. Such obligations are not always apparent from the initial sales material.
One of the issues that will help in ensuring that property buyers have more rights will be our manifesto commitment to introduce a seller's pack, which will help in England and Wales. We will introduce the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of managing agents and expressed his concerns about how some of them operate. He might want to know that on 8 April my Department issued a consultation paper on improving the standard of residential leasehold management. Although the scope of the consultation is limited to England and Wales, he may well have some views on the matters contained in that document, which considers various options on how best to improve standards, including voluntary controls regulation. I would welcome the input of all hon. Members, and especially my hon. Friend.
We have no current plans to legislate specifically in England and Wales on the position for buyers of new homes, although there is the seller's pack that I mentioned. Most of the relevant legal framework in Scotland is different, and is a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Executive. I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department liaises closely with the Scottish Executive. We are open to the possible lessons that we can learn from each other in this area. We share a common objective, which is a better deal for buyers of new homes. I will ensure that his views and concerns are passed on to colleagues there.
The efforts of the industry, aided by the work of the Housing Forum and by schemes such as that of the National House Building Council, should lead to better consistency in building quality. We will be looking for this in future repeats of the Housing Forum customer satisfaction survey.
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and raising this important issue, which has been raised previously in Westminster Hall. I believe that raising the profile and repeating the concerns is one of the measures that ensures that the industry is aware of the concerns of MPs and the public, and it is one of the ways in which MPs can realistically increase pressure and ensure that standards are improved for the benefit of their constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to relieve people of paying council tax when in hospital; and if he will make a statement. [50492]

  Net business rate yield for 2002–021 (£ million)

  Net business rate yield for 2002–031 (£ million)

  Change in net business rate yield between 2001–02 and 2002–032(£ million)

  Change in net business rate yield between 2001–02 and 2002–03 (Percentage)

  Inner London

  City of London

  471.7

  531.3

  59.6

  12.6

  Camden

  190.2

  211.0

  20.8

  10.9

  Greenwich

  47.5

  44.9

  -2.6

  -5.4

  Hackney

  46.5

  47.0

  0.5

  1.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  84.5

  96.8

  12.4

  14.6

  Islington

  99.1

  107.5

  8.3

  8.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  130.6

  140.4

  9.7

  7.4

  Lambeth

  64,0

  67.9

  3.9

  6.1

  Lewisham

  37.6

  36.3

  -1.2

  -3.3

  Southwark

  90.4

  90.1

  -0.2

  -0.3

  Tower Hamlets

  119.1

  138.1

  19.0

  15.9

  Wandsworth

  61.1

  62.2

  1.1

  1.8

  Westminster

  788.1

  875.0

  86.9

  11.0

  Total for Inner London

  2,230.3

  2,448.6

  218.2

  9.8

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  43.5

  41.7

  -1.8

  -4.0

  Barnet

  73.2

  74.3

  1.1

  1.5

  Bexley

  46.1

  47.9

  1.8

  3.8

  Brent

  66.9

  67.2

  0.4

  0.6

  Bromley

  65.7

  65.9

  0.2

  0.3

  Croydon

  86.2

  89.7

  3.4

  4.0

  Ealing

  85.8

  89.7

  4.0

  4.6

  Enfield

  65.3

  65.6

  0.2

  0.4

  Haringey

  42.8

  43.7

  0.9

  2.2

  Harrow

  44.2

  43.7

  -0.5

  -1.2

  Havering

  47.3

  47.7

  0.4

  0.9

  Hillingdon

  231.8

  246.0

  14.2

  6.1

  Hounslow

  102.4

  108.2

  5.8

  5.7

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  54.4

  56.8

  2.4

  4.4

  Merton

  49.4

  50.2

  0.8

  1.7

  Newham

  53.0

  54.4

  1.4

  2.6

  Redbridge

  39.9

  39.1

  -0.8

  -2.0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  48.6

  50.5

  1.9

  4.0

  Sutton

  37.8

  37.0

  -0.8

  -2.0

  Waltham Forest

  37.8

  36.2

  -1.6

  -4.2

  Total for Outer London

  1,322.0

  1,355.5

  33.5

  2.5

  1Net of transitional, mandatory and discretionary rate reliefs.

  2The business rate multiplier increased from 43.0p in 2001–02 to 43.7p in 2002–03. This increase was in line with changes in Retail Price Index, as required by legislation.

  794W
  Dr. Whitehead
  A person is required to pay council tax on their sole or main residence. When a person enters hospital for treatment on a short term basis, their sole or main residence remains the property where they resided prior to entering hospital. Where a person enters hospital on a long-term basis and there is no intention of their returning to their original residence, the hospital becomes in effect their main residence and their home is exempt from the council tax. We have no plans to change this.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the change this year in the level of business rates in each London borough. [48869]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The table shows the amount of business rates that each London borough (and the City) estimates that it will collect in 2002–03 compared with estimates made at the corresponding time last year for 2001–02.
  795W
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each of the last five years the SSA settlements for all local authorities and the percentage change from the previous year, showing those authorities with the highest percentage increase year on year and those with the lowest increases. [49739]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Tables showing the SSA settlements for all local authorities, together with the percentage changes against the SSA figures for the previous year, adjusted for changes in the functions and funding of authorities, where appropriate, for 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Postal Ballots
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency plans have been made for the conduct of all-postal ballots in the 2002 local elections in the event of industrial action disrupting the postal service. [48749]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Councils have been in close contact with their local postal service representatives about the postal voting arrangements for the local elections. It is understood that no official industrial action is planned for the period of the elections. In the event of disruption to the postal service, Consignia is prepared to give priority to the delivery of voting material. Councils also have a range of contingency measures in place. These can include the use of commercial postal delivery firms and hand delivery arrangements. They can also set up ballot paper collection points and allow collection and delivery at council offices.

  Planning
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the final version of the Planning Policy Guidance Note 17. [49942]

  Ms Keeble
  I hope to be able to publish this shortly. As I indicated to last year's Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee, this will not be before the publication of report of the Urban Green Spaces Task Force.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what priority he intends to give to reducing the number of empty homes in his guidance to local authorities under the Homelessness Act 2002. [48729]

  Ms Keeble
  As I said on 12 July 2001 at the first sitting of the Homelessness Bill in the Commons, the statutory guidance on the homelessness provisions in the Homelessness Act 2002 will urge local housing authorities to include a review of empty properties within their district as part of the homelessness review that will inform their homelessness strategy.
  796W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment was made of congestion levels in each region when determining house-building targets; and what influence this had on the final targets: [50518]

  (2) what the estimated environmental cost is to each local authority arising from meeting the house-building targets. [50519]

  Mr. Byers
  This Government do not set house building targets.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what new money has been made available to help combat homelessness following the publication of the report 'More than a roof'. [50527]

  Mr. Byers
  The DTLR has allocated £125 million to the Homelessness Directorate for 2002–03 to tackle homelessness. This is made up of the Rough Sleepers Unit existing baseline of £30 million, the remainder being found from DTLR's End Year Flexibility and savings on other existing budgets.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 667W, what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the change in the numbers of successful cash incentive scheme grant applications by local authority tenants between 1997–98 and 2000–01. [48714]

  Ms Keeble
  We have not conducted a detailed assessment of the change in the number of successful applications. However, there was a significant reduction when separate ring-fenced funding was phased out in 1999–2000 (even though total housing capital funding was increased substantially). At that stage a number of authorities cut back or discontinued the scheme.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent guidance his Department has issued to local authorities on(a) establishing a cash incentive scheme and (b) the types and size of local authority property that should be prioritised for release under the cash incentive scheme. [48710]

  Ms Keeble
  Guidance on the operation of cash incentive schemes is issued by the Department from time to time, most recently in February 2000. Decisions about targeting the scheme on particular types and sizes of properties are for authorities to take, in the light of local circumstances.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the maximum grants available are for housing association tenants of(a) bedsits, (b) one-bedroom properties, (c) two-bedroom properties, (d) three-bedroom properties, (e) four-bedroom properties and (f) properties with five or more bedrooms under the Tenants Incentive scheme; [48718]
  797W
  (2) what factors determine the relationship between the rate of maximum discount available to housing association tenants under the Right to Acquire scheme and the rate of maximum grant available under the Tenants Incentive scheme; [48719]

  (3) what the maximum discounts available are for housing association tenants of (a) bedsits, (b) one-bedroom properties, (c) two-bedroom properties, (d) three-bedroom properties, (e) four-bedroom properties and (f) properties with five or more bedrooms under the Right to Acquire scheme. [48717]

  Ms Keeble
  The Right to Acquire scheme gives eligible tenants of registered social landlords the right to purchase their rented home with the help of a discount. The discount generally varies from £9,000 up to a maximum of £16,000, irrespective of the size of the property, and depends on the local authority area in which the dwelling is situated.

  The Tenants Incentive Scheme was discontinued on 31 March 1998. It provided a cash payment, equivalent to the right to acquire discount, funded by the Housing Corporation to help existing tenants vacate their housing association property and purchase their own home.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. pursuant to the answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 978W, on housing, if he will place in the Library copies of the research programmes that have been carried out into the cash incentive scheme. [48712]

  Ms Keeble
  Copies of the three research reports, are available from the Libraries of the House. (Cash Incentive Report 1989–1990, 1991–1994, 1994–1997).

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 668W, on right to buy, if he will make an assessment of the impact of increasing the maximum cash incentive scheme grant available in London to a level (a) equal to the maximum right to buy discount available in London and (b) 25 per cent. higher than the maximum right to buy discount in London. [48713]

  Ms Keeble
  We have no plans to carry out any further research/analysis on the impact of the cash incentive scheme in the immediate future.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2002,Official Report, column 357W, if he will publish his assessment of Birmingham city council's application for a place on the housing transfer programme. [49823]

  Ms Keeble
  The assessment of Birmingham city council's application for a place on the housing transfer programme is internal advice to the Secretary of State and as such it would be inappropriate to make it publicly available.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average weekly rent level is for(a) housing association and (b) local housing company tenants in those local authority areas where housing has been transferred from the council under large-scale voluntary transfer. [48874]
  798W
  Ms Keeble
  In answer to part(a), the average weekly rent levels for housing association tenants in local authorities where all housing had been transferred from the council as at 31 March 2001 were as shown in the following table:

  £

  Local authority

  Average weekly rent

  Allerdale

  43.64

  Basingstoke and Deane

  63.09

  Bath and North East Somerset

  45.38

  Bedford

  59.07

  Bexley

  63.58

  Blackburn with Darwen

  50.51

  Boston

  39.49

  Breckland

  49.66

  Broadland

  53.72

  Bromley

  65.76

  Burnley

  44.51

  Calderdale

  38.97

  Chester

  41.49

  Chichester

  55.25

  Chiltern

  59.73

  Christchurch

  58.47

  Congleton

  43.45

  Cotswold

  61.29

  Coventry

  42.97

  East Cambridgeshire

  50.71

  East Dorset

  54.23

  East Hampshire

  62.18

  East Lindsey

  43.56

  East Northamptonshire

  47.39

  East Staffordshire

  39.78

  Eastleigh

  63.16

  Eden

  53.57

  Elmbridge

  60.04

  Epsom and Ewell

  58.71

  Fylde

  39.70

  Hambleton

  42.17

  Hart

  60.48

  Hastings

  55.37

  Havant

  59.85

  Hertsmere

  56.26

  Horsham

  63.15

  Huntingdonshire

  51.97

  Isle of Wight

  62.56

  Kennet

  56.22

  Kerrier

  48.96

  Lichfield

  49.59

  Maldon

  61.93

  Malvern Hills

  53.60

  Mendip

  47.50

  Mid Sussex

  70.30

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  36.57

  North Devon

  49.87

  North Dorset

  58.15

  North Wiltshire

  55.97

  Penwith

  52.52

  Restormel

  49.62

  Richmond upon Thames

  64.44

  Rother

  62.79

  Rushmoor

  60.93

  Ryedale

  50.16

  Sevenoaks

  61.88

  South Bucks

  63.58

  South Hams

  55.41

  South Oxfordshire

  60.79

  South Ribble

  47.74

  South Shropshire

  51.45

  South Somerset

  49.62

  South Staffordshire

  46.03

  Spelthorne

  67.84

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  42.24

  Stratford-on-Avon

  47.49

  799W

  £

  Local authority

  Average weekly rent

  Suffolk Coastal

  47.57

  Sunderland

  45.58

  Surrey Heath

  57.35

  Swale

  65.20

  Tameside

  46.36

  Telford and Wrekin

  48.16

  Test Valley

  52.07

  Tewkesbury

  50.91

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  58.79

  Torbay

  51.90

  Tunbridge Wells

  65.48

  Tynedale

  42.33

  Vale of White Horse

  52.19

  West Berkshire

  59.55

  West Devon

  49.22

  West Dorset

  53.69

  West Lindsey

  41.60

  West Oxfordshire

  52.11

  West Somerset

  58.46

  West Wiltshire

  54.99

  Weymouth and Portland

  48.65

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  68.03

  Worthing

  54.60

  Wychavon

  49.03

  Wyre

  47.03

  Wyre Forest

  43.74

  In addition, average weekly rents paid by housing association tenants in local authorities where only some housing had been transferred from the council as at 31 March 2001 were as follows:

  £

  Local authority

  Average weekly rent

  Cherwell

  55.96

  Enfield

  64.06

  Manchester

  47.89

  Mid Bedfordshire

  52.27

  Thanet

  57.50

  Tower Hamlets

  60.54

  Walsall

  49.19

  It should further be noted that since 31 March 2001, full transfer of council stock to housing associations has taken place in Erewash, Reigate and Banstead, East Hertfordshire, Chelmsford, Derbyshire Dales, Shrewsbury and Atcham and the rest of Mid-Bedfordshire.

  In response to part (b), the term "local housing company tenants" has been interpreted as meaning the new "arms-length management companies". These have only recently been established and information on rent levels is not yet available.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information his Department has collated on those local authorities in London who add an additional premium to the cash incentive scheme grant to those tenants who purchase a property on the open market within the same borough. [48711]

  Ms Keeble
  Information on this matter is not collated centrally.
  800W

  Television Services
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the terms of reference are for the review of planning regulations relating to satellite dish installations referred to in the Government's Broadband Strategy; when the review began; and when it will report; [49963]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the impact of the inconsistency between planning regulations for satellite dishes and planning regulations for terrestrial television aerials on the availability of digital satellite television and broadband satellite services in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) areas where digital terrestrial television services are unavailable; [49965]

  (3) what input the review of planning regulations relating to satellite dish installations will seek from (a) devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and (b) regional development agencies. [49964]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government gave a commitment in the UK Online Annual report 2001 to review the planning regulations for satellite terminals to determine how current rules restricting a residential property to a single antenna could be relaxed, while continuing to minimise the environmental/visual impact of residential satellite terminals. The Digital Television Action Plan endorsed by Government and by the digital television stakeholders also promises a review of the impact of planning regulations on the deployment of aerials and dishes, with an initial report due by June 2002. My officials are currently discussing the issues with those of other Government Departments prior to discussions with relevant external stakeholders and then a wider public consultation on possible changes to the planning regulations that apply to England. Planning arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for the devolved administrations but we shall keep them in touch with discussions in England.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 84W, regarding equipment leasing arrangements, what the total cost has been of equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in the last four years. [50328]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This answer can only be given at a disproportionate cost, as it is not held centrally by the Department.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on overtime payments for staff in his Department. [49129]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Overtime payments are allowable only when there is exceptional pressure of work and alternative members of staff cannot be utilised for the tasks or where business needs dictate.
  801W

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on plans to integrate the Air Traffic Control systems of EU countries. [49688]

  Mr. Spellar
  Negotiations on the European Commission's Single Sky proposals are under way. This project is designed to enhance Europe's airspace capacity, improve safety and achieve a greater degree of interoperability between the various suppliers of air traffic services in EU states. It does not require the integration of service providers, but focuses on more collective management of the European air traffic management system.

  In the long-term, closer integration between Europe's air traffic service providers seems likely, particularly given the need to enhance efficiency so that future air traffic levels can be accommodated safely.

  Port
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the financial impact of state funding and subsidies for European ports on the competitive position of UK ports and port operators. [49836]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have not made specific estimates, but the European Commission included a report on public financing and charging in European ports in its Communication on Ports, published in February 2001. In discussions on its proposed Directive on Market Access to Port Services, we have urged the Commission to take a further look at these issues.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposals for European port services. [49819]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK supports the broad principles of liberalisation and competition in port services underpinning the proposed Directive on Market Access to Port Services but we are very keen that it should be realistic and proportionate. It must recognise the diversity of the industry and the competition that already exists. A Transport Council working group is considering the Commission's proposed Directive. We are engaging fully in these negotiations in a constructive manner.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 946W, on European Union ports, what response he has had from the Commission to these representations. [49835]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are awaiting a response from the Commission.

  Humber Pilotage Service
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the new Humber pilotage service. [50670]
  802W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A new pilotage service was introduced on the Humber on 12 December 2001 when the former pilots went on strike. My Department has closely monitored the new arrangements and I am placing in the Library a copy of a detailed report of that work. A copy will also be placed as soon as practicable on the Department's website.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the cost of publicity and educational material published by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [49068]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cost of publicity and educational material published by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 is:

  Year

  £

  2000–01

  621,293.03

  2001–02

  1,000,006.15

  These figures include the cost of exhibition stands and publicity trailers as well as publications and promotional items.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will carry out an evaluation of the respective effectiveness and net cost of(a) road humps and (b) speed cameras as a means of reducing traffic speed levels. [49261]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A review of traffic calming schemes in 20 mph zones undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory in 1996 (TRL Report 215, "Review of Traffic Calming Schemes in 20 mph zones") showed an average vehicle speed reduction of 9.3 mph in the zones. A cost benefit analysis of speed and traffic light cameras, also published in 1996, showed that speeds were reduced by an average of 4.2 mph at camera sites.

  Monitoring of the first year of a trial of the netting off funding system for safety cameras has shown average speeds at camera sites reducing by 5.6 mph. In the case of road humps they are usually incorporated with other measures in traffic calming schemes, so their net costs have not been separately evaluated. However, the value of the benefits exceed the costs by a factor of five to one in the case of speed safety cameras.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of levels of pollution and difference in noise levels as a result of road humps and traffic-calming measures which involve narrowing of the highway and the construction of an uneven road surface. [49260]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of assessments have carried out examining changes in noise resulting from traffic calming measures, particularly resulting from different types of road hump. Results from these were published in Traffic Advisory Leaflets 6/96 "Traffic Calming: Traffic and Vehicle Noise" and 10/00 "Road humps: discomfort, noise and ground-borne vibration". Changes in vehicle
  803W
  emissions and air quality relating to traffic calming measures have also been the subject of departmental research (see Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/96 "Traffic Management and Emissions"), some of which is still on-going.

  Lorries
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated number of lorries on the roads was in each of the last five years. [49700]

  Mr. Byers
  The latest available figures for 1996 to 2000, based on DVLA records of the number of heavy goods vehicles registered, are:

  Number

  1996

  430,000

  1997

  426,000

  1998

  427,000

  1999

  424,000

  2000

  422,000

  Environmental Assessments
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment of the Government's energy policies has been made with regards to assessing the environmental impact of(a) the 10-year plan and (b) the SRA plan; [49719]

  (2) what assessment has been made as to the environmental costs resulting from (a) noise emissions, (b) vibration impacts and (c) aesthetic impacts caused by (i) road projects as outlined in the 10-year transport plan and (ii) rail projects as given in (1) the SRA plan and (2) the 10-year transport plan; [49450]

  (3) what assessment has been made as to the environmental impact of (a) the 10-year plan and (b) the SRA plan. [49718]

  Mr. Byers
  An overall environmental assessment of the 10-year plan is set out in "Transport 2010: The Background Analysis", Chapter 4 and Annexes D and E. This is in the Libraries of the House. Individual projects, including those in the SRA Strategic Plan, are subject to environmental assessment, where appropriate, on an on-going basis as part of project development.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental benefits of switching road haulage to rail on the West Coast Main Line. [49702]

  Mr. Byers
  The Strategic Rail Authority assesses the environmental benefit of the transfer of freight from road to rail using a calculation based on the net number of road lorry miles reduced. This has been applied in informing the current review of the allocation of capacity for passenger and freight trains on the West Coast Main Line.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made as to the environmental costs of the increased processing required to produce ultra low sulphur petrol. [49699]
  804W
  Mr. Byers
  Statutory instrument 1999 No. 3107 incorporated the EU Directive 98/70/EC on the quality of petrol and diesel fuels into UK law. The regulatory impact assessment that assessed the impacts of the actions required to incorporate the directive included art environmental assessment. Copies of the directive, the statutory instrument and the regulatory impact assessment can be found in the Libraries of the House.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library details of the calculation on which the fuel duty rebate levels on(a) Cngas, (b) Lpgas, (c) biodiesels. (d) LNG,(e) E10 bioethanol blends and (f) E85 bioethanol blends is based; [49453]

  (2) what level of fuel duty rebate has been granted to the road fuels (a) Cngas, (b) Lpgas, (c) biodiesels, (d) LNG, (e) E10 bioethanol blends and (f) E85 bioethanol blends. [49451]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department provides grant to the operators of local bus services in the form of fuel duty rebate. Decisions on the rate of grant paid for use of specific types of fuel are taken in the light of the duty levied on the fuel and wider policy considerations. An information pack explaining the fuel duty rebate scheme has been placed in the Library.

  Operators of eligible services whose vehicles are gas powered (CNG, LPG, or LNG) receive rebate of all the excise duty, which is currently levied at 9 pence per kilogram.

  No operator has so far claimed rebate for use of biodiesel and a rebate rate has not been set in advance of a claim.

  E10 and E85 bioethanol blends are used as an additive to, or substitute for, petrol and are classed by the Customs and Excise as fuel substitutes with duty levied at the rate appropriate to the fuel with which they are mixed or substitute for. Any bus operator using petrol which included these blends would therefore receive rebate at the appropriate petrol rate, currently 34.30 per litre.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what Government incentives, in addition to public money, have been introduced to promote the use of(a) Cngas, (b) Lpgas, (c) biodiesels, (d) LNG, (e) E10 bioethanol blends and (f) E85 bioethanol blends; [49698]

  (2) what the level of public funding is for the Powershift programme; [49695]

  (3) what public money has been made available to encourage the use of (a) Cngas, (b) Lpgas, (c) biodiesels, (d) LNG, (e) E10 bioethanol blends and (f) E85 bioethanol blends in road transport. [49455]

  (4) what advertising campaigns have been carried out as part of the Powershift programme; and what level of funding has been associated with them. [49696]

  (5) what share of the funding for the Powershift programme is spent on promoting (a) Cngas, (b) Lpgas, (c) biodiesels, (d) LNG, (e) E10 bioethanol blends and (f) E85 bioethanol blends for transport. [49697]
  805W
  Mr. Byers
  The Government has introduced a range of fiscal and other measures to promote the use of cleaner fuels, such as road fuel gases and biofuels, which offer environmental benefits.

  The Powershift programme promotes and provides grants towards the cost of purchasing cleaner fuel vehicles running on LPG, natural gas and electricity. No E 10 or E85 blends are currently on sale in the UK. The Powershift budget for 2002–03 is £10 million, provided by my Department. This has recently been strengthened by an additional allocation of £1 million from the DTI. aimed at further raising awareness of LPG and increase the availability of good quality LPG vehicle conversions. particularly in rural areas.

  The Government's CleanUp programme, complements Powershift, promotes and provides grants towards the conversion of existing vehicles to run on cleaner fuels including LPG and natural gas, and the fitting of emission abatement equipment. Its budget for 2002–03 is £10 million, of which around £8.5 million is likely to relate to clean fuel conversions. Additionally, the CleanUp programme will manage a further £7.5 million in 2002–03, as part of the Road Haulage Modernisation Fund announced by the Chancellor in the 2001 Budget and of which around £5.8 million will be for grants.

  As announced in Budget 2001, the rate of fuel duty for road fuel gasses (natural gas and LPG) is at the low rate of 9 pence per kilogramme, and the Government indicated that there were would be no real terms duty increases until 2004 at the earliest. It was also announced that a new

  Years

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  Number of grants

  69

  127

  392

  1172

  1177

  2937

  Number of vehicles supported

  378

  748

  2,262

  4,545

  4,940

  14,110

  Amount of grant paid

  £.1.043m

  £1.461m

  £3.352m

  £6.040m

  £5.595m

  £17.491m

  The latest figures from the LP Gas Association confirm that there are currently 1,106 LPG refuelling points in the UK, at the end of March 2001 there were 700 and at the end of March 2000 there were 365.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of road transport fuel is gas based. [49454]

  Mr. Byers
  5,778 tonnes of road fuels gases were sold in 2001. For comparison approximately 37 million tonnes of petrol and diesel were sold in the UK in 2000.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on supporting a bid for Railtrack plc in administration which has not been subject to due diligence. [47993]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The extent of due diligence undertaken by any bidder for Railtrack plc is a matter for them. It is for the Administrator to determine the appropriate arrangements
  806W
  duty rate would be applied to biodiesel from Budget 2002, subject to European Union approval, 20 pence per litre below the rate for ultra low sulphur diesel.

  The Government's Green Fuels Challenge is designed to stimulate the development of further alternative fuels. Proposals covering hydrogen, methanol and bio-gas will enjoy a period of zero fuel duty., subject to EU state aids clearance.. A second round of pilot project will be announced shortly after Budget 2002 inviting bids for a wider range of fuels.

  The Powershift programme has a comprehensive marketing strategy to raise awareness of LPG and other alternative fuels. This includes advertising campaigns, regional workshops and articles run in environmental magazines. Over the last financial year the programme has run two advertising campaigns, the first targeted corporate fleet operators of vehicles under 3.5 tonnes and the second targeted at public sector fleets. The expenditure for these campaigns was £55,000.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many grants have been awarded under the Powershift Programme in each year since it was introduced; [49042]

  (2) how much has been paid out in grants under the Powershift Programme in each year since it was introduced; [49303]

  (3) how many LPG refuelling points there are in the UK; and how many sites there were in (a) April 2001 and (b) April 2000. [49302]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows the total amount paid and the number of grants made together with the number of vehicles supported under the Powershift programme since it started.

  for access to the company. Network Rail, and any other potential bidders would need to address the issues set out in the guidelines issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 October 2001.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the bid from Network Rail for Railtrack Plc was received by the administrator. [47988]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: This is a matter for the Administrator.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answers of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 956W, refs. 45677 and 45678, on Railtrack, if the 10-year plan budget assumes a 2 per cent. annual reduction in real terms of Railtrack's overall income, including track access charges and network grants, for Control Period 2. [49838]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. The £33.5 billion of public sector funding for rail in the 10-year plan takes account of Railtrack's regulated income in Control Period 2 as
  807W
  outlined in the Regulator's October 2000 periodic review and the April 2001 agreement between Government and Railtrack.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the dates on which he or officials from his Department have met representatives of Railtrack shareholders since 8 October 2001. [49790]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Channel Tunne
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with his French counterparts regarding the security of the channel tunnel rail link. [49686]

  Mr. Spellar
  Both Ministers and the Department are in regular contact with the French Government about security issues at the channel tunnel.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he has taken since November 2001 with regard to(a) his French ministerial counterpart and (b) the European Commissioner for Transport on (i) the disruption to rail freight facilities through the channel tunnel and (ii) the suspension of rail freight services through the channel tunnel. [R] [49034]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on Tuesday 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 957W.

  Freight
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the average journey length made by road hauliers to collect freight from the rail system to transfer it to its destination in the last 12 months. [49715]

  Mr. Byers
  The average journey length made by road hauliers to collect freight from the rail system during 2000 was 53 kilometres. This is the latest figure available.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the average journey length made by road hauliers to take freight to transfer onto the railway system in the last 12 months. [49714]

  Mr. Byers
  The average journey length made by road hauliers to transfer freight onto the railway system in 2000 was 74 kilometres. This is the latest figure available.

  Public Transport
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on European discussions about liberalisation of public transport, as discussed at the Barcelona Summit. [49816]
  808W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Barcelona European Council conclusions called for the adoption by December 2002 of the Regulation on public service contracts. This proposal is intended to stimulate more efficient and attractive public transport through the use of regulated competition and other measures and to promote legal certainty for authorities and operators. Several Council working groups have already taken place, and further meetings are scheduled. The Commission gave a progress report on the proposal to the Transport Council on 26 March 2002. Ministers have also discussed the draft Regulation during, a number of bilaterals with their European counterparts. The European Parliament has yet to schedule a date for further debate on the proposal.

  The European Council in Barcelona also called on the Council to pursue work on the second railways package. The Commission's second railways package, published on 23 January, includes a proposal to complete liberalisation of the rail freight market by extending it to all domestic traffic including cabotage. The package also envisages further liberalisation of the passenger market, on which the Commission expects to bring forward specific proposals as part of its programme for the next five years. There was an initial Ministerial discussion of the package at the March Transport Council, but so far no further discussions have been scheduled.

  Trans European Networks
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on the Trans European Networks. [49820]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government supports the development of the European transport network. On 3 October 2001, the European Commission adopted proposals to amend the guidelines which govern the development of the network. An Explanatory Memorandum (12597) on the proposals was submitted to Parliament on 2 November 2001. Following a formal public consultation exercise, the Government remains very concerned about the Commission's proposal to add six new priority transport projects to the list at Annex III to the guidelines.

  On 3 January 2002 the Commission adopted a proposal to amend the Regulation which lays down general rules for Community financing of the trans-European networks. An Explanatory Memorandum (15111) on that proposal was submitted to Parliament on 31 January. The Memorandum makes clear that the Government does not support the Commission's proposal to increase the maximum level of EU support for certain transport projects from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of total investment costs.

  10-year Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 961W, ref 45348, on which of these projects (a) the high-level feasibility stage has been completed and (b) the detailed development work has begun. [49822]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Significant elements of all of the schemes listed as commitments on page 49 of the SRA's Strategic Plan are currently being implemented or are at a detailed stage of development. Of the schemes listed as priorities by 2010 the table sets out their status.
  809W

  Project

  Status

  Committed outputs from the Chiltern, South Central and South West replacements

  Chiltern—being implemented

  South Central—High level feasibility stage

  South West—Detailed development stage

  Thameslink 2000

  Detailed development stage

  East Coast Main Line upgrade, including improvements at Kings Cross

  High level feasibility stage

  Freight Strategy

  Various projects at different stages of development. Details

  are in the SRA strategic plan

  Midland Mainline franchise extension

  Implemented

  TransPennine refranchising

  Subject of a commercial competition

  New trains and platform extensions to reduce overcrowding in South-east England

  Several projects at different stages of development.

  East London Line extension

  Detailed development stage. Implementation of northern

  extension has started

  London—West Anglia modernisation

  High level feasibility stage

  RPP schemes

  Comprises several projects at different stages of development

  The schemes listed for further development are all at the pre-feasibility or initial study stage.

  Railways
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information on the division of investment in rail projects between train operators, rolling stock leasing companies and infrastructure investment under the 10-year transport plan will be given to private investors. [R] [49028]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on estimated private sector investment in rail, in total and by type, has been set out in the 10-year Plan and the SRA Strategic Plan.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many former regional railways franchises have received funding from the SRA in addition to their original franchise deals; and if he will make a statement on the nature and extent of this funding. [49725]

  Mr. Byers
  Details are, or will be, provided in the relevant annual reports of the Strategic Rail Authority and the franchising director. Copies of reports already published have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rights Network Rail has to draw upon the proposed £9 billion bridging loan from the SRA. [49870]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Network Rail proposal, if successful, would involve a subordinated standby credit facility from the SRA to enable Network Rail to raise up to £9 billion bridging finance from private sector lenders to release Railtrack from administration as soon as possible. This would be refinanced through the capital markets on a longer term, securitised basis later in the year. The SRA credit facility would only be called upon (as a loan) to enable Network Rail to repay the bridging loans in the extremely unlikely event of Network Rail being unable to access the capital markets for these longer term loans.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the underwriting of the debt of 810W
  Network Rail by means of potential emergency loans from the Strategic Rail Authority and his estimate of the maximum potential liability to the taxpayer. [47957]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Network Rail proposal, if successful, would involve a subordinated standby credit facility from the SRA to enable Network Rail to raise bridging finance-to release Railtrack from administration as soon as possible—and to provide a longer term backstop loan facility, which would only be used by the company in specified circumstances as a last resort.

  The size of the credit facility is subject to negotiation, but would be expected to reduce over time as knowledge of the asset condition and cost causation improves. Once negotiations are completed, details of any credit facility that created a contingent liability would be notified formally to Parliament in accordance with established procedures.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guarantees the Government provide for debt raised by Network Rail. [47514]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Network Rail proposal, if successful, would involve a subordinated standby credit facility from the SRA to enable Network Rail to raise bridging finance—to release Railtrack from administration as soon as possible—and to provide a longer term back stop loan facility, which would only be used by the company in specified circumstances as a last resort.

  The size of the credit facility is subject to negotiation, but would be expected to reduce over time as knowledge of the asset condition and cost causation improves. Once negotiations are completed, details of any credit facility that created a contingent liability would be notified formally to Parliament in accordance with established procedures.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of the rail network is electrified. [49707]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand that just over one third of the rail network is currently equipped with electrification.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans there are to increase integration of rail networks on a European level; and if he will make a statement. [49687]
  811W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Commission published its second railway package on 23 January. This includes formal proposals to complete liberalisation of the European rail freight market, on safety, interoperability, the creation of a European Rail Agency and Community accession to the COTIF convention (the convention concerning international carriage by rail).

  The Government share the Commission's objective of enhancing the role of railways in our transport system through greater efficiency and higher quality services and therefore welcomes publication of the package. We will be consulting widely on the package before reaching a formal position on the proposals and in particular will be concerned to ensure they do not impose unreasonable costs.

DEFENCE

  Reservists
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether reservists will continue to be called out for operations in the Balkans and the region of Iraq. [50671]

  Dr. Moonie
  Two call-out orders have been made to enable reservists to continue to be called out into service to support operations in those regions. The first, made under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, authorised the call out of members of the reserve forces to support operations in the region of Iraq. Its purpose is to continue the practice started in 1992 of calling out reservists, primarily specialists, to support the no-fly zone operations over north and south Iraq. At present 10 reservists are serving in the region. The second order was made under section 56 of the Act to allow reservists to be called into service to support operations in former Yugoslavia. Since 1995, when NATO operations commenced in former Yugoslavia, the reserve forces have provided some 10 per cent. of the total UK manpower in theatre. NATO's on-going study to find efficiencies for troop contributing nations will not be agreed or implemented in time to mitigate the present need. Both orders are effective until 31 March 2003.

  Performance Targets
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Pay and Personnel Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [50672]

  Dr. Moonie
  The chief executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency is responsible for providing civilian pay, pensions and personnel information services for the Ministry of Defence as defined in the agency framework document. The agency will be set the following key performance targets for 2002–03:Key Target 1
  By March 2003 increase from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent. the proportion of PPA services available through the Customer Service Centre; increase from 8 to 15 the number of most important customer forms available on-line; and enable an effective single portal for civilian staff matters.
  Key Target 2
  Implement the new pensions project by October 2002.
  812W
  Key Target 3
  Improve customer satisfaction from 76 per cent. to 85 per cent. in 2002–03 and 90 per cent. in 2004–05.
  Key Target 4
  Increase from 55 per cent. to 85 per cent. by March 2003 and 100 per cent. by March 2004 the proportion of the agency covered by a single ISO certificate.
  Key Target 5
  Reduce the cost of Service Level Agreement tasks compared to 1997–98 by 25 per cent.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Quinquennial Review of the Meteorological Office will take place. [50673]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Quinquennial Review of the Met Office will begin this month. The aim of the review is to examine how the Met Office has performed since its launch as a Trading Fund within the Ministry of Defence and to recommend whether, and if so what, measures should be taken in order to reinforce the office's delivery of cost-effective services to its customers and to ensure that full use is made of its scientific and human assets.

  The review will proceed in two phases, in the first of which a number of "framework" issues will be examined, including whether the Met Office is best placed as a Trading Fund within the MOD to exploit its full potential and whether existing governance arrangements require adjustment. The report of this first phase of the review is expected in July.

  In the second phase, the review will address, in the light of the answers to the "framework" issues examined in the first phase, a number of questions concerned with the operating efficiency of the Met Office, including the development of a more appropriate relationship between the office and its public sector customers, the scope for developing more commercial business opportunities, the potential for greater national and international co-operation in both meteorology and environmental services generally, and the scope for further streamlining of business processes both within the Met Office and between the office and its customers. The report of this second phase of the review is expected in October.

  The review will be carried out by a small team, which will consult closely with the Met Office management and other stakeholders, including the office's customers. The MOD is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contributions to:

  The Met Office QQR Team

  The Met Office

  London Road

  Bracknell

  Berkshire

  RG12 2SZ.

  Frigates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 34W, to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire

  813W
  (Mr. Gray), on which dates the Type 23s and Type 22s will be refitted with the 114mm Mark VIII Mod 1 gun. [49750]

  Mr. Ingram
  The 4.5 inch (114mm) Mark VIII Mod 1 gun has already been fitted to the Type 22 Batch 3 Frigate, HMS Cumberland and to the Type 23 Frigates, HMS Norfolk and HMS Iron Duke. HMS Marlborough and HMS Monmouth, both Type 23 Frigates, will be fitted with the updated gun during their current upkeep periods. It is currently planned that the remaining Type 22 Batch 3 and Type 23 Frigates will be fitted with the gun at a rate of two to three per year, during programmed maintenance and repair periods.

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have received compensation from the Ministry of Defence for injuries inflicted by unexploded ordnance; and how much that compensation has totalled in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [49993]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not record separately those cases brought against the Department for injuries inflicted by unexploded ordnance. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of(a) how many people are expected to receive compensation from the Ministry of Defence for injuries inflicted by unexploded ordnance in Kenya and (b) how much that compensation will total; and if he will make a statement. [49992]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has received 173 claims for compensation from tribespeople allegedly injured as a result of unexploded ordnance in Kenya. The solicitor acting for the tribespeople has intimated that about 100 further claims would be submitted. These claims will be considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. It would be prejudicial at this stage of the

  Key performance indicator

  Description

  1. Quality

  To equal baseline performance against a financial year 2000–01 benchmark (based on fault reports)

  2. Return on capital employed

  To achieve a 6 per cent. return on capital employed (ROCE)

  3. Reduction in unit production price

  To achieve a 2 per cent. reduction in unit production price

  4. Increase in order intake

  To achieve a 100 per cent. increase in order intake from financial year 2000–01 baseline

  5. Increase in commercial revenue

  To achieve a 15 per cent. increase in commercial revenue from financial year 2000–01 baseline

  At the last ministerial advisory board, the assessment presented to me indicated that most of the targets for 2001–02 were likely to be met or exceeded. It is too soon, however, to be able to provide accurate details or figures until later this year, once the end of year results are collated. The targets set for 2002–03 are now in the process of being agreed with DARA.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (1) estimate he has made of the total savings to 814W
  legal proceedings to announce the Ministry of Defence's estimate of the number of claimants expected to receive compensation and the total level of such awards.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims have been received by the War Pensions Agency from service personnel who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down for compensation arising out of these experiments since 19 February 2001. [43442]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 19 February 2001 and 31 March 2002, 41 claims for war pensions have been received from Porton Down service volunteers.

  SA80
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have been experienced with the modified version of the SA80. [46864]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The modified SA80 is attracting excellent reports from units. Minor issues, common to any modification programme, have been identified and dealt with.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he plans to take if the Defence Aviation Repair Agency fails to meet its targets in the financial year 2001–02. [47882]

  Mr. Ingram
  In preparation for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) achieving trading fund status on 1 April 2001, the agency's business plans and financial targets were subject to rigorous scrutiny by Ministry of Defence and Treasury officials.

  The targets set for DARA in 2001–02 have been based on the business requirements of the agency's MOD customers and also on its abilities in winning new business from external commercial markets. I continuously assess and review DARA's performance against a number of key performance indicators (KPIs). These key targets were established following consultation with both the Treasury and National Audit Office.

  The targets cover:

  public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Service for the Ministry of Defence, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49566]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Hazardous Stores Information Project for the Ministry of Defence by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49666]
  815W
  (3) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for RAF Lossiemouth (FQ), by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49574]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency Fire Training, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49558]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Tidworth Water and Sewerage for the Ministry of Defence, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49570]

  (6) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the German White Fleet for the Ministry of Defence, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49562]

  (7) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49568]

  (8) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Central Scotland FQ for the Ministry of Defence, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49560]

  (9) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Yeovilton (Family Quarters) for the Ministry of Defence, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49572]

  (10) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Attack Helicopter Training, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49556]

  (11) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Hawk Simulator, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49564]

  (12) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Medium Support Helicopter Air Crew Training Facility, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49567]

  (13) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Training Administration and Financial Management Information System for the Ministry of Defence by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49667]
  816W
  (14) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Joint Services Command and Staff College, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49575]

  (15) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Flying Training for University Air Squadrons and Air Experience Flights, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49559]

  (16) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for RAF Fylingdales (Power), by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49571]

  (17) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for RAF Cosford/Shawbury, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49555]

  (18) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Helicopter Flying School, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49563]

  (19) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for RAF Lyneham Sewerage for the Ministry of Defence, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49569]

  (20) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the RAF White Fleet for the Ministry of Defence, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49561]

  (21) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for RAF Mail, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49573]

  (22) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Tornado SR4 Simulator, by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49557]

  (23) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Army Mail (IT), by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49565]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Soldiers (Trade Unions)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of European Union law on the right of soldiers to join a trades union; and if he will make a statement. [49730]

  Mr. Ingram
  Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for a right to peaceful assembly and association, including the right to form a trade union. The Article does allow for the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of those rights by
  817W
  members of the armed forces. No restrictions are placed upon Service personnel attending meetings of civilian trade unions, professional associations, or courses of instruction run by the same that are intended to enhance trade skills and professional knowledge. However, as the armed forces must be seen to maintain a position of political neutrality, personnel may not participate in any form of political activity organised by a civilian trade union or organisation to which they belong.

  Refits
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 73W, for what reasons the refits of (a) HMS Manchester and (b) HMS Liverpool are taking longer than the average periods given; and what enhancements are being provided to each of the five ships presently in refit. [49748]

  Mr. Ingram
  The average refit period given in my reply to the hon. Member was indicative for the frigate and destroyer Class. The refit periods for ships within a Class will vary depending on individual requirements. HMS Manchester exceeded the average period principally due to work required on her gearbox. In HMS Liverpool's case, an extensive electronics package required an extended trials period.

  The five frigates and destroyers currently in refit will receive a number of enhancements at various levels, details of the major ones are given as follows:

  HMS Manchester (Type 42 Destroyer)

  Water displaced fuel tanks; an electronic package; environmental garbage disposal machines; removal of red lead paint.

  HMS Liverpool (Type 42 Destroyer)

  Water displaced fuel tanks; an extensive electronic package; environmental garbage disposal machines; removal of red lead paint.

  HMS Gloucester (Type 42 Destroyer)

  Water displaced fuel tanks; environmental garbage disposal machines; biological sewage treatment plants; Total command support system.

  HMS Iron Duke (Type 23 Frigate)

  Aviation facilities to allow operation of Merlin helicopter, command support and communications systems upgrade; installation of equipment to purify water discharged from ship to meet marine pollution regulations.

  HMS Monmouth (Type 23 Frigate)

  Enhancements as per HMS Iron Duke.

  Cemeteries

  Australian

  Canadian

  New Zealand

  South African

  United Kingdom

  Total

  Bouchoir New British

  6

  214

  —

  1

  542

  763

  Damery Communal

  —

  10

  —

  —

  1

  11

  Folies Communal

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Fouquescourt British

  49

  138

  2

  —

  187

  376

  Marcourt French National

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  6

  Meharicourt Communal

  6

  12

  2

  —

  21

  41

  Warvillers Churchyard Extension

  —

  35

  —

  —

  13

  48

  Destroyed Argentine Aircraft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Argentine aircraft were destroyed by British forces in 1982 by(a) Sea Dart, (b) Sea Wolf, (c) Sea Cat, (d) Sea Slug, (e) Bofors, (f) Oerlikon, (h) small arms fire, (i) Blowpipe, (j) Rapier, (k) Harrier, (1) bombing and ground operations, (m) naval gunfire and (n) Stinger. [49757]

  Mr. Ingram
  The causes of loss in the categories requested are shown in the following table.

  Falklands 1982—Argentine aircraft losses

  Category

  Number

  Sea Dart

  7

  Sea Wolf

  3

  Sea Cat

  0

  Sea Slug

  0

  Bofors

  1

  Oerlikon

  0

  Small Arms Fire

  2

  Blowpipe

  1

  Rapier

  1.5

  Harrier

  26

  Bombing and Ground Operations

  14

  Naval Gunfire

  4

  Stinger

  1

  Other

  39.5

  War Graves (France)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has made to the French authorities about the effect of a third Paris airport on Commonwealth war graves; and if he will make a statement. [49742]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 166W.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of how many British and Commonwealth war graves would have to be relocated if the French authorities proceeded with a new airport at Chaulnes; and which military cemeteries are affected. [49741]

  Dr. Moonie
  The French Government have a good record for handling civil engineering projects on the battlefields of the Western Front with sensitivity. We have no reason to believe that they will handle this current proposal any differently. In the case of the proposed airport at Chaulnes, no firm plans have been agreed and the perimeter of the site is still to be discussed. However, based on the latest proposals which have been published in the French press, the cemeteries that could be affected are as follows, together with the number of British and Commonwealth graves that may be disturbed as a result.

  Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent visit to the Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus by Lieutenant General Reith. [R] [48739]

  Mr. Ingram
  Lieutenant General Reith, Chief of Joint Operations, made a routine visit to Cyprus during the period 25–28 February. The trip was part of a series of visits to the three Overseas Commands (British Forces Gibraltar, Falkland Islands and Cyprus), of which he has operational command.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army are serving on operations; and in which locations their numbers exceed 50. [49770]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 12 April there were 415 members of the Territorial Army serving on operations. The locations where the numbers exceeded 50 were Bosnia, where 174 were serving, and Kosovo, where 155 were serving.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength is of the Territorial Army. [49769]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 March 2002, the strength of the Territorial Army stood at 39,617 personnel of whom 392 are currently mobilised in support of operations.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to disband Territorial Army field hospital units. [49745]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no plans to disband Territorial Army field hospital units.

  Golden Jubilee
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the exclusion of retired officers from eligibility for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal; and if he will make a statement. [50019]

  Dr. Moonie
  A number of hon. Members have written on behalf of constituents who are former members of the armed forces but who have been re-employed as civil servants in a Retired Officer grade. In addition, the Ministry of Defence has received letters from individual Retired Officers and the Retired Officers Association has made representations on behalf of their members. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 568W, to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).

  War Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons Mrs. M. K. Tushingham, a constituent whose details have been supplied, has been told that she may no longer receive her RAF widows pension via an order book at a post office. [48989]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Pensions under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme are normally paid monthly in arrears. Some 6,700 pensioners (2 per cent. of the total number of Armed Forces pensioners) in receipt of pensions prior to 1981 have retained rights to payment of
  820W
  pensions weekly in advance, historically via a "Payable Order Book" (POB) cashable at post offices. Revised arrangements were introduced from April 2002 to provide the pensioner with a more secure means of payment than the POB system; it is also more cost-effective to the Ministry of Defence and easier to administer.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which RAF widows can receive their war pensions other than into a bank account; [48987]

  (2) what arrangements are available for war widows who (a) are unable to obtain a bank account and (b) do not wish to open a bank account to receive their pensions. [48988]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: War Widows pensions, administered by the Veterans Agency, can be paid into either a bank account or building society, or by cash at the post office.

  Staff College, Shrivenham
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training and education the Joint Services Staff College at Shrivenham provides in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. [44746]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Services Staff College at Shrivenham provides a number of courses that cover peacekeeping and conflict resolution. The courses are:

  The Higher Command and Staff course, which trains 30 students per year.

  The Advanced Command and Staff course, which trains 420 students per year.

  The Royal Navy Junior Division, which trains 200 students per year.

  The Army Junior Division, which trains 420 students per year.

  The Royal Air Force Junior Division, which trains 440 students per year.

  Reserve courses.

  Students on all staff courses are issued a range of service and other publications on the subject, and specifically: JWP 3–50 "Peace Support Operations".

  Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who conducts the(a) customer attitude survey, (b) continuous attitude survey and (c) Independent Housing Survey; what questions on housing there were in each of the surveys; if he will place a copy of the most recent of each in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [48665]

  (2) what percentage of respondents were content with the standard of accommodation allocated to them in the (a) customer attitude survey, (b) continuous attitude survey and (c) Independent Housing Survey; and if he will make a statement. [48666]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Customer Attitude Survey conducted by QinetiQ for the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) is a comprehensive survey of attitudes relating to Service Family Accommodation. It is wide-ranging and covers many aspects of housing; copies have been placed in the Library of the House. It records 67 per cent. of
  821W
  service families as "content" with the standard of family accommodation. There is no separate "independent housing survey" questionnaire.

  Each of the Services undertakes continuous attitude surveys. These are not specifically related to family housing but are intended to measure morale and to understand the concerns and motivations of their personnel across a spectrum of issues, including conditions of service, training and development and accommodation of all kinds. There are no plans to release them into the public domain.

  For the RN, the continuous attitude survey responses of August 2001 indicated that some 58 per cent. were either very satisfied or satisfied, and 22 per cent neutral, with the standard of family accommodation provided. For the RAF, the survey for May and August 2001 indicated that 53 per cent. regarded their accommodation as satisfactory or very satisfactory and 31 per cent. as adequate. The corresponding question in the Army's August 2001 survey did not distinguish between family and single accommodation but showed 42 per cent. satisfied or very satisfied.

  SAS and SBS
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the policy for Return to Mainstream service for personnel in the Special Air Service's and Special Boat Service; and whether he plans to recruit for SAS and SBS other than from serving members of the regular armed forces. [49467]

  Mr. Ingram
  Non-commissioned personnel who successfully complete United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) selection, and continue to maintain appropriate standards, will nonnally serve the balance of their careers with UKSF. The careers of regular serving officers will be managed in a way which balances service within and outside the UKSF group, to the mutual benefit of the individual, UKSF and the parent service.

  Members of UKSF may be returned to their parent corps at any time should they be found unsuitable for further service or should they wish to do so at their own request.

  Volunteers for the SBS and SAS, who must have completed two years adult military service, may apply from any part of the regular armed forces, as may reservists serving with one of the UKSF reserve units. Applicants from overseas are also eligible in certain circumstances. There are no plans to expand the recruiting base.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings will be made from the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier force from service. [49760]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1451–52W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). The withdrawal of the Sea Harrier force from service is one part of the new investment strategy for Joint Force harrier. The upgrade of the Harrier GR force will see the enhancement of our expeditionary offensive air capability, in particular from the Royal
  822W
  Navy's aircraft carriers. This is a capability driven initiative and provides for a smooth transition to the Future Joint Combat Aircraft. Savings will occur in not having to provide for modifications to address obsolescence, in streamlined training and basing and personnel efficiencies. Full advantage of this has been taken in construction of the forward programme.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which nations have contributed forces to(a) Operation Enduring Freedom and (b) ISAF; how many troops each of these nations has contributed; and if he will make a statement. [50000]

  Mr. Hoon
  Operation Enduring Freedom is being co-ordinated by the US Central Command in Tampa, Florida. The latest figures available are from 27 February, when, in addition to the US, there were 68 nations supporting the global war on terrorism, 17 of which had deployed more than 17,000 troops to the US Central Command's area of responsibility.

  The list of nations contributing to International Security Assistance Force, with their individual contributions as at 15 April, is in the table.

  The long list of nations involved in these offensive and security assistance activities illustrates the breadth of support for the international coalition against terrorism. It is vital that all these nations continue their support to deal with the significant threat which remains from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to help the Afghans as they begin the rebuilding of their country.

  Nation

  Total

  Austria

  74

  Bulgaria

  32

  Czech Republic

  5

  Denmark

  40

  Finland

  34

  France

  452

  Germany

  1,013

  Greece

  123

  Italy

  357

  Netherlands

  220

  Norway

  22

  New Zealand

  7

  Poland

  8

  Romania

  46

  Spain

  350

  Sweden

  40

  Turkey

  264

  United Kingdom

  1,327

  United States

  38

  Total

  4,452

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what heavy lift aircraft(a) have been used in the deployment of British troops for ISAF and (b) are being used to deploy 45 Commando to Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [49999]

  Mr. Hoon
  C-17, Tristar and C-130 aircraft have been used to deploy United Kingdom personnel and equipment to Afghanistan. Chartered An-124s have also been used for deploying equipment.
  823W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops involved in ISAF will be reallocated to Operation Enduring Freedom; and if he will make a statement. [50001]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. We have drawn a distinction between those troops involved in security assistance activities in Kabul and those troops who are currently deploying for offensive operations to play their part in the task of rooting out al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants.

  Deployments
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces are deployed abroad on operations; and where. [46305]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The numbers and locations of armed forces personnel deployed on military tasks overseas, including operations, are shown in the table. The figures do not include personnel preparing for, or recovering from, operations.

  Location

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Gibraltar

  16

  62

  104

  Cyprus

  —

  2,385

  1,184

  Balkans

  —

  3,823

  233

  Rest of Europe

  —

  2

  252

  Falkland Islands

  141

  402

  704

  Middle East and Gulf

  1,182

  38

  1,895

  Asia and Far East

  241

  2,724

  12

  Africa

  258

  368

  8

  Caribbean

  336

  —

  —

  North America

  —

  —

  15

  Other

  573

  54

  2

  Total

  2,747

  9,858

  4,409

  Notes:

  1. The Royal Navy figures are as at 26 March 2002.

  2. The Army figures are as at 21 March 2002.

  3. The RAF figures are as at 1 March 2002.

  In addition, some 1,145 Royal Marines personnel were deployed on military tasks at various overseas locations, including Afghanistan and the Gulf.

  HMS Intrepid
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the disposal of HMS Intrepid. [49766]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Intrepid will be disposed of by sale either to the commercial market or to another acceptable Government if one can be found.

  Pilots
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength of pilots is for (i) Tornado F3, (ii) Tornado GR1/4, (iii) Harrier GR7 and (iv) Jaguar. [49771]

  Mr. Ingram
  The position at 1 April 2002 is set out in the table.824W

  Force

  Established flying posts1

  Strength

  Tornado F3

  116

  108

  Tornado GR1/4

  134

  122

  Harrier GR7

  67

  63

  Jaguar

  60

  55

  1Comprises wing commander, squadron leader and junior officer posts on front line squadrons, operational conversion units, operational evaluation units and wing appointments. In addition to the established flying posts on the specified aircraft type, fast jet pilots are required for instructional duties within the RAF's flying training system, overseas exchange posts, the RAF Acrobatic Team and a number of ground duties shared by all General Duties Branches.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for North Essex, of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 562W, if he will list the 19 industry respondees to the DERA PPP consultation process; how many of them were supportive of the PPP and how many opposed; and how many of them were proposing an alternative structure to the PPP. [49997]

  Dr. Moonie
  The consultation document published in spring 2000 resulted from wide ranging discussions with stakeholders and an initial public consultation exercise. As identified in the previous answer referred to by the hon. Member, 19 industry responses were received from the following companies, trade associations and professional bodies:

  GKN

  WS Atkins

  BAE Systems

  Thesauras

  Rolls Royce

  HVR Consulting Services

  Alvis

  Raytheon

  Society of British Aerospace Companies

  UK Industrial Space Committee

  Federation of the Electronics Industry

  Defence Issues Working Group

  Defence Manufacturers Association

  Association of Independent Research and Technology Organisations

  British Naval Equipment Association

  CSSA Defence Group

  Foresight Defence

  Aerospace and Systems Panel

  CBI (two responses).

  It is not appropriate to publish details of the individual responses, as they were not provided on the basis that they would be placed in the public domain. The main points have been summarised and are generally supportive, although most requested further information on the process. Consequently the Ministry of Defence has had continuous discussions with industry throughout implementation, including regular meetings with the National Defence Industries Council.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions held with EU member states over Gibraltar at the Barcelona summit. [45529]

  Peter Hain
  Barcelona welcomed the relaunch of the Brussels Process, underlined the support for the efforts of the British and Spanish Governments to conclude a comprehensive agreement before the summer; and invited the European Commission to explore ways in which the EU could underpin any agreement reached.

  Iraq
  Joyce
  15. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration about Iraq. [45530]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The most recent discussions on Iraq took place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush in Crawford, Texas. We are putting all our diplomatic energy into securing Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions—but are considering all options to ensure Iraq cannot threaten its people or neighbours. We will proceed patiently and prudently, in consultation with our allies.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions he has had with his partners in the international coalition against terrorism about Iraq. [45542]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly discusses our concerns about Iraq's support for international terrorism with his partners in the international coalition against terrorism.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [45554]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to have serious concerns about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction. The international community's most pressing demand is that Iraq allow weapons inspectors to return and finish their work. We intend to consider the way forward in a calm, measured, sensible, but firm way.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Iraq's military intentions; and if he will make a statement. [49826]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As UN weapons inspectors have not been allowed access to Iraq for three years, we do not have detailed knowledge of the Iraqi Government's military intentions. But we do know that Saddam is continuing his chemical and biological weapons programme and is developing the long-range missiles to deliver them. It is important that we remain vigilant about the threat he poses to the region and the wider world.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Iraq's involvement in international terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [49825]
  826W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Iraq has a long-standing record of support for terrorism; this includes support for Palestinian terrorist groups and the activities against Iran of the Iranian terrorist group, the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (MeK), as well as the assassination of political opponents.

  Zimbabwe
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the elections in Zimbabwe and the implications for the new partnership for African development. [45531]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House on 14 March that Zimbabweans had plainly been denied their fundamental right to choose by whom they are governed. NEPAD can only work on the basis of co-operation between democratic Governments with full international legitimacy.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with Commonwealth members about the restoration of democracy in Zimbabwe. [45536]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards Zimbabwe remaining within the Commonwealth. [45544]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 19 March Zimbabwe was suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth for one year. We welcome this.

  We shall be discussing Zimbabwe's future status with Commonwealth partners during the coming 12 months.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [45548]

  Mr. MacShane
  What has happened in Zimbabwe is a tragedy, imposed on that once prosperous land by Robert Mugabe. Respect for the rule of law and a return to democratic principles and sensible economic policies are the only way back for Zimbabwe.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on bilateral relations with Zimbabwe of the recent elections in that country; and if he will make a statement. [45535]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House on 14 March that Zimbabweans had plainly been denied their fundamental right to choose by whom they are governed.

  This leaves UK relations with Zimbabwe's Government at their lowest ebb since that country's independence. But we remain committed to stand by the people of Zimbabwe and will continue our programme of humanitarian assistance.

  International Terrorism
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will
  827W
  take to instruct the UK mission to the United Nations to work for full compliance by member states with their obligation to file a report on terrorist financing and providing safe havens for terrorists. [45532]

  Mr. MacShane
  Under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 States are obliged to submit such reports to the UN's Counter-Terrorism Committee. As of 9 April, 139 of the 189 UN Member States had fulfilled this obligation. As Chair of the Committee, the British Permanent Representative has written twice urging States that have not yet submitted a report to do so.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US on measures to prevent international terrorism. [45534]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have frequent and regular discussions with the US on many aspects of the international campaign against terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the campaign with President Bush in Crawford on 7 April.

  Delhi Declaration
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the Delhi declaration. [45533]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The New Delhi Declaration, signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the Indian Prime Minister on 6 January 2002, represents a new high-water mark in the strong and vibrant relationship between the UK and India. It identifies many areas of common interest and sets out a road-map for future co-operation, both bilaterally and on the world stage.

  The Declaration is already having an impact. Elements of it were discussed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in our meetings with our Indian counterparts in the last two months.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contribution of the UK to ensuring political stability in Afghanistan. [45537]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Political stability is crucial to long term stability in Afghanistan. The Government fully support the UN-led political process, as set out in the Bonn Agreement. Its aim is to establish a broadly based, representative and democratic government in Afghanistan. The convening of the Emergency Loya Jirga in June is the next step towards this. The UK has given £500,000 to support the Loya Jirga Commission, who are responsible for arranging the Emergency Loya Jirga.

  We pledged £200 million of reconstruction assistance in January at the Tokyo Donors Conference on Reconstruction. The UK is currently Lead Nation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is playing an important role supporting the Interim Administration to maintain security in and around Kabul.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the war in Afghanistan. [45540]
  828W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The campaign in Afghanistan is focused on ridding the country of the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which still pose a significant threat. At the request of the United States we have deployed 45 Commando to assist with this operation. We are committed to ensuring that Afghanistan can no longer offer a haven to terrorists and will remain engaged until we have finished the task.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the international fight against the drug trade in Afghanistan. [45546]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has taken the lead in coordinating international efforts to implement sustainable drug control in Afghanistan through the creation of alternative legal livelihoods, the reconstruction of infrastructure and the establishment of effective law enforcement and good governance. We have also been working with the Afghan Interim Administration to implement the decree banning opium production issued by Chairman Karzai on 3 April. We have been encouraging other members of the international community to provide similar support.

  Sudan
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sudan. [45538]

  Mr. MacShane
  We remain deeply concerned about the situation in Sudan but believe that 2002 offers a real window of opportunity for peace and that the UK has a major role to play in ensuring that this opportunity is seized. There has been some recent progress, for example in the Nuba mountains where a ceasefire appears to be holding.

  Middle East
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report progress on peace initiatives in the middle east. [45539]

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to bring Israelis and Palestinians together to promote a peaceful settlement. [45543]

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Administration about influencing the progress towards peace in the middle east. [45547]

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. [45549]

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [45550]
  829W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are gravely concerned by the consequences of the escalation in the middle east in recent weeks. The situation could get even worse unless both sides step back, and start talking. This requires real engagement and intervention by the international community.

  The priority is implementation of UNSCRs 1402 and 1403, a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities and full co-operation by the parties with General Zinni to implement the Tenet security work-plan and the Mitchell Committee recommendations with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement. US Secretary of State Powell is in the region now on a mission to achieve this. It is crucial that both sides work constructively with Colin Powell. As the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House on 10 April, "Both sides must realise that violence is not, and never will be the answer. The solution to this crisis will never be reached if it is seen purely as a security or military question. There must be a political process."

  The UK has played a full part in international efforts to bring the violence to an end and resume negotiations. The Prime Minister discussed the situation in the middle east with President Bush in Crawford, Texas. He has also had talks with European Heads of Government and President Mubarak. The Foreign Secretary has been in constant contact with his European counterparts and the US Secretary of State. He also spoke to Israeli Foreign Minister Peres on 11 April. Despite the difficulties we have also maintained close contact with the Palestinian Authority primarily through our Consulate-General in Jerusalem. I spoke to the Palestinian Minister for International Planning and Co-operation, Nabil Sha'ath, on 3 April.

  We shall be seeking a UN Security Council Resolution, based on Crown Prince Abdullah's plan, to promote a political process, following US Secretary of State Powell's visit to the region. We stand ready to help with monitoring, of a cease-fire and confidence building measures.

  We have grave concerns about the denial of medical and humanitarian assistance to those in need in the Occupied Territories and about the lack of food, electricity and water. I raised our concerns with the Israeli ambassador on 4 April. We have also been disturbed by the reports of the deaths of innocents in the Jenin refugee camp and the conduct of the IDF. The Foreign Secretary raised these issues with the Israeli Foreign Minister on 11 April. We have urged the Government of Israel to ensure respect for international law by its armed forces and investigate thoroughly all allegations of IDF misconduct.

  The Government will continue to do all it can to help the parties end the violence and resume talks based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, and the principle of land for peace. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians will only come through a political process which delivers security for Israel within recognised borders, brings an end to occupation, and allows the emergence of a secure and viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state committed to co-existence with Israel, and recognised and respected by Israel.

  British Detainees (Cuba)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of the British Taliban and al-Qaeda suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. [45541]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain in close touch with the US Government about the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay, their status, the legal procedure to which they might be subject and their welfare.

  In response to our approaches, the US Government have given us the assurance that they would treat all UK detainees humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Convention.

  EU Enlargement
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being provided by the UK to the candidate counties for EU membership. [45545]

  Peter Hain
  Over the last decade we have contributed £350 million through the "Know How Fund" to provide technical assistance to the central European candidate countries. We now have "Action Plans" with all 13 candidates with a total budget of £1.8 million in the last financial year. The plans bring together the UK's practical assistance to the candidates across a range of activities involving other Whitehall Departments.

  Since 1998, the UK has won involvement in over 100 Twinning projects, whereby experts are seconded as long-term Pre-Accession Advisers to candidate countries' ministries. This is the third highest number of any member state. The UK was the first member state to win involvement in projects in all 12 negotiating countries.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the enlargement of the European Union. [45551]

  Peter Hain
  Enlargement negotiations are progressing steadily and are on course to meet the timetable agreed at Gothenburg and confirmed at Laeken—to end negotiations in 2002 with the best-prepared countries, so that they can take part in the European Parliament elections in 2004.

  Currently 10 of the 12 countries in negotiations have opened 29 chapters. Slovenia has closed 26 chapters, Cyprus, Hungary, Estonia, Czech Republic and Lithuania have all closed 24, Slovakia and Latvia have both closed 23. Poland has closed 22 and Malta has closed 21. Bulgaria has opened 27 chapters and closed 14 while Romania has opened 22 and closed nine.

  Nice Treaty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions he has had with his EU colleagues on the ratification of the Nice treaty. [45552]

  Peter Hain
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs meets his European counterparts regularly. These meetings discuss a range of subjects including the ratification of the treaty of Nice.
  831W
  The Bill to enable the UK to ratify the treaty of Nice received Royal Assent on 26 February, and the Government will lodge the instrument of ratification in Rome in the coming months.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of China in relation to their record on human rights. [45553]

  Mr. MacShane
  We regularly raise concerns about the human rights situation in China, including through the six-monthly UK-China Human Rights Dialogue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised human rights concerns with the Chinese Foreign Minister during his visit to the UK on 16–19 January.

  Myanmar
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Myanmar. [45555]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In recent weeks there has been an EU Troika delegation visit to Burma and EU action over forced labour in Burma at the International Labour Organisation. The EU is preparing a resolution on Burma for adoption at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Burma will visit Burma 22–24 April.

  I remain gravely concerned about the overall situation in Burma. Although there has been some very modest political progress there in the past 16 months, we need to see early evidence of substantive change if confidence in the political process in Burma is to be maintained.

  Iran
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Administration about Iran. [45521]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Iran was among the wide range of issues discussed during my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to Washington on 31 January and 1 February. He also discussed Iran in a telephone conversation with the US Secretary of State in March.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the(a) capital and (b) revenue underspend in his Department is expected to be in the financial year 2001–02. [47799]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimated out-turn figures for 2001–02 will be published in the Budget Report on 17 April 2002.

  Overtime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on overtime payments for staff in his Department. [49127]
  832W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  All staff below the Senior Management Structure (equivalent to Senior Civil Service Staff) qualify for overtime or time off in lieu if they are required to work more than their conditioned hours at times of exceptional pressure. We do not encourage staff to work long hours but aim to reward them fairly when they do. All overtime must be approved in advance. Diplomatic Service staff serving overseas are not paid overtime but may be given time off in lieu when they work excessive hours, at management discretion.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the 2002 Departmental report will be published. [49583]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO's 2002 Departmental Report is due to be published in spring 2002. The date will be announced shortly.

  Laos
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he is taking to improve the conditions of religious minorities in Laos; and if he will make a statement. [48849]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Contacts between British Ministers and officials and their Lao counterparts are limited. But we raise concerns about human rights in Laos, including the conditions of religious minorities, when such meetings take place. When the Lao Deputy Foreign Minister visited the UK in June 2001 the FCO's Asia-Pacific Director told him that the treatment of Lao Christians was a matter of particular concern in the UK. There is no DFID country programme for Laos. But DIFD and the FCO provide some funding aimed at improving the overall quality of life of the Lao people, including religious minorities.

  Japan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Japan's capability for building nuclear weapons. [49265]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Japan is a designated member of the IAEA Board of Governors and is thus recognised as being one of the nations most advanced in civil nuclear technology and applications. Japan is a member of the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as a non-nuclear weapon state, and it is thus treaty-bound. not to pursue nuclear weapons programmes. Japan's constitution prohibits the development and use of nuclear weapons. It is active in the fields of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

  COREPER
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms he uses for providing advanced notice to hon. Members of agenda items for COREPER meetings. [49491]

  Peter Hain
  Provisional agendas for COREPER meetings are posted on the Council of the European Union website http://register.consilium.eu.int.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in his Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions he has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within his Department. [50479]

  Mr. MacShane
  Smart card technology is not in use within the FCO at home or overseas. This is a technology being tracked for potential business benefit within the FCO, and informal discussions have been held with a number of technology companies.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Bills introduced by her Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans she has for the future use of such clauses. [49624]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has introduced five bills in the last five years (National Heritage Act 1997, National Lottery Act 1998, Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000, Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000 and the Culture and Recreation Bill introduced in 2001). None of these contained any sunset clauses. Decisions on the future use of such clauses will be made on a case-by-case basis and will be communicated to the House in the usual way.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49579]

  Dr. Howells
  The departmental report for 2002 will be published by the end of May.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible under the new deal for young people in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers allowance or other benefits. [49605]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not held by the Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on overtime payments for staff in her Department. [49115]

  Dr. Howells
  Overtime in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can be authorised for staff working in excess of their conditioned hours. This is in line with the 834W
  Civil Service Management Code. Conditions and rates are published internally and depend on grade and the hours worked.

  Yeoman Warders
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to include the Yeoman Warders, extraordinary bodyguard of the Sovereign, in the group eligible for award of the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal; and if she will make a statement. [48759]

  Tessa Jowell
  The services receiving the commemorative medal are the armed forces and Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and the "999" emergency services. Yeoman Warders of the Tower of London do not fall within these categories and are therefore ineligible for the medal.

  Museum of Science and Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received concerning the funding at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester. [48736]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has recently received representations about funding for an exhibition at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester to showcase the objects used in the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth games in July. I am pleased that my Department has been able to provide financial support to enable this exhibition to take place.

  Tourism
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to assist the domestic tourism market to become more competitive. [49693]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to improving the competitiveness of the domestic tourism market through an agenda of modernisation and long term strategic reform. The Government are working closely with key industry partners to achieve more consistent high standards and better value for money across the tourism industry.

  Modernisation and reform will focus on raising the quality of the domestic product; improving skills and training; increasing the quality and quantity of tourism data and research; promoting the development of e-tourism; and providing stronger co-ordination of the promotion and marketing of England's tourist assets.

  Baseline funding for English tourism will rise from £10 million in 2001–02 to £12 million this year and campaigns such as "Your Countryside, You're Welcome" will also support our tourism industry during 2002.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to assist the tourism industry in Essex. [49691]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to the modernisation and reform of the tourism industry and this will have a beneficial effect on tourism across the country, including Essex.
  835W
  The East of England Tourist Board (EETB) received funding of £550,400 in 2001–02 to support tourism in the region. The figure for 2002–03 has yet to be agreed. During 2001£02 the EETB also received additional funding of £425,000 from the East of England Development Agency and £180,000 from the English Tourism Council in response to the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Furthermore, Essex county council will be spending £100,000 this year promoting Essex as a tourism destination and has recently collaborated with both the Countryside Agency, and Tastes of Anglia, to provide support for a spring campaign this year. The tourism industry in Essex also benefits from national tourism strategies, such as the "Your Countryside, You're Welcome" campaign, aimed at attracting visitors back to the English countryside.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of United Kingdom jobs are dependent on the tourism industry. [49692]

  Dr. Howells
  The latest figure available for tourism-related industries is 2.1 million (September 2001). This equates to 7 per cent. of all employment in Great Britain. We do not have estimates for UK employment because Northern Ireland do their employment surveys separately.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible in each of the last five years. [50307]

  Dr. Howells
  This information can be found in each non-departmental public body's annual accounts. Copies of which are available from the Library of the House.

  European City of Culture 2008
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will announce Britain's choice for European City of Culture 2008; and if she will make a statement. [49998]

  Dr. Howells
  It is hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, in consultation with colleagues and the devolved administrations, make her recommendation to the Prime Minister towards the end of Spring 2003 having considered a report by an independent advisory panel. The Prime Minister will then make a nomination to the European Union. The European Union will ratify the United Kingdom's nomination during 2004.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason members of the PSNI are deployed in Kosovo; and when it is planned to return them to police duties in Northern Ireland. [34859]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO), through the NIO, sought, as part of a UK wide contribution, a commitment by the RUC to the UN Mission in Kosovo. PSNI officers are deployed in Kosovo 836W
  to assist in the restoration of normality, and law and order, by maintaining civil laws and orders, advising and assisting the Kosovo force in maintenance of public security and order and protecting and promoting human rights.

  The current deployment of PSNI officers are due to complete their attachment in either May or November 2002.

  There are no plans at present to discontinue PSNI deployments to UN peacekeeping missions.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what proportion of employees of the PSNI were off sick on average on each day in the last month for which figures are available; and how many and what proportion of those were(a) absent on self-certification or without authorisation, (b) on sick leave of less than a week, (c) on sick leave of more than one week and less than one month, (d) on sick leave of more than one month and (e) on leave as a result of injuries sustained while on duty. [41237]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table details the average sickness figures for the month of February 2002 for police officers and civilian support staff of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

  February 2002

  Police officers

  Support staff

  Average total staff

  9,445

  3,439

  Average of total number on sick absence

  1,032

  258

  Average total percentage on sick absence

  10.93

  7.51

  Average number 1–6 days

  1145

  242

  Average percentage sick 1–6 days

  14.05

  16.28

  Average number 7–27 days

  184

  63

  Average percentage 7–27 days

  17.83

  24.42

  Average number sick greater than 27 days

  703

  153

  Average percentage sick greater than 27 days

  68.12

  59.30

  Average number sick per injury on duty

  318

  3

  Average percentage sick per injury on duty

  30.81

  1.16

  1Includes 85 self certified

  2Includes 31 self certified

  Carryduff Police Station
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many calls were received at Carryduff police station from members of the public in the last three years; and how many responses there were to them over the same period. [37107]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that it is not possible to answer the aspect of how many calls were received as there is a central telephone switchboard in the Greater Belfast area to which members of the public would seek assistance in the first instance, i.e. 02890 650222.

  Similarly, emergency telephone calls to the 999 system again go to a central control room. While Carryduff police station does have a number of its own, statistics are not collated as to how many calls are made to it.

  The number of incidents receiving a response from Carryduff police station are as follows.

  837W

  Number

  1999

  4,298

  2000

  4,506

  2001

  4,494

  Child Abuse (Cross-Border Policing)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border policing, with particular reference to child abusers. [43691]

  Jane Kennedy
  The operational CARE units within the PSNI liaise closely with their counterparts in the Sexual Offences Unit in Dublin and with the various Garda Commanders along the border. The risks posed by sex offenders, when being assessed by the Multi-Agency Sex Offender Risk Management Groups in Northern Ireland, take cognisance of those who have moved from the Republic of Ireland into the NI jurisdiction and indeed invite representation both from the Probation in NI and the Garda. The Intelligence Bureau, PSNI, is working on protocols for information sharing on a variety of subjects including child sex offenders and child abusers.

  Last year the PSNI organised a conference in Belfast on the subject of cross-border information and intelligence sharing about sex offenders and child abusers. The conference was attended by representatives of the Department of Justice in the ROI, the Scottish Prison Service, the NI Prison Service, PSNI, and the NIO. The conference provided an opportunity for networking that has continued post conference.

  999 Emergency Calls
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances 999 emergency calls may be diverted to police stations in England, Wales and Scotland: what assessment he has made of the PSNI's response to emergency calls originating in North Belfast on 24 December 2001; and what steps have been taken to ensure year-round response readiness. [41235]

  Jane Kennedy
  All 999 calls to the police made by the public are initially answered at BT or Cable and Wireless emergency call centres in Great Britain. Those 999 calls for PSNI are passed to Belfast Regional Control or rural control rooms. The PSNI do not pass calls to police stations on the mainland.

  With regard to 24 December 2001, which was a normal working day for PSNI, normal policing levels were maintained within North Belfast District Command Unit throughout the whole day. The list of 999 calls received at Belfast Regional Control has been examined and the police response on each occasion was found to be timely and accurate.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Staff Numbers
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff there were in 838W
  the House of Commons broken down by (a) salary grade, (b) ethnic background and (c) sex in each of the last five years. [47986]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Commission currently employs 1,717 individual members of staff (including part timers). Of these, 1,446 over 84 per cent.—have completed monitoring forms. The tables show the figures for each category of staff, broken down by pay band, ethnic background and sex. The figures are for individual staff in post as at 31 March in each year.

  Ethnic monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 2002

  Pay band

  White

  Asian/Other

  Black

  Not stated

  Senior Commons Service

  76

  1—

  1—

  5

  A

  161

  1—

  1—

  18

  B

  251

  6

  5

  39

  C

  239

  13

  8

  32

  D

  265

  10

  19

  99

  E

  38

  5

  23

  11

  Refreshment Pay Group

  173

  25

  70

  53

  Works Pay Group

  46

  1—

  5

  14

  Gender monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 2002

  Pay band

  Male

  Female

  Senior Commons Service

  68

  15

  A

  93

  88

  B

  159

  142

  C

  129

  163

  D

  198

  195

  E

  10

  67

  Refreshment Pay Group

  185

  136

  Works Pay Group

  69

  1—

  Ethnic monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 2001

  Pay band

  White

  Asian/Other

  Black

  Not stated

  Senior Commons Service

  78

  1—

  1—

  3

  A

  165

  1—

  1—

  6

  B

  259

  7

  1—

  23

  C

  247

  13

  7

  26

  D

  261

  12

  16

  52

  E

  40

  5

  19

  6

  Refreshment Pay Group

  180

  23

  74

  48

  Works Pay Group

  46

  1—

  5

  15

  Gender monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 2002

  Pay band

  Male

  Female

  Senior Commons Service

  67

  15

  A

  91

  82

  B

  158

  135

  C

  136

  157

  D

  172

  169

  E

  10

  60

  Refreshment Pay Group

  187

  138

  Works Pay Group

  70

  1—

  Ethnic monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 2000

  Pay band

  White

  Asian/Other

  Black

  Not stated

  Senior Commons Service

  78

  1—

  1—

  3

  A

  169

  1—

  1—

  7

  B

  257

  8

  1—

  21

  C

  244

  11

  7

  17

  D

  252

  11

  12

  54

  E

  39

  1—

  18

  5

  Refreshment Pay Group

  141

  16

  60

  60

  Works Pay Group

  48

  1—

  5

  16

  839W

  Gender monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 2000

  Pay band

  Male

  Female

  Senior Commons Service

  67

  16

  A

  96

  82

  B

  153

  137

  C

  126

  153

  D

  160

  169

  E

  7

  57

  Refreshment Pay Group

  153

  124

  Works Pay Group

  73

  1—

  Ethnic monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 1999

  Pay band

  White

  Asian/Other

  Black

  Not stated

  Senior Commons Service

  80

  1—

  1—

  3

  A

  169

  1—

  1—

  6

  B

  259

  7

  1—

  19

  C

  243

  10

  8

  20

  D

  221

  8

  12

  63

  E

  43

  1—

  17

  6

  Refreshment Pay Group

  144

  18

  56

  72

  Works Pay Group

  53

  5

  5

  16

  Gender monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 1999

  Pay band

  Male

  Female

  Senior Commons Service

  69

  16

  A

  91

  85

  B

  152

  137

  C

  120

  161

  D

  147

  157

  E

  11

  57

  Refreshment Pay Group

  159

  131

  Works Pay Group

  79

  1—

  Ethnic monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 1998

  Pay band

  White

  Asian/Other

  Black

  Not stated

  Senior Commons Service

  80

  1—

  1—

  4

  A

  167

  1—

  1—

  5

  B

  249

  8

  1—

  20

  C

  238

  9

  7

  20

  D

  204

  15

  11

  51

  E

  50

  9

  16

  13

  Refreshment Pay Group

  144

  6

  52

  73

  Works Pay Group

  61

  1—

  6

  17

  Gender monitoring by pay band as at 31 March 1998

  Pay band

  Male

  Female

  Senior Commons Service

  71

  15

  A

  89

  84

  B

  152

  128

  C

  122

  152

  D

  21

  132

  E

  71

  60

  Refreshment Pay Group

  155

  129

  Works Pay Group

  88

  1—

  1Indicates numbers of fewer than five in a particular category; in such cases, detailed figures are not given to prevent individuals being readily identified.

  Staff Development
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the House of Commons becomes a model employer in providing skills training and retraining for staff; [47636]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that all members of staff's skills and skill needs are professionally assessed on an annual basis. [47637]
  840W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  Until recently, the House had a departmental approach to training, with limited House-wide provision. Following the Braithwaite Report on Management and Services (HC745 of Session 1998–99), and in the context of the plans for House-wide accreditation as an Investor in People, there is now a more structured and planned approach to House-wide staff development. This links training and development priorities to the aims of the House administration and supports managers in their responsibilities for the continuous development and training of their staff.

  Departmental training officers meet regularly to discuss priorities and to help develop and maintain the right mix of House-wide training and development. Individual, team and broader training needs for all staff are assessed as part of the annual performance appraisal process, and through House-wide awareness-raising initiatives (for example on equal opportunities). Personal development plans are reviewed and updated regularly.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Government Vehicles
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many vehicles are owned by the Government; [49300]

  (2) what proportion of Government-owned vehicles use (a) liquid petroleum gas, (b) electricity, (c) compressed natural gas, (d) diesel, (e) unleaded petrol and (f) leaded petrol. [49301]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 824W.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he plans to review the operation of regulatory impact; assessments. [49066]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Public Accounts Committee published a report on 12 April 2002 'Better Regulation: Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments' on the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General reviewing the regulatory impact assessment process. The Government welcome the Committee of Public Accounts report. It makes some helpful recommendations that echo many of the National Audit Office's findings and the Government will give full consideration to them.

  Panel for Regulatory Accountability
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the remit of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability is; who serves on it; and at what intervals it meets. [49065]

  Mr. Leslie
  The remit of the Ministerial Panel on Regulatory Accountability is to take a strategic overview of the regulatory system; to tackle instances where progress on regulatory reform is blocked; and to call
  841W
  Ministers to account for new regulation and their performance in addressing the burden of existing regulation.

  Ministers serving on the committee are the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chair), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office. Mr. David Arculus, the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, and Mr. William Sargent, chairman of the Small Business Council are also invited to attend. The membership and terms of reference are available in the Library of the House. Details are also published on the Cabinet Office website.

  Information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committee business is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Government Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action the Government's e-envoy is taking to ensure that all Government on-line services are accessible through simple touch-screen terminals in strategic locations. [49796]

  Mr. Leslie
  The concept of delivering public services on multiple platforms is a key part of the Government's strategy. The Office of the e-Envoy is working to spread best practice on the delivery of electronic services through a wide range of channels including the web, digital television, mobile communications, kiosks and touch screen terminals. Best practice guidance on these is being worked up by the Channels Policy Working Group into a channels framework, which will be promulgated throughout the public sector.

  The Office of the e-Envoy and the DTI are also working closely with the Post Office in the definition of a potential service whereby UK online content can be provided through kiosks located in post offices, making appropriate services available electronically to those members of the public who prefer to use a convenient terminal.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the(a) number and (b) total cost of television licences paid for by his Department. [48364]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office holds a multiple form licence covering its core central London buildings and a concessionary licence covering a large number of televisions located, at the Centre for Management and Policy Studies' Residential Training Centre in Sunningdale (Berkshire). The cost of these two television licences amounted to £6,867 in 2001–02.

  In addition 16 individual television licences are held by other parts of the Cabinet Office at a cost in 2001–02 of £1,717.

WALES

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39063]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in his Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions he has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within his Department. [50485]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department delivers no services direct to the public and has a staff of less than 50 people. There is thus only limited potential for benefiting from smart card technology.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [48605]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The external costs of the former Welsh Office were £568,000 in 1998–99 and £55,000 in the first quarter of 1999–2000.

  Since it came into existence in July 1999, the Wales Office has not separately distinguished legal costs.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Bills introduced by his Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans he has for the future use of such clauses. [49620]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Departmental Name Change
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost was of rebranding his Department following its name change after devolution. [31959]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office spent £2,728 on the design for a logo and associated artwork after its creation as a new Department after devolution.

  Jobs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a breakdown by industry of(a) jobs created and (b) job losses in Wales in each of the past five years. [32232]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is no authoritative record of job losses and gains. Labour Force Survey information about changes in overall employment in Wales, by industry over the past five years, is given in the table as follows.
  843W

  All industries

  Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing

  Mining and quarrying, electricity, gas and water supply

  Manufacturing

  Construction

  Service industries

  Other industries

  Change on previous year

  2000

  14,000

  -3,000

  -1,000

  -25,000

  5,000

  20,000

  18,000

  1999

  18,000

  -3,000

  -1,000

  -5,000

  6,000

  9,000

  9,000

  1998

  2,000

  -1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  -23,000

  24,000

  1997

  6,000

  4,000

  1,000

  -11,000

  5,000

  5,000

  1,000

  1996

  21,000

  -5,000

  -5,000

  -2,000

  2,000

  31,000

  1,000

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, four quarter averages. Figures rounded to nearest 1,000.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the 2002 Departmental report will be published. [49589]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 15 April 2002, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith).

  Sidex
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received from other Ministers requests for advice in connection with the attempted acquisition of Sidex by the LNM Group. [37936]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Consistent with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information exemption on internal discussion and advice, which aims to preserve the unbiased nature of civil service advice and, where appropriate, to ensure commercial confidentiality, it would not be appropriate to disclose the information requested.

  Meetings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings he has had with hon. Members in each of the last 12 months. [49325]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As a member of the House of Commons and as a member of the Government, on a typical working day I meet many hon. Members in both formal and informal settings. Due to the large numbers of these meetings and their routine nature, no separate record of them is kept.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39932]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since the establishment of the Wales Office in July 1999. There has been one press secretary, one senior press officer and one assistant information officer employed within my Department.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35019]
  844W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since its creation in July 1999 my Department has spent some £47,000 on external consultants. It has also made use of property management consultants under a contract held by the National Assembly for Wales.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for shipping services for the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49554]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the RA Strategic Partnership for the Radiocommunications Agency by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49548]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the National Physical Laboratory for the Department of Trade and Industry by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49552]

  (4) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Electronic Government through Administrative Re-engineering (ELSAR) for the Department of Trade and Industry by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49551]

  (5) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the mining reports and surface drainage system for the Coal Authority by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49549]

  (6) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Computer Services for Academic Research (CSAR) for Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49553]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 20 July 2001,Official Report, columns 607–08W.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 117W, regarding the cost of rail travel by Department staff, how many staff undertook the first class rail journeys in 2001. [50326]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI has devolved to local management the authorisation of travel claims for its staff, subject to checking procedures. It does not record detail of the number of staff undertaking first class rail journeys separately from other data recorded when paying travel expenses paid for staff engaged on departmental business. To provide the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in her Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions she has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within her Department. [50474]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department uses smart cards to protect the facilities providing remote access to our corporate computer systems. Some 800 staff currently use smart cards in this way.

  My officials discuss options for the use of smart card technology within the Department periodically with relevant companies, especially those providing us with ICT support.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will answer the Questions tabled on 11 March by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, refs 43210. 43211 and 43212. [50053]

  Ms Hewitt
  I understand that these questions were answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office yesterday.

  Galileo Programme
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the UK is supporting the European Union's Galileo satellite programme broken down by Departments' budgets and purpose of funding; what representations about the programme were made from the US and how they were responded to; and if she will make a statement. [48886]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK is supporting the Galileo satellite navigation programme through contributions to the European Space Agency (ESA), which is jointly funding and carrying out the programme with the European Union. For the definition phase (1999–2000) and some early development work (2001) the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has contributed £7.91 million while my Department has contributed £2.45 million. For the development and validation phase (2002–05) which was approved in March by the EU Transport Council, negotiations within ESA over
  846W
  member states' contributions are still progressing. Funds for the programme are also being provided from the budget of the European Communities to which the UK contributes.

  The US has expressed concerns about the security implications of Galileo and, in particular, the problems of signal interference and incompatibility, which could arise with its own Global Positioning System (GPS). As we shared these concerns, in our negotiations within the EU we ensured that these were taken into account. The Transport Council decision emphasises the need for Galileo to be interoperable with GPS and that a co-operation agreement between the EU and the US should be negotiated as soon as possible.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many special advisers there were in her Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years. [46951]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: There are three special advisers in my Department. For information about salaries I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47147]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001 no special advisers in my Department accompanied Ministers on overseas trips. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2000 is already in the public domain. Details of Government Special Adviser travel for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times Ministers in her Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47109]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Minister costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 31 April 1999. Details for travel undertaken in the period I April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funds have been allocated to regional development agencies; and how those funds will be used. [49857]

  Alan Johnson
  The regional development agencies' budgets for 2002–03 are as follows:

  Regional development agencies' budgets

  £000

  Total1

  One North East

  184,738

  North-west DA

  273,927

  Yorkshire Forward

  185,920

  East Midlands DA

  100,947

  Advantage West Midlands

  191,519

  East of England DA

  76,057

  South-east of England DA

  100,130

  South-west of England DA

  93,540

  London DA

  285,396

  Total

  1,492,174

  1Net of receipts

  This funding will be used to support activities in relation to the implementation of the RDAs' regional economic strategies and their statutory purposes which are within their regions to: further economic development and the regeneration of the region; promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness; promote employment; enhance the development and application of skills; and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. From 1 April 2002 the RDA's have a single budget giving them maximum flexibility to meet their regional priorities, within the fiscal framework for public money, removing unnecessary ring fences and unrealistic programme silos which inhibit true integration and innovative cross cutting approaches.

  Beagle 2
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding the Government have provided for the Beagle 2 spacecraft; and if she will make a statement on the mission. [48931]

  Ms Hewitt
  Beagle 2 is the British-led lander that it is planned to deploy from the European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiting spacecraft onto the surface of Mars at new year 2004.

  UK statistical inquiries of businesses carried out by the ONS 2001

  Statistical inquiry

  Frequency1

  Number of forms in 2001 compliance year

  Earnings and employment

  Wages and Salaries

  M

  99,600

  New Earnings

  A

  234,700

  Labour Disputes

  C

  287

  The Quarterly Inquiry into the number of employees in local government (local authority survey)

  Q

  1,800

  Vacancy Rate Inquiry

  M

  62,952

  Overseas and financial

  Unit Trusts Quarterly Return of Transactions

  Q

  328

  Unit Trusts Annual Return of Assets and Liabilities

  A

  82

  Property Unit Trusts Quarterly Return of Transactions

  Q

  48

  Property Unit Trusts Annual Assets and Liabilities

  A

  12

  848W
  The overall cost of Beagle 2, not including the ground segment and instruments, is approximately £40 million, with non UK-Government contributions coming from ESA, private sponsorship and investment by a consortium of UK firms and universities. The contribution of the Government are as follows:

  Mars Express: £18 million over the period 1998 to 2005 (Department of Trade and Industry and Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, PPARC).

  Beagle 2: The Department of Trade and Industry (including the Office of Science and Technology) has committed up to £18.3 million over the period 2000 to 2003 but this sum may be defrayed by contributions from other partners and investments from the private sector. PPARC has additionally contributed £2.7 million over the period 1998 to 2003 to British universities for the provision of instruments and is currently considering a further contribution of £2.6 million for the ground segment.

TREASURY

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the questionnaire forms sent out to UK businesses by the Office for National Statistics in 2001; [48927]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amount of time taken by business to compile and return information requested by the Office for National Statistics in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [48925]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Whittingdale, dated 16 April 2002:
  As national Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions concerning statistical questionnaires sent to businesses by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). (48925, 48927)
  The time taken by business in 2001 to compile and return the information requested by ONS is estimated to be around 617 thousand hours. There were 1.57 million business inquiry forms despatched during this period. I attach below a table showing the periodicity and annual number of forms for each business inquiry conducted by ONS.
  Your third question (48926) asks for the split between (a) UK companies, (b) manufacturing companies and (c) distribution and services companies. To provide this will take a special analysis and a reply will follow.
  849W

  UK statistical inquiries of businesses carried out by the ONS 2001

  Statistical inquiry

  Frequency1

  Number of forms in 2001 compliance year

  Investment Trusts Quarterly Return of Transactions

  Q

  172

  Investment Trusts Annual Return of Liabilities and Assets and Overseas Income and Interest Paid

  A

  43

  Monthly Inquiry to Credit Grantors

  M

  290

  Security Dealers Quarterly Return of Liabilities and Assets of Transactions in Securities

  Q

  241

  Security Dealers Quarterly Return of Income and Expenditure

  Q

  241

  Assets Financing Quarterly Return of Assets and Liabilities of Transactions

  Q

  532

  Asset Financing Annual Income and Expenditure

  A

  137

  Quarterly Inquiry into Insurance Companies: Long Term funds, Income and Expenditure

  Q

  382

  Annual Inquiry into Insurance Companies: Long Term Funds, Income and Expenditure

  A

  140

  Quarterly Inquiry into Insurance Companies: Long Term Transactions in Financial Assets

  Q

  382

  Annual Inquiry into Insurance Companies: Long Term Funds Balance Sheet

  A

  140

  Quarterly Inquiry into Pension Funds: Income and Expenditure

  Q

  1,324

  Quarterly Inquiry into Pension Funds: Transactions in Financial Assets

  Q

  1,324

  Annual Inquiry into Pension Funds: Balance Sheet

  A

  331

  Quarterly foreign direct investment—Outward: oil

  Q

  1,497

  Quarterly foreign direct investment—Outward: other

  Q

  —

  Quarterly foreign direct investment—Inward: oil

  Q

  2,922

  Quarterly foreign direct investment—Inward: other

  Q

  —

  Annual foreign direct investment: Outward

  A

  786

  Annual foreign direct investment: Inward

  A

  1,797

  Acquisitions and Mergers

  C/Q

  —

  Domestic acquisitions and mergers

  C/Q

  2,570

  Quarterly Inquiry into Companies GB Operating Profits

  Q

  6,510

  Quarterly Survey of Financial Assets and Liabilities

  Q

  2,730

  Quarterly Inquiry into International Trade and Services

  Q

  2,800

  Annual Inquiry into International Trade in Services

  A

  6,180

  Merchants Inquiry

  A

  213

  Annual Inquiry into International Transactions: Films and Television

  A

  650

  Survey of Business Enterprise Research and Development Carried out in the UK

  A

  2,000

  Dividends Inquiry including Pilot

  Q

  4,824

  ODI Proving

  AH

  738

  E-Commerce Transaction of UK Businesses

  A

  9,000

  Monthly Inquiry of Internet Service Providers

  M

  1,200

  Ship managers2

  A

  0

  Distribution and service sector

  GB cinema exhibitors

  Q

  64

  Distribution and service sector—Monthly

  M

  957,337

  Distribution and service sector—Quarterly (GAPS)

  Q

  27,390

  Monthly retail trades inc. monthly self financed credit and monthly retail commodity inquiries1

  M

  58,089

  Retail trades quarterly commodity

  Q

  280

  Product prices and sales sector

  Producer prices indices

  M

  94,830

  PPI Rotation

  M

  3,110

  Export price indices

  M

  44,727

  Import price indices (inc. import of capital goods)

  M

  22,848

  Corporate service sector price indices (inc. CSPI turnover inquiry)

  Q

  18,375

  PRODCOM Quarterly

  Q

  13,786

  PRODCOM Annual

  A

  23,072

  SERVCOM

  Q

  2,017

  Production sector

  Monthly production3

  M

  107,968

  Motor vehicles production

  M

  381

  Engines production

  M

  96

  Quarterly—production capital expenditure

  M

  96

  Quarterly—non-production capital expenditure

  Q

  127,498

  Monthly production stocks

  Q

  828

  Quarterly production stocks (17)

  M

  29,416

  Quarterly construction stocks (16)

  Q

  13,178

  Quarterly retailers' stocks

  Q

  17,678

  Quarterly wholesalers' and dealers' stocks

  Q

  16,050

  Quarterly motor traders' stocks

  Q

  6,637

  Business spending on Capital Goods Survey

  Q

  2,499

  Capital Stocks Survey

  A

  935

  Register and proving

  Register Inquiry—Annual

  A

  30,900

  Register Inquiry—Other

  A

  17,000

  850W 851W

  UK statistical inquiries of businesses carried out by the ONS 2001

  Statistical inquiry

  Frequency1

  Number of forms in 2001 compliance year

  Retail prices

  Retail Prices Index4

  M

  3,478

  Annual business inquiry

  Employment

  A

  75,604

  Financial (including purchases)

  A

  Total

  1,570,063

  1AH = ad hoc; A = annual; Q = quarterly: M = monthly; C = continuous; W = weekly; 0 = other.

  2The inquiry was not run in 2001. It will resume in 2002.

  3Includes the collection of quarterly employment figures from existing inquiries.

  4This covers only businesses that complete ONS forms and excludes forms filled in by local prices collectors employed by ONS.

  Notes:

  1. STSD—Short Term and Structural Inquiries Division

  EED—Earnings and Employment Division

  SED—Socio Economic Division

  NEI—National Expenditure and Income Division

  OFD—Overseas and Financial Division

  CPGID—Consumer Price General Inflators Division

  BDD—Business Data Division

  STOID—Short Term Outputs and Indicators Division

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the yield from capital gains tax in each of the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01, (f) 2001–02, (g) 2002–03 (estimated) and (h) 2003–04 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [48804]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 520W. An estimate for 2003–04 has not been published.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in his Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions he has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within his Department. [50477]

  Ruth Kelly
  Smart card technology will be used in the new Treasury building as part of the access control mechanisms, and for "cashless" purchase of catering and vending services. The technology is being provided by Exchequer Partnership as part of the PFI contract for the new building. There have been no direct discussions between the Treasury and the technology supplier.

  More widely, in March 2002, the Treasury implemented two European directives on electronic money, which bring it within the scope of Financial Services Authority regulation. The directives aim to encourage the development of electronic money, in part through increasing business and consumer confidence in it as a new and developing means of payment.

  The Treasury is also represented on a working group looking at Government policy towards smart card technology, chaired by the Office of the e-Envoy.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much public sector pay has increased since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [49679]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public sector pay has increased by 17.7 per cent. between 1997 and 2001.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Stockport IR Office for the Inland Revenue by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49498]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of the total savings to public funds of the Stockport IR Office Private Finance Initiative is £0.2 million Net Present Costs by comparison with the Public Sector Comparator.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the National Insurance Recording Systems for the Inland Revenue by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49502]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The potential savings identified, at the business case stage, of a PFI approach over a traditional procurement for NIRS2, were estimated at £101.7 million. The calculations were based on the traditional procurement approach in place in the Department of Social Security at the time the contract was awarded in April 1995.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Edinburgh IR Office for the Inland Revenue by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49501]
  853W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of the total savings to public funds of the Edinburgh IR Office Private Finance Initiative is £0.5 million Net Present Costs by comparison with the Public Sector Comparator.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Bootle St. John's House (IR) for the Inland Revenue by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49497]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of the total savings to public funds of the Bootle IR Office Private Finance Initiative is £1.7 million Net Present Costs by comparison with the Public Sector Comparator.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the CCTA Metropolitan Telecoms Service by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49665]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The MTS PFI contract was awarded in November 1996 for a 10-year period. At the time of contract award, a detailed comparison of the PFI bid was carried out against a public sector delivery option. That comparison suggested little difference in the overall cost of the two approaches, but the PFI option was chosen as providing greater flexibility and better risk management. This has been borne out in practice as the range of services and number of users has increased over the life of the contract to date.

  Since 1996 the unit costs of service provision through the contract, as with all telecommunications costs, have fallen in comparison with those modelled in the Public Sector Comparator. However the costs in the PSC have not themselves been updated so that a meaningful comparison is not possible.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Glasgow IR Office for the Inland Revenue by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49500]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of the total savings to public funds of the Glasgow IR Office Private Finance Initiative is £1.3 million Net Present Costs by comparison with the Public Sector Comparator

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Newcastle Estate Development Scheme for the Inland Revenue by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49496]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No public sector comparator was undertaken for this project. Assurance that the Department was achieving value for money was obtained through a competitive tender process. The decision not to undertake a full Public Sector Comparator was consistent with Treasury guidance at that time.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative 854W
  contract for Manchester IR Office for the Inland Revenue by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49499]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of the total savings to public funds of the Manchester IR Office Private Finance Initiative is £0.7 million Net Present Costs by comparison with the Public Sector Comparator.

  Money Laundering
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) legislation and (b) other measures he is considering in respect of those countries which fail to meet the OECD's deadline for reform in order to comply with anti-money laundering requirements; and if he will make a statement. [48887]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Action Task Force has issued a list of countries that have been found not to be compliant with international anti-money laundering standards. In common with other FATF members, the UK has issued an advisory to all UK financial institutions warning them to pay particular attention to all transactions involving natural or legal persons resident or domiciled in listed jurisdictions. The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group, an industry body issuing good practice advice on money laundering, has issued advice that has been agreed with HM Treasury as appendix D to its guidance notes to the financial sector. This advice is available on the internet at www.jmIsg.org.uk. Where FATF has agreed that further countermeasures should be applied because insufficient progress has been made, the Government have issued further advice to the financial sector and more generally. To date, only Nauru has been subject to such additional countermeasures. The measures agreed by FATF are:(a) stringent requirements for identifying clients are enhancement of advisories, including jurisdiction-specific financial advisories, to financial institutions for identification of the beneficial owners before business relationships are established with individuals or companies from these countries;
  (b) enhanced relevant reporting mechanisms or systematic reporting of financial transactions on the basis that financial transactions with such countries are more likely to be suspicious;
  (C) in considering requests for approving the establishment in FATF member countries of subsidiaries or branches or representative offices of banks, taking into account the fact that the relevant bank is from an NCCT;
  (d) warning non-financial sector businesses that transactions with entities within the NCCTs might run the risk of money laundering.

  A copy of the further advice on Nauru is also available from the JMLSG and Treasury websites.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions. [49147]

  Mr. Boateng
  A large number of staff in the Departments and agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have contributed to the drafting of answers to the 10,625 parliamentary questions answered
  855W
  by Treasury Ministers between April 1999 and March 2002. It is not possible to estimate the number of people involved.

  Baltic Exchange
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the financial contribution made to the United Kingdom economy by members of the Baltic Exchange. [49473]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government value the contribution made to the UK economy by the Baltic Exchange and the supporting maritime services that are located in the UK. International Financial Services London (IFSL) have estimated that the Baltic Exchange and its associated ship brokers contributed £327 million to the UK's overseas earnings in 2000.

  Aggregates Levy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) the quarry industry and (b) brick-makers concerning the introduction of the aggregates levy; and if he will make a statement. [50020]

  Mr. Boateng
  A number of discussions have recently been held at both ministerial and official level with representatives of the aggregates and associated industries throughout the UK about the implementation of the aggregates levy.

  Wanless Report
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he received the final Wanless report. [50642]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Derek Wanless formally submitted his final report to the Chancellor on 15 April.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish Derek Wanless's final report on long-term health trends. [51014]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The report will be published at 9.30 am on 17 April. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

  Secial Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number and expected cost to his Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43273]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are not yet available. There are currently five special advisers appointed under special adviser terms and conditions and in line with the ministerial code.

  These figures do not include the Council of Economic Advisers.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many people have been employed by her Department in each of 856W
  the last three years under (a) the new deal for young people, (b) the new deal for the over-50s and (c) the new deal for lone parents; and at what cost, listed by category. to public funds. [44912]

  The Solicitor-General (holding answer 25 March 2002): My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, has not employed any persons under the new deal schemes during the last three years.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  In each of the last three years, the CPS has employed two people under the new deal scheme. The recruitment exercises were for the new deal scheme in general and were not specific to any of the categories identified. Both officers were offered a one-year fixed term contract (unsubsidised) as a Level A2 (Administrative Officer), and placed on the band minimum for that level. The posts were advertised through local job centres and, therefore, there were no costs to the Department.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has not employed any persons under the given new deal categories during the last three years.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has not employed any persons under the given new deal categories during the last three years.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases have been brought against her Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45062]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: In relation to my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, no cases have been brought against the Department under the Human Rights Act 1998.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not monitor centrally those cases that include a claim under the Human Rights Act, or collect information centrally in relation to the cost of these cases in terms of legal fees to defend the cases or compensation payments.

  In general, claimants bring actions against the Crown Prosecution Service in two ways: by claiming malicious prosecution and/or negligence.

  Some of these claims refer to the Human Rights Act 1998.

  No records of cases against the Crown Prosecution Service are kept and the Department does not collect separate information centrally about the cost of legal fees and compensation payments in these cases.
  857W
  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department conducts litigation on behalf of many Government Departments but does not hold central records identifying all cases in which the Human Rights Act is relied upon. In relation to those cases where the Treasury Solicitor's Department is a party to litigation, the position is the same. Human rights are now integrated into the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a legal challenge. In relation to those cases brought against the Department, two have been identified which included human rights points.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department does not collect separate information centrally about the cost of legal fees or compensation payments in cases which include human rights issues. In most cases it will be difficult to single out associated costs relating to the human rights element of a case.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office knows of no cases where the actions of its members or the use of its statutory powers have been challenged under the Human Rights Act. However, the Act permits Convention points to be raised, either by themselves or together with domestic law, in support of legal argument in criminal proceedings, or in judicial review applications. Obviously, since the implementation of the Act, Convention points have been raised frequently in litigation in SFO cases, principally in support of complaints of unreasonable delay. It is impossible to separate the cost of defending Human Rights Act arguments from prosecution costs generally but neither do we consider that there would be any justifiable case for doing so.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in her Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44957]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the target for replies to letters from hon. Members is 15 working days from the date of receipt and 20 working days from the date of receipt to reply to letters from members of the public.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  In 2002–03 the target for ministerial replies to letters from hon. Members will be 15 working days from the date of receipt.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has a target for responses to complaints from members of the public. The target for 2002–03 is to increase to 94 per cent. the proportion of replies to complaints which are made within 10 days.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor, as Chief Executive of the Treasury Solicitor's Department Agency, replies to letters from hon. Members concerning the business of the Agency. She will in 2002–03 continue to aim to do so substantively within 15 working days of receipt of such letters.
  858W
  Only the Bona Vacantia Division of the agency receives appreciable quantities of letters direct from members of the public. It has targets for 2002–03 of acknowledging letters within five working days of the date of receipt and dispatching, in 80 per cent. of cases, substantive replies within 20 working days of that date.

  Serious Fraud Office

  Under the Citizen's Charter, the SFO has accepted targets for dealing with correspondence and agreed to monitor achievement. These targets are that all correspondence from members of the public should be disposed of within four weeks of receipt and that correspondence from hon. Members should be disposed of within three weeks of receipt. The SFO exceeds these targets in virtually all instances. Most correspondents receive a reply within a single working week.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Solicitor-General what costs have been incurred by her Department since 23 January in connection with the Saville Inquiry. [46145]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The Treasury Solicitor's Department carries out legal work for other Departments, such as the Ministry of Defence, on a full cost recovery basis. While substantial work has been done by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in relation to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, in so far as that work is directly connected with the Inquiry, the cost will be recovered, or has been recovered, from the client Department or Departments represented.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has provided representation before the Inquiry for two ex-members of staff. No costs have been incurred in respect of this representation since 23 January 2002.

  The Attorney General and staff at the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers have been involved in one matter relating to the Bloody sunday Inquiry since 23 January 2002 which concerned the scope of the undertaking given to witnesses appearing before the Inquiry. Such advice forms part of the usual work of the Department and the cost cannot be separately assessed.

  PSAs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent assessment she has made of whether the PSA target for the Treasury Solicitor's Department to achieve a reduction in average unit costs per chargeable hour in Litigation Division in real terms will be met by March. [47888]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Department's 2002 departmental report.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many press officers there were in her Department on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest available date. [46887]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, and the Treasury Solicitor's Department, share a single press officer who also acts as Private Secretary to the Attorney General. In relation to those two Departments the answer is (a) one; and (b) one.
  859W
  On 1 May 1997 there were 5.5 press officers in the Crown Prosecution Service press office. A Head of Communications post was created later that year. In April 2002 there were four press officers and a Head of Communications.

  On 1 May 1997 the Serious Fraud Office had two press officers. It now has three.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Complaints
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints she has received from(a) hon. Members and

  Hon. Members

  Table A

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Public Trust Office1

  2—

  2—

  144

  —

  Public Guardianship Office3

  —

  —

  —

  93

  Land Registry

  39

  60

  30

  19

  Public Record Office

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1The Public Trust Office ceased to exist on 31 March 2001.

  2Not available.

  3The Public Guardianship Office was created on 1 April 2001.

  Members of the public

  Table B

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Lord Chancellor's Department HQ

  1—

  9

  6

  2

  Public Trust Office2

  1—

  1—

  344

  —

  Public Guardianship Office3

  —

  —

  —

  492

  Land Registry

  554

  799

  749

  575

  Public Record Office

  128

  80

  76

  35

  1Not available.

  2The Public Trust Office ceased to exist on 31 March 2001.

  3The Public Guardianship Office was created on 1 April 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  Television Licences
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) number and (b) total cost of television licences paid for by his Department. [48366]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office today.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the reasons why he did not publish the dossier on the status of Iraq's weapons programmes. [49843]

  The Prime Minister
  We have already placed some evidence concerning Iraq's programmes in the Library of the House. When the time is right, we shall release further material, including the threat posed by the development of weapons of mass destruction.

  The Government believe it important that we should divulge as much information to the public as we
  860W
  (b) members of the public about the service from her Department for each of the last 36 months; and if she will make a statement. [30850]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The records kept centrally by the Lord Chancellor's Department of correspondence received from hon. Members in each of the last 36 months do not distinguish those which are complaints. This information which is available is set out in Table A. More detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The statistics available for complaints by members of the public for each of the last three calendar years, and from 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001, are set out in Table B. Statistics for the courts as a whole are not held centrally and again could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  can without prejudicing sensitive sources, including intelligence reporting. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  Egypt
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he discussed(a) human rights in Egypt, (b) progress towards democracy in Egypt and (c) the state of social inequality in Egypt with President Mubarak in December 2001; [48779]

  (2) when his meeting with the President of Egypt in December 2001 was arranged; [48772]

  (3) if he discussed (a) UK and (b) EU overseas aid programmes to Egypt during his meeting with President Mubarak in December 2001. [48780]

  Prime Minister
  I discussed a range of issues with President Mubarak at an informal occasion arranged during the course of my family holiday to Egypt.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission reaches its projections for improved performance. [45572]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The commission's projections are based on performance over a rolling 12-month period, projected forward over the coming 12 months. The table shows the annual case completions since 31 March 1997, when the commission started case working. The commission began by working almost exclusively on the Home Office and Northern Ireland Office transfers. Stage 1 eligibility review was developed during 1997–98, and the Stage 2 Screen process was introduced in May 1999, following development as a pilot process between August 1998 and April 1999. The Stage 2 Screen has allowed the commission to complete about 1,000 cases in 1999–2000, 1,100, in 2000–01 and 1,200 in 2001–02. The number of cases waiting in trays has been reduced from a maximum of 1,208 cases in May 1999 to about 330 by 31 March 2002.

  Case review statistics for 1997–2002

  Completions

  Completions1

  Under review

  In trays

  1997–98

  310

  310

  217

  855

  1998–99

  492

  802

  440

  1,177

  1999–2000

  1,015

  1,817

  465

  914

  2000–01

  1,109

  2,926

  487

  582

  2001–02

  21,197

  24,123

  2369

  2330

  1Cumulative

  2Estimated

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Criminal Cases Review Commission has taken to enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system; and how it measures its progress. [45570]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The commission publishes an annual report that provides an account of its activities. Since 31 March 2002 will mark completion of the commission's first five years of casework, the 2001–02 report will summarise the progress made over this period, and highlight some of the most significant case referrals.

  In July 1997, the commission organised a meeting at which a number of stakeholders expressed their views on miscarriages and how to conduct effective case reviews. Another such meeting is being planned for 2003. In addition the chairman and chief executive will be appearing before the Home Affairs Committee on 30 April 2003.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Criminal Cases Review Commission has taken to promote the public's understanding of its role; and how it measures its progress. [45569]
  862W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The commission has taken a number of measures to promote the public's understanding of its role. These include: the revision of its Information Pack in the light of its growing experience; the expansion and monitoring of its website; and the publication of its annual report, which summarises progress and highlights the most significant referrals. It also held a meeting at which a number of stakeholders expressed their views on miscarriages of justice and how to conduct effective case reviews. Another such meeting is planned for next year. The commission has no reliable index of progress to improve public understanding of its role.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission defines a substantial issue for review. [45576]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Substantial issues are those that require more than five Case Review Manager days of effort.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the stakeholders are of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [45568]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Stakeholders include:

  potential applicants and their representatives;

  courts of appeal (as recipients of referrals);

  The Court of Appeal (as a referring body);

  my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) (in relation to Her Majesty's Prerogative of Mercy);

  the Criminal Justice System and its agencies; and

  the Government represented by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department (Mr. Blunkett) and Northern Ireland (Dr. Reid).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the precise process modifications made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to achieve its goals. [45571]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  About 30 per cent. of the applications to the Commission are found to be ineligible at Stage 1. During 2001–02, the Process Improvement Project (PIP) 1 recommended several actions to reduce this proportion, particularly improved communications, and further encouragement to prospective applicants to seek legal advice.

  The time to review cases at Stage 1, Stage 2 Screen and Stages 2–3 depends on such factors as the availability of files and other materials, timeliness of responses from applicants and their advisers, and delays in obtaining expert reports. PIP 2 has been concerned with minimising these delays. In that regard, the Government announced

  863W
  on 5 March 2001 that a £350,000 joint proposal from the commission and the Court of Appeal (to the Invest to Save scheme) for the electronic transfer of files had been successful. Work is still in progress on this project.

  A goal for 2001–02 was to minimise the case accumulation at Stage 2 Screen. This will be achieved by 31 March 2002, or soon afterwards, and will be followed by reorganisation of Stage 2 Screen for steady-state operation. In future, some Stage 2 Screen cases will be distributed to case review managers outside the Stage 2 Screen group, to optimise their case portfolios.

  During 2000–01, the commission implemented a computerised case management information (Vectus) and completed the necessary data migration. Since 1 April 2001, the benefits (of improved case management, with greatly reduced labour in tracking the progress of individual cases and in presenting casework statistics) have begun to flow.

  Vectus
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statistical and performance indicators for casework produced by the Vectus information system in 2001–02. [45581]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Currently the Commission uses Vectus to provide monthly statistics on:

  Case Intake

  Case Completions at all Stages

  Cases under review.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walthamstow will receive a response to his letters regarding Mr. V. Poci (DEV/7050/929), sent on 25 October 2000 and 14 November 2001. [43773]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 15 April 2002. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 30 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms Jamila Malik. [47767]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 12 April 2002.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals aged between(a) 10 and 11 and (b) 12 and 17 years were (i) cautioned and (ii) sentenced for indictable offences in each year since 1997 in each police force area in England and Wales. [45588]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested, from the Home Office Court Proceedings and Cautions Database, is shown in the table.

  Information on cautions and court proceedings for 2001 will be available in the autumn.
  864W

  Juveniles cautioned1 and sentenced for indictable offences, by police force area, 1997–2000

  Cautioned

  Sentenced

  Police force

  Age 10–11

  Age 12–17

  Age 10–11

  Age 12–17

  1997

  Avon and Somerset

  64

  1,092

  3

  728

  Bedfordshire

  67

  911

  4

  366

  Cambridgeshire

  39

  708

  1

  495

  Cheshire

  36

  1,006

  4

  805

  Cleveland

  166

  1,447

  9

  1.026

  Cumbria

  77

  689

  5

  572

  Derbyshire

  42

  935

  4

  620

  Devon and Cornwall

  33

  1,478

  3

  640

  Dorset

  8

  443

  —

  237

  Durham

  51

  658

  8

  877

  Essex

  102

  1,909

  10

  1.195

  Gloucestershire

  68

  852

  —

  363

  Greater Manchester

  318

  4,512

  27

  3,198

  Hampshire

  131

  2,559

  9

  1,313

  Hertfordshire

  36

  940

  —

  415

  Humberside

  123

  1.265

  6

  838

  Kent

  143

  2,090

  12

  1,424

  Lancashire

  145

  1,711

  10

  1,573

  Leicestershire

  33

  846

  5

  892

  Lincolnshire

  51

  855

  —

  466

  London, City of

  1

  83

  —

  4

  Merseyside

  85

  1,944

  7

  1,578

  Metropolitan police

  327

  9,864

  19

  5,874

  Norfolk

  122

  1,418

  4

  486

  Northamptonshire

  8

  250

  4

  404

  Northumbria

  501

  3,923

  26

  2,245

  North Yorkshire

  20

  548

  1

  484

  Nottinghamshire

  174

  1,753

  18

  1,285

  South Yorkshire

  91

  970

  10

  1,407

  Staffordshire2

  219

  1,606

  6

  850

  Suffolk

  46

  823

  3

  441

  Surrey

  41

  900

  1

  380

  Sussex

  53

  1,696

  2

  747

  Thames Valley

  54

  1,221

  1

  1,091

  Warwickshire

  31

  691

  10

  304

  West Mercia

  68

  1,330

  4

  687

  West Midlands

  359

  5,030

  15

  3,573

  West Yorkshire

  242

  2,618

  35

  2,524

  Wiltshire

  54

  834

  1

  367

  Dyfed Powys

  58

  794

  —

  404

  Gwent

  101

  1,201

  5

  679

  North Wales

  50

  680

  1

  463

  South Wales

  137

  2,054

  11

  1,677

  England and Wales

  4,575

  69,137

  304

  45,997

  1998

  Avon and Somerset

  66

  1,106

  1

  620

  Bedfordshire

  55

  767

  8

  386

  Cambridgeshire

  39

  753

  1

  524

  Cheshire

  62

  1,325

  8

  881

  Cleveland

  155

  1,134

  18

  988

  Cumbria

  77

  703

  7

  590

  Derbyshire

  53

  823

  1

  650

  Devon and Cornwall

  37

  1,266

  2

  642

  Dorset

  27

  664

  —

  332

  Durham

  69

  581

  8

  846

  Essex

  94

  1,816

  17

  1,178

  Gloucestershire

  35

  973

  2

  299

  Greater Manchester

  436

  5,476

  44

  3,194

  Hampshire

  181

  2,224

  24

  1,826

  Hertfordshire

  45

  791

  1

  401

  Humberside

  125

  1,492

  5

  922

  Kent

  197

  2,256

  21

  1,631

  Lancashire

  126

  1,817

  23

  1,589

  Leicestershire

  26

  957

  2

  870

  Lincolnshire

  57

  809

  3

  549

  London, City of

  —

  57

  —

  1

  Merseyside

  116

  2,138

  19

  1,641

  Metropolitan police

  680

  12,727

  23

  6,260

  Norfolk

  55

  1,050

  5

  547

  Northamptonshire

  8

  331

  4

  601

  Northumbria

  437

  3,443

  47

  2,819

  North Yorkshire

  55

  755

  3

  486

  Nottinghamshire

  197

  1,764

  13

  1,300

  South Yorkshire

  87

  1,137

  5

  1,336

  Staffordshire2

  206

  1,431

  7

  927

  865W

  Juveniles cautioned1 and sentenced for indictable offences, by police force area, 1997–2000

  Cautioned

  Sentenced

  Police force

  Age 10–11

  Age 12–17

  Age 10–11

  Age 12–17

  Suffolk

  62

  870

  —

  401

  Surrey

  48

  962

  1

  367

  Sussex

  44

  1,379

  1

  789

  Thames Valley

  58

  1,176

  —

  1,102

  Warwickshire

  43

  668

  1

  305

  West Mercia

  75

  1,379

  4

  755

  West Midlands

  337

  4,592

  26

  3,869

  West Yorkshire

  237

  2,705

  41

  2,833

  Wiltshire

  58

  816

  1

  511

  Dyfed Powys

  60

  857

  4

  441

  Gwent

  100

  1,292

  2

  661

  North Wales

  77

  801

  4

  502

  South Wales

  119

  2,001

  14

  1,764

  England and Wales

  5,121

  72,064

  421

  49,136

  1999

  Avon and Somerset

  65

  1,245

  7

  662

  Bedfordshire

  54

  762

  8

  373

  Cambridgeshire

  35

  626

  5

  655

  Cheshire

  58

  1,085

  7

  779

  Cleveland

  104

  937

  13

  974

  Cumbria

  61

  810

  7

  620

  Derbyshire

  43

  761

  8

  671

  Devon and Cornwall

  53

  1,335

  5

  671

  Dorset

  30

  637

  3

  387

  Durham

  46

  557

  15

  1,014

  Essex

  98

  1,434

  3

  1,107

  Gloucestershire

  59

  793

  4

  318

  Greater Manchester

  379

  4,381

  47

  3,419

  Hampshire

  215

  2,513

  42

  2,100

  Hertfordshire

  36

  846

  2

  435

  Humberside

  98

  1,139

  5

  981

  Kent

  146

  2,078

  13

  1,480

  Lancashire

  113

  1,629

  21

  1,570

  Leicestershire

  50

  884

  3

  812

  Lincolnshire

  28

  629

  4

  525

  London, City of

  2

  59

  —

  1

  Merseyside

  116

  1,933

  21

  1,436

  Metropolitan police

  543

  10,894

  56

  6,380

  Norfolk

  58

  746

  13

  578

  Northamptonshire

  12

  337

  2

  645

  Northumbria

  358

  2,905

  50

  2,763

  North Yorkshire

  39

  806

  5

  649

  Nottinghamshire

  148

  1,492

  21

  1,350

  South Yorkshire

  125

  1,371

  25

  1,451

  Staffordshire1

  107

  1,104

  9

  792

  Suffolk

  48

  667

  7

  451

  Surrey

  40

  961

  1

  362

  Sussex

  60

  1,597

  4

  705

  Thames Valley

  86

  1,585

  9

  1,052

  Warwickshire

  26

  558

  4

  368

  West Mercia

  58

  1,200

  15

  822

  West Midlands

  376

  3,984

  48

  3,821

  West Yorkshire

  264

  2,598

  50

  2,921

  Wiltshire

  45

  841

  3

  421

  Dyfed Powys

  72

  906

  1

  399

  Gwent

  98

  1,032

  11

  660

  North Wales

  77

  834

  3

  574

  South Wales

  135

  1,661

  22

  1,793

  England and Wales woo

  4,664

  65,152

  602

  49,947

  2000

  Avon and Somerset

  58

  1,171

  6

  761

  Bedfordshire

  34

  582

  5

  349

  Cambridgeshire

  44

  654

  4

  550

  Cheshire

  37

  860

  5

  772

  Cleveland

  79

  769

  8

  862

  Cumbria

  44

  533

  9

  551

  Derbyshire

  64

  732

  5

  674

  Devon and Cornwall

  135

  1,598

  9

  784

  Dorset

  36

  696

  4

  341

  Durham

  47

  579

  6

  915

  Essex

  99

  1,292

  4

  1,009

  Gloucestershire

  56

  840

  1

  359

  Greater Manchester

  275

  3,193

  55

  3,841

  Hampshire

  204

  2,146

  38

  1,965

  866W

  Juveniles cautioned1 and sentenced for indictable offences, by police force area, 1997–2000

  Cautioned

  Sentenced

  Police force

  Age 10–11

  Age 12–17

  Age 10–11

  Age 12–17

  Hertfordshire

  49

  1,101

  2

  547

  Humberside

  95

  1,026

  9

  912

  Kent

  148

  2,069

  11

  1,289

  Lancashire

  109

  1,696

  35

  1,637

  Leicestershire

  44

  703

  10

  798

  Lincolnshire

  38

  495

  2

  452

  London, City of

  —

  65

  —

  2

  Merseyside

  63

  1,182

  12

  1,508

  Metropolitan police

  438

  8,978

  45

  6,447

  Norfolk

  53

  1,016

  5

  432

  Northamptonshire

  55

  736

  3

  501

  Northumbria

  353

  2,702

  49

  2,262

  North Yorkshire

  35

  644

  6

  563

  Nottinghamshire

  134

  1,395

  21

  1,372

  South Yorkshire

  77

  1,099

  25

  1,429

  Staffordshire2

  104

  1,234

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  80

  940

  5

  427

  Surrey

  19

  559

  5

  415

  Sussex

  83

  1,588

  7

  756

  Thames Valley

  131

  2,334

  9

  1,221

  Warwickshire

  30

  481

  1

  300

  West Mercia

  120

  1,275

  4

  774

  West Midlands

  264

  3,581

  53

  4,076

  West Yorkshire

  284

  2,662

  71

  2,460

  Wiltshire

  74

  930

  3

  444

  Dyfed Powys

  75

  850

  2

  317

  Gwent

  76

  814

  8

  643

  North Wales

  68

  666

  11

  582

  South Wales

  81

  1,478

  14

  1,640

  England and Wales

  4,392

  59,944

  599

  48,661

  1Includes reprimands and final warnings which replaced cautions for juveniles from 1 June 2000, having been piloted in seven police force areas from September 1998.

  2Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been included in the total only.

  Fingerprinting
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the requirement to take Polaroid photographs during fingerprint retrieval at the scene of a crime was introduced. [30706]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no actual requirement to take Polaroid photographs during finerprint retrieval the scene of a crime, although it is considered good practice to take a Polaroid or some other photograph as a means of recording the location of any fingerprints found at the scene. Their location can be recorded in the form of a sketch or some other manuscript description. Unfortunately, the information I gave in my answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1123W, supplied by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in good faith, was inaccurate and I apologise for this error.

  Prisons (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the maximum capacity is for each prison in Wales; and how many prisoners are held in each prison. [45795]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 22 March 2002, the operational capacity and number of prisoners held for each prison in Wales were as shown in the table.
  867W

  Prison

  Operational capacity

  Number of prisoners

  Cardiff

  669

  667

  Pare

  968

  968

  Prescoed

  128

  116

  Swansea

  366

  344

  Usk

  220

  215

  Prisoners (Literacy and Numeracy)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest assessment is of progress on the PSA target to improve literacy and numeracy skills of prisoners discharged from their sentence. [47216]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Our most recent data suggest that there will be a shortfall on meeting our Service Delivery Agreement target to achieve 18,000 basic skills qualifications in 2001–02 by around 10 per cent. Nevertheless, this is still a major increase over the 12,500 basic skills qualifications achieved by prisoners in the previous year, and all of the qualifications achieved in 2001–02 will be at Level 2.

  Female Imprisonment
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1393W, on female imprisonment, when statistics for 2001 on the number of women appearing before the courts and their subsequent sentences will be made available. [46607]

  Beverley Hughes
  Statistics on court proceedings and sentencing in 2001 will be published by December 2002 in "Criminal statistics, England and Wales 2001".

  Victims' Charter
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the team preparing the report on the Victims' Charter Consultation; what its terms of reference are; when its work is expected to commence; and when the report will be published. [46479]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  A summary of responses to the consultation process on the Review of the Victims' Charter was placed in the Library and published on the Home Office website in July 2001.

  The Victims' Charter Review Implementation Group first met on 2 October 2001. Its terms of reference are:

  To complete the third stage of the Review of the Victims' Charter by October 2002; including making recommendations on the introduction of rights for victims, a Victims' Ombudsman/Commissioner, the feasibility of a victims' fund and other related policy matters.

  The Victims' Charter Review Implementation Group is made up of representatives of the following Government Departments, organisations and victims' groups:

  Home Office Justice and Victims Unit

  Home Office National Probation Directorate

  Home Office Research and Statistics Unit Association of Chief Police Officers

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation

  868W

  Prison Service

  The Court Service

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Justices' Clerk's Society

  Magistrates' Association

  Victim Support

  Judiciary.

  The Group's work, and that of its subsidiary Groups working on the Victims' Ombudsman/Commissioner and the inclusion of victims of road traffic incidents within the scope of the Victims' Charter, is well under way. It will be reporting its conclusions later this year, and I expect to make an announcement in the autumn.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Victims' Charter Implementation Group, and the departments, organisations and victim groups which they represent. [46491]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Victims' Charter Review Implementation Group meets quarterly and its membership is comprised of representatives from the following departments, organisations and victims groups:

  Home Office Justice and Victims Unit

  Home Office National Probation Directorate

  Home Office Research and Statistics Unit

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation

  Prison Service

  The Court Service

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Justices' Clerk's Society

  Magistrates' Association

  Victim Support

  Judiciary.

  Money Laundering
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence the SFO provided in answer to Nigerian and Swiss requests for assistance in the case of alleged money laundering using UK financial institutions by the late General Abacha; and if he will make a statement. [39004]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Ordinarily it is practice not to comment on international requests for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters as they concern on-going criminal proceedings. However, the fact of these requests have been acknowledged publicly by the Federal Government of Nigeria and in proceedings before the High Court.

  Four requests for assistance were received from the Swiss authorities relating to criminal investigation of, inter alia, fraud and money laundering allegedly committed in violation of Swiss law. In execution of three

  869W
  of the requests, evidential material was transmitted by the Home Office to the Swiss authorities on 18 October 2001. The remaining request is being processed.

  The request from the Federal Government of Nigeria, which concerns criminal investigations and proceedings relating to allegations of corruption and theft of public funds in Nigeria, is being processed. Prior to a decision of the Divisional Court, handed down on 18 October 2001, a High Court injunction prohibited my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Blunkett) dealing with the request. The Federal Government of Nigeria has indicated through its solicitors that it is pleased with the way in which its request is being dealt with by the Government.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of whether the target percentage improvements in the satisfaction of(a) victims and (b) witnesses with their treatment in the criminal justice system will be met by March. [47409]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The 2002 British Crime Survey and the 2002 Witness Satisfaction Survey will determine whether the targets for improvements of victim and witness satisfaction levels have been met. These surveys will be carried out shortly and the results will be available later in the year.

  As an interim indicator, the 2001 British Crime Survey showed that the satisfaction level of victims had remained similar, at 58 per cent., to the result from the 2000 Survey.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the PSA target to increase public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system will be measured; and if he expects the target to be met by March. [47229]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to promote confidence in the criminal justice system. It will be measured through questions to the public in the British Crime Survey. The target is due to be specified in terms of a percentage increase later this year. The target date is 2004.

  Criminal Appeals
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which criminal cases it is possible for the prosecution to appeal against(a) conviction and (b) sentence; and what proposals he has to extend the list of such cases. [47122]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are no powers for the prosecution to appeal against conviction.

  At present, under the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 the Attorney-General has power to refer to the Court of Appeal cases where the sentence imposed appears to be unduly lenient. The power applies to sentences passed in the Crown court in relation to all indictable offences and to certain triable either way offences specified in orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Blunkett) under section 35(4) of the 1988 Act. The latter applies to offences of indecent
  870W
  assault, threats to kill, cruelty to children and serious fraud sentenced in the Crown court, including those committed for sentence after conviction in magistrates courts.

  An order extending the Attorney-General's powers in relation to unduly lenient sentences came into effect on 21 August 2000, and applies to sentences passed after that date. This enables the Attorney-General to refer to the Crown court, sentences imposed for offences of illegal trafficking in drugs and pornographic material involving children and offences specifically against children (unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, inciting a girl under 16 to have incestuous intercourse and indecent conduct towards a young child). The Government will keep under review whether further extensions should be made in future.

  The Government are also committed to reforming the double jeopardy rule for murder cases, which would enable the prosecution to reopen proceedings following an acquittal, in certain circumstances. We are considering the nature and extent of this reform in light of the Law Commission's report, and Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the measurable criteria are for the PSA target to ensure just processes and just and effective outcomes; and if he expects the target to be met by March. [47230]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Ensuring just processes and just and effective outcomes is one of the key objectives in the 2001–02 Criminal Justice Business Plan. It will be measured using the Public Service Agreement target to reduce the rate of re-conviction of all offenders punished by imprisonment or by community supervision by 5 per cent. by 2004 compared to the predicted rate.

  Reducing the rate of re-conviction is one of this Government's key delivery priorities with a delivery plan in place. The delivery strands which will contribute towards the target have been selected on the principles of 'What Works' based on research evidence of effectiveness. The delivery strands are being monitored regularly to assess progress towards achieving this target, which is not due to be met until March 2004.

  Drug Traffickers (Assets)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target to increase by one third the amount of assets identified from drug traffickers and secured will be met by March. [47226]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Public Service Agreement (PSA) target was to increase the amount of assets identified from drug traffickers and secured by one third over a three-year period. The target is measured in terms of receipts from the enforcement of confiscation orders in drug trafficking cases. The baseline was receipts of £9.5 million during the 1997–98 financial year. The milestone objectives that were set were receipts of £10.4 million in year one (1998–99), £11.5 million in year two (1999–2000) and £12.6 million in year three (2000–01).
  871W
  The outcomes for years one and two were £10.5 million in 1998–99 and £9.3 million for 1999–2000. The outcome for 2000–01 was £11.75 million, a little short of the PSA target but still representing the largest annual return to date.

  The Government have since set a new target of doubling the amounts recovered from both drug traffickers and other serious criminals, from the £29.4 million recovered in 1999–2000 in confiscation receipts and cash forfeited under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 to £60 million by 2004–05. This is to be achieved through changes in law and practice which the Government are seeking to bring about through the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the related initiatives published in the Asset Recovery Strategy.

  "Living Without Fear"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if delivery of the action points in Living Without Fear will be completed by the target date. [47449]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The great majority of the action points have been completed by the target date, including the funding of 58 projects combating violence against women under the Crime Reduction Programme, the publication in March 2000 of the Multi-Agency Guidance for Addressing Domestic Violence, and the increase of the annual grant to Victim Support to £25 million from April 2001. Police performance indicators have been introduced as part of the development of a consistent approach to the use of data on violence against women.

  A new ministerial group on domestic violence ensures that the agenda for development of work in this area is kept relevant and focused. Five key headline areas of work have emerged as priorities for the group:

  early intervention by health professionals;

  improving the way in which criminal and civil jurisdiction work together in domestic violence cases;

  promotion of safe accommodation choices for women and children fleeing domestic violence;

  education and awareness raising; and

  ensuring an appropriate and consistent police and Crown Prosecution Service response to domestic violence.

  Restorative Justice
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress since 1997 on his policy of restorative justice. [47420]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government recognise the potential of restorative justice to offer a constructive response to crime which benefits victims, offenders and the wider community.

  Restorative principles have been at the heart of the recent reforms of the youth justice system. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced a range of new options for juveniles which provide the opportunity for offenders to face up to the consequences of their crime and make reparation for it. The aim is to involve the community and victims in this process if appropriate. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 developed this approach by introducing referral orders whereby youth offender
  872W
  panels operate as community conferences, involving community volunteers and victims, where possible. They agree contracts with the young offender which encourage reparation to the victim or the community and aim to address the causes of the offending behaviour. Referral orders were rolled out nationally on 1 April 2002.

  In his review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, the Lord Justice Auld recommended
  "the development and implementation of a national strategy to ensure consistent, appropriate and effective use of restorative justice techniques across England and Wales."

  The Government are now considering its response to this recommendation.

  Animal Tests
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place for monitoring the impact of the inter-departmental concordat on data sharing on the duplication by Government Departments on tests on animals; and if he will make a statement on the impact of the concordat. [48693]

  Angela Eagle
  In August 2000, we announced the inter-departmental concordat on data sharing to enable Government Departments to reduce the duplication of tests on animals. The concordat commits United Kingdom regulatory authorities to help resolve legal and other obstacles and encourage data sharing between clients and thereby reduce animal tests.

  My officials are in contact with the parties to the concordat to review progress. They have been asked how they have put the concordat to use in encouraging companies to share data in the field of regulatory toxicology. We have requested information on ways in which the concordat has achieved its aims within each organisation and are equally keen to hear of any problems there may have been in implementing these aims, or which have slowed progress down, together with suggestions of how these could be overcome.

  The full impact of the concordat will be determined once the review is complete.

  Bail Conditions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to prevent young offenders on bail offending further. [50572]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am today making an order which will bring into force section 130 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 across England and Wales. It will do so on 22 April 2002 in the 10 street-crime initiative areas—London, Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside, Thames Valley, Lancashire, Avon and Somerset, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire—and on 16 September 2002 in the rest of the country.

  This section will give new powers to the courts to remand a 12 to 16-year-old into secure detention where they are of the view that the child or young person has a recent history of repeatedly committing imprisonable offences while on bail or in local authority accommodation. In such a case the court must be satisfied that only a secure remand would protect the public from

  873W
  serious harm from him or her, or that only a secure remand would be adequate to prevent the commission of further imprisonable offences by him or her.

  I have also made an order which brings into force sections 131 and 132 of the same Act which allows courts to tag 12 to 16-year-olds while on bail or on remand to local authority accommodation. This will increase the number of options available to the courts for dealing with children and young people who repeatedly offend while on bail as an alternative to custody. It will come into force on 22 April 2002 in the 10 street-crime areas listed above plus Northumbria, and in the rest of the country on 1 June 2002.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men have received a winter fuel payment for each year since the scheme began, broken down by(a) those who also receive another social security benefit and (b) those who do not receive another social security benefit. [44093]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  A gender breakdown is not available for the first two winters of the scheme, 1997–98 and 1998–99. Information is not yet available for winter 2001–02.

  The information which is available is in the table.

  Winter fuel payments

  Thousand

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Great Britain

  10,112.5

  11,123.5

  All men

  13,862.6

  4,811.4

  Men in receipt of a social security benefit

  13,862.6

  4,194.3

  Men not in receipt of a social security benefit

  1,2Nil

  617.0

  1For the first three winters of the scheme 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, only people aged 60 or over in receipt of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance, or those over pension age in receipt of other qualifying benefits, were entitled to the payment.

  2The figures for 1999–2000 exclude men aged 60 to 64 (and a small number of others) who became eligible for Winter Fuel Payments from 2000–01 onwards, and who were also able to claim retrospectively for previous years. It is not possible to relate the retrospective payments to specific years.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Public Houses
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 764W, what information she collates on rural pubs: and if she will make it available. [46505]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency collates data on rural pubs through its Rural Services Survey. The last survey undertaken in 2000 collected information on pubs, differentiating between those serving meals and those not serving meals, and between those independently owned and those which are part of a national chain. The headline 874W
  results by parish and settlement size have been published in the Countryside Agency report entitled Rural Services in 2000.

  The full report is also available on the agency's website along with parish and settlement files (which can be downloaded) currently containing the following information:
  For the 12,289 settlements recorded in the survey, data are available on pubs serving meals and pubs not serving meals.
  For the 6,103 parishes recorded in the survey, data are available on the total number of pubs in the parish.

  The data on public houses can be found on-line at http://www.countryside.gov.uk/ruralservices/pubs.htm.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Henley of 4 September 2001 (Defra ref. 159940), 28 September 2001 (Defra ref. 160862), 18 July 2001 (Defra ref. 158115), 16 July 2001 (Defra ref. 157925) and 10 July 2001 (Defra ref. 157840); and what the reasons are for the delay in replying. [26766]

  Mr. Morley
  The hon. Member's letter of 4 September 2001 was replied to on 26 January; of 18 July 2001 on 5 February; and of 10 July 2001 on 13 March.

  The letter of 16 July has been transferred to the Department of Health.

  We are unable to trace a copy of the letter of 28 September 2001.

  Hon. Members are aware of the difficulties DEFRA faced last year in processing correspondence, following the foot and mouth disease outbreak, and the creation of the new Department. Steady progress is being made towards eliminating the backlog of cases, and performance on incoming letters has considerably improved. I can assure you that all efforts will continue to be devoted to this area until the problems have been fully resolved.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 14 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Christchurch to the Minister of State on the Biocidal Regulations 2001. [33639]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: I am sorry for the long delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter. The Department transferred the hon. Member's correspondence to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 10 April, as they have responsibility for the Biocidal Regulations.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors caused the delay between 23 October 2001 and 24 February 2002 in responding to the letter from the hon. Member for Christchurch about refrigerants. [40797]

  Mr. Morley
  (holding answer 6 March 2002]: The hon. Member's letter of 23 October was faxed to the Department on 15 January following an inquiry about the length of time the response was taking. There was no trace of the original letter in the Department.

  Departmental Establishment
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the total establishment of her Department; and how many of these posts relate to functions of the former MAFF. [47967]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of staff in DEFRA and its executive agencies on 1 March 2002 was 13,658 full-time equivalents. The number of staff in MAFF and its executive agencies at the time of the transfer was 11,038 full-time equivalents. Due to reorganisations within the Department, current posts in DEFRA relating to the former MAFF cannot easily be identified and the number of such posts could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many posts with environmental protection responsibilities were transferred to her Department from the former DETR; and how many of those posts have become vacant since the transfer. [47966]

  Mr. Morley
  Approximately 500 posts with environmental protection responsibilities were transferred from the former DETR to DEFRA. Due to reorganisations within the Department, the number of those posts that have become vacant since the transfer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times Ministers in her Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47110]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 31 April 1999. Details for travel undertaken in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in her Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions she has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within her Department. [50471]

  Alun Michael
  DEFRA's e-business strategy does not currently propose the use of smart cards but as smart card technology matures and becomes more pervasive, DEFRA will consider its use as an authentication mechanism for 876W
  e-business systems, while the Department has not had discussions with private companies about the use of smart cards, DEFRA receives information from the Office of the e-Envoy on this topic and has participated in the OeE's Smart Card Working Party which produced the Smart Card Framework document.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 736W, on fair trade goods, if she will review and increase the amount of fairly traded goods purchased by her Department during Fair Trade Fortnight. [35915]

  Mr. Morley
  [pursuant to the reply, 8 January 2002, c. 736W]: Support for fair trade initiatives both in developing countries and the UK has been given by the Department for International Development. This support forms part of a wider dialogue with the private sector to encourage them to adopt more socially responsible and ethical business practises.

  Within DEFRA, the management of catering is outsourced and the use or promotion of particular goods is not yet a specific requirement under these arrangements though we will look seriously into making this a choice available for staff.

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contracts her Department has had since 1997 with(a) Arthur Andersen and (b) Accenture for (i) accountancy, (ii) audit and (iii) consultancy work; and what staff have been seconded (A) to her Department from and (B) from her Department to these firms. [32427]

  Mr. Morley
  Since DEFRA came into being on 8 June, 2001, the Department has let no contracts with Arthur Andersen or Accenture for accounting, audit and consultancy work. From records held centrally no staff have been seconded to the Department from these firms or from the Department to these firms.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of whether the sickness absence reduction target for 2001–02 will be met. [47666]

  Mr. Morley
  Following publication, in 1998, of the Cabinet Office report 'Working Well Together—Managing Attendance in the Public Sector' and the subsequent setting of targets for the reduction of sickness absence in the civil service this Department compiled comprehensive guidance on managing sickness absence which it successfully piloted in selected areas. Those arrangements were ready to be rolled out across the Department, when the outbreak of foot and mouth disease concentrated resources elsewhere.

  Following the creation of the new Department and the ending of the foot and mouth outbreak, work on the new sickness absence management arrangements has been

  877W
  re-started, but as yet no assessment has been made as to whether the sickness absence target for 2001–02 will be met.

  Responsibility for attendance matters within the Central Science Laboratory Agency (CSL), the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and the Centre for Environmental Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Agency (CEFAS)—all former MAFF agencies—has been delegated to the agency Chief Executives.

  CEFAS has been developing a robust attendance management system incorporating return to work interviews and closer monitoring of short term absences. They are confident they are on track to meet the 2001 target and with the imminent introduction of the new arrangements they should be well placed to monitor absence levels which in turn will provide them with the best opportunity of meeting their 2003 target.

  Responses from CSL and VLA have been included by letter. The Pesticides Safety Directorate, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate Agencies and the Rural Payments Agency are covered by the departmental response.

  Letter from Professor Michael Roberts to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2002:
  I have been asked to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory, to your question regarding an assessment of whether the sickness absence reduction target for 2001–2002 will be met.
  Following publication, in 1998, of the Cabinet Office report 'Working Well Together—Managing Attendance in the Public Sector' and the subsequent setting of targets for the reduction of sickness absence in the Civil Service, Central Science Laboratory has been carrying out continuous improvements to the process of managing sickness absence. This includes the employment of an on-site Occupational Health Adviser.
  Work on the new sickness absence management arrangements have now been re-started, following the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease which concentrated resources elsewhere, but as yet no assessment has been made as to whether the sickness absence target for 2001–2001 will be met.

  Letter from Professor Steve Edwards to Mr. John Bercow, dated April 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on what recent assessment has been made of whether the sickness absence reduction target for 2001–2002 will be met.
  VLA's approach to managing sickness has been based on a proactive stance in relation to all areas of health surveillance and sickness absence and by providing comprehensive advice and guidance to staff and managers. This is supported by appropriate monitoring systems. We are constantly reviewing procedures in the light of the Cabinet Office report 'Working Well Together—Managing Attendance in the Public Sector'.
  VLA's sickness absence reduction target will be incorporated into that established for DEFRA. No separate assessment has yet been made as to whether the sickness absence target for 2001–2002 will be met.

  Environmental Protection
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role her Department has played in discussions relating to the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy; and if she will make a statement. [46569]

  Mr. Meacher
  As a member of the Strategy Council, we have participated fully in discussions relating to the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity 878W
  Strategy since its endorsement at the 'Environment for Europe' Ministerial Conference in 1995, and will continue to do so.

  In February officials from my Department attended the 6th meeting of the Strategy Council in Budapest, and the 'Biodiversity in Europe' Intergovernmental Conference which was held under the overall umbrella of the strategy, and which focused on facilitating European regional preparations for the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD/COP6), and strengthening co-operation on biodiversity in Europe.

  The conference reviewed relevant on-going Pan-European processes, identified priorities and made a number of recommendations for action at the regional level. The conference discussed the main items on the CBD/COP6 agenda which were of special European concern, with a view to developing a regional input for the forthcoming negotiations at The Hague. Among the priority topics considered were:

  Forest biological diversity

  Invasive alien species

  Financial resources and mechanisms for hiodiversity

  Indicators, monitoring and the clearing house mechanism; and

  Strategic Plan for the CBD and the implementation of the Convention.

  The main messages from Budapest to the global biodiversity community are that European countries are committed to work jointly for attaining common goals of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; and that Europe is keen to learn from a wide range of experiences of other regions with a view to enriching the Pan-European biodiversity process, and is ready to share its achievements and innovations with other regions of the world.

  Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress with regard to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. [46560]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Rotterdam convention was adopted on 10 September 1998. The convention will not come into force until ratified by 50 parties, 20 parties have ratified so far.

  The European Commission adopted a proposal to implement the Rotterdam convention in the EU on 24 January 2002, which is now being discussed by the Environment Council Working Group and the European Parliament. European Community Regulation 2455/92 already implements (compulsorily) a voluntary scheme on trade in certain dangerous chemicals, which the European Commission's recent proposal seeks to amend to implement the convention in the EU. Germany and The Netherlands have implemented national legislation in advance of European Community action. The UK, and the rest of the Community, are also participating in a voluntary interim procedure prior to the convention coming into force.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department intends to publish details of new energy efficiency indicators, targets and monitoring mechanisms for each sector of the economy; and if she will make a statement. [48686]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government will be responding to this and other recommendations of the recent performance and innovation unit energy review in a White Paper later in the year, following public consultation. The Government recognise that energy efficiency is an important, and highly cost-effective, way of achieving our climate change goals. It has significant unrealised potential, and the Department will be considering how to enhance its future role. We will produce a domestic energy efficiency strategy, and are working to establish benchmarking, indicators and (where appropriate) targets, for those sectors of the economy which have the most significant impacts on energy efficiency. A review of local authorities' role in energy efficiency is also under way. Some sectors of course already have energy efficiency targets, for example, the Government estate, health and education sectors. The energy efficiency best practice programme (EEBPp) provides authoritative information and guidance on benchmarking and best practice for every sector.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to form a negotiated agreement with the finance sector to reduce the cost of financing energy efficiency measures by funding them as part of mortgage offers; and if she will make a statement. [48692]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will examine the performance and innovation unit's energy review recommendation in the course of preparing our domestic energy efficiency strategy, and for the introduction of the home seller's pack. The objective of this initiative is to make available to potential buyers relevant information about the property. We propose that the seller's pack should include an assessment of the property's energy efficiency performance (a SAP energy rating) and suggestions for improving that performance. It is anticipated that the information will encourage prospective home buyers to take energy efficiency into account in their buying decisions and, following purchase, to act on the suggestions and invest in energy efficiency measures. The ability to fund the measures as part of the mortgage loan would help to maximise the benefits from this initiative.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department plans to announce an extension of the energy efficiency commitment from 2005 to 2010; and if she will make a statement. [48688]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are considering the future of the energy efficiency commitment after 2005: we need to be sure that it remains the best way of delivering substantial savings in the domestic sector. Feedback on the early part of the programme for 2002 to 2005 will also enable us to take account of that experience in making our plans for the future.
  880W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department plans to undertake a review of low carbon delivery organisations; and if she will make a statement. [48690]

  Mr. Meacher
  The performance and innovation unit (PIU) energy review highlights the number and range of organisations involved in delivering policies and programmes for lowering carbon emissions and promoting energy efficiency. The Government will certainly consider this particular PIU recommendation carefully when responding to the energy review in a White Paper later in the year, following public consultation.

  EU Directive 1999/74/EC
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the extent to which EU Directive I999/74/EC was implemented by 1 January; and what formal action has been taken by the European Commission in respect of this matter by I January. [49279]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: EC Directive 99/74/EC came into force in all member states on 1 January 2002.

  Ministerial Conference on the North Sea
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on matters discussed and decisions taken at the ministerial conference on the North sea, held in Bergen, in March; and if she will place in the Library copies of all United Kingdom submissions to the conference and submissions by other Governments and accredited bodies that are relevant to the United Kingdom. [47663]

  Mr. Meacher
  The fifth North Sea Conference was held in Bergen, Norway, on 20 and 21 March. I represented the UK and was supported by Allan Wilson, Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development at the Scottish Executive.

  The Conference received a report on progress made in taking forward the commitments made at the fourth North Sea Conference held in Esbjerg, Denmark, in 1995. The outcome of the fifth North Sea Conference was a declaration for further action to protect the marine environment of the North Sea. It covered establishing an ecosystem approach, the conservation of habitats and species, fisheries, shipping, hazardous substances, eutrophication, offshore installations, radioactive substances, renewable energy, marine litter and waste management, spatial planning and future co-operation.

  The Conference was very successful in producing an agreed declaration which provides a worthwhile step for the further protection of the marine environment. Key initiatives include a commitment to develop and pilot ecological quality objectives to assess progress made towards an ecosystem-based approach, a commitment to designate relevant areas of the North Sea as a network of well-managed marine protected areas by 2010 and the creation of a network of investigators and prosecutors to tackle pollution from shipping. It was also agreed that Sweden would host a Ministerial meeting on the environmental impacts of shipping and fishing by 2006.
  881W
  The declaration also contains proposals to work through the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic to develop guidance on offshore wind energy schemes and consider how best to share information on spatial planning for the North Sea. It also endorses further work through OSPAR to tackle pollution from hazardous substances, offshore installations, radioactive substances and the prevention of eutrophication.

  I have placed copies of both the progress report and the declaration in the Library of the House. They are also available at http://www.northseaconference.no.

  Refrigerators
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement updating the Government's strategy for stripping CFC foam from fridges and freezers in the UK; and how long it will take to deal with the backlog of appliances. [48593]

  Mr. Meacher
  There has been considerable progress. Facilities for treating CFC foams are now coming on-stream in the UK. A mobile plant is already operating and two static plants are due to be operational by the end of June. Additionally, refrigerators from various parts of the UK are being exported to Germany for treatment. Sufficient plant should be in place by the end of the year to ensure that the backlog of fridges does not increase further. Current estimates suggest the backlog of appliances will be dealt with during 2003.

  Waterways Access
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of inland waterways are accessible to canoeists(a) freely and (b) on payment of a fee. [48207]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department's most recent findings on access to water by canoeists are contained in our research report, "Water-Based Sport and Recreation: the facts" which was published in December 2001. The researchers did not distinguish between paid and unpaid access where agreements were in place. Canoeists (and other users) have a free right of access to those inland rivers and canals which have public navigation rights.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to improve access to inland waterways for canoeists; and if she will make a statement. [48203]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Our research report, "Water-based Sport and Recreation: the facts" was published in December 2001. The report has aroused a great deal of interest amongst the canoeing community abd I have set out our approach in responses to letters from many hon. and right hon. Members.

  My officials recently met British Waterways, the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and Sport England as the other sponsors of the research along with other interested Government Departments to discuss the report's findings which are quite complex. Just before Easter my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Rural Affairs (Alun
  882W
  Michael) met the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and representatives of the British Canoe Union to hear their views. We are considering what action to take in light of the report's findings.

  Laying Hens
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she made to the European Union prior to its passing of the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive. [48956]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Ministers were directly involved when the proposal was discussed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers and UK officials were fully involved in the negotiations on the Directive.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on the cost of egg production in cage-based systems of implementation of Directive 1999/74/EC on the Welfare of Laying Hens; and if she will estimate the change in cost expected in the cage-based system following implementation of Directive 1999/74/EC. [46392]

  Mr. Morley
  A regulatory impact assessment has been produced, following public consultation. It will be published to accompany the Statutory Instrument to implement the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to encourage producers to move laying hens out of small cages before the final phase-out date of 2012; and if she will make a statement on her policy in respect of the keeping of birds in modified cages in the long-term. [49280]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: It is intended that Council Directive 99/74/EC will be implemented in England without being added to in any way. If further changes are proposed, there will be full public consultation.

  Beef
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next intends to meet representatives of the National Beef Association. [46401]

  Mr. Morley
  There are, at present, no specific arrangements for the Secretary of State to meet with the National Beef Association.

  However, I recently met with the Association, on 4 April, to discuss matters regarding TB in cattle.

  My noble Friend (The Lord Whitty) last met directly with the Association on 7 November, in order to discuss the Animal Movement Regime and has accepted an invitation to attend the Association's forthcoming event 'Beef 2002', organised for 24 May.

  Lord Whitty also maintains regular contact with representatives of the Association through attendance at stakeholder meetings and looks forward to continuing dialogue on issues facing the Beef Industry.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals of each species were slaughtered(a) for human consumption and (b) otherwise than for human consumption (i) at

  Thousand head

  Species

  Cattle1

  Sheep

  Pigs2

  Solipeds and Equidae

  Goats

  Deer

  Rabbits

  2000

  (a) For human consumption

  (i) at registered low throughput slaughterhouses

  28

  190

  73

  0

  1

  2

  46

  (ii) at other registered slaughterhouses

  2,036

  18,000

  11,462

  11

  7

  88

  0

  (iii) elsewhere

  7—

  7—

  7

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  (b) Not for human consumption

  (i) at registered low throughput slaughterhouses Rejected at slaughterhouse3

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  (ii) at other registered slaughterhouses Over Thirty Month scheme

  841

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  Rejected at slaughterhouse3

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  (iii) elsewhere4

  Slaughtered due to swine fever

  7—

  7—

  75

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  Pig welfare disposal scheme

  7—

  7—

  183

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  2001

  (a) For human consumption

  (i) at registered low throughput slaughterhouse

  25

  200

  6

  0

  1

  1

  37

  (ii) at other registered slaughterhouses

  1,746

  12,105

  9,51

  10

  10

  53

  0

  (iii) elsewhere

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  (b) Not for human consumption

  (i) at registered low throughput slaughterhouses

  Rejected at slaughterhouse3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (ii) at other registered slaughterhouses

  Over Thirty Month scheme

  511

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  Rejected at slaughterhouse3

  1

  10

  22

  0

  0

  0

  1

  (iii) elsewhere4

  Slaughtered due to FMD

  592

  3,392

  141

  7—

  2

  1

  7—

  Welfare disposal scheme5,6

  169

  2,10

  287

  7—

  7—

  5

  7—

  1Including bison

  2Including wild boar.

  3Data on animals rejected at the slaughterhouse for human consumption only collected by the Meat Hygiene Service for April 2001 onwards.

  4Excludes animals disposed of on farm for which no reliable information is available.

  5Includes light lambs.

  6Data shown for deer are for deer, goats, llamas and others.

  7Not applicable or not available.

  Source:

  Statistics (Commodities and Food) Division, Economics and Statistics Directorate, DEFRA 11 April 2002

  Data on slaughterhouse throughputs provided by the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Data on slaughterings under the Over Thirty Month scheme provided by the Rural Payments Agency

  On-farm Burials
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on EU proposals to ban the on-farm burial of livestock from this end of this year. [48381]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: A new EU Animal By-Products Regulation will tighten the controls on the disposal of animal by-products and ban the routine burial of livestock except in remote areas (the Highlands and Islands of Scotland). Further negotiations between the Council of Ministers, European Parliament and European Commission are still required, but we expect the regulation to come into force in member states
  884W
  registered low throughput slaughterhouses, (ii) at other registered slaughterhouses and (iii) elsewhere in (A) 2000 and (B) 2001. [48192]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is given in the table for Great Britain.

  between the end of 2002 and mid 2003. We are discussing future arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock with stakeholders.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the number of farms which carry out on-farm burial of livestock. [48382]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: No such assessment has been made. However, the State Veterinary Service carried out small scale surveys in 1998, 1999 and 2000. The results (which may not be representative) suggested that 17 to 21 per cent. of fallen cattle and 60 to 76 per cent. of fallen sheep and goats were buried on farm.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) in how many contiguous premises slaughter was completed within 48 hours of a clinical diagnosis of the disease during the foot and mouth epidemic; [47603]

  (2) on average how long after clinical diagnosis slaughter was completed on the infected premises during the foot and mouth epidemic. [47604]

  Mr. Morley
  Information regarding the time taken to slaughter on contiguous premises is presented in the two charts, which have been placed in the Library.

  Animal Experiments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government have taken to ban the testing of finished household products on animals. [45765]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have not ruled out a ban on the testing of household products. The need for testing household products on animals is something that the Animal Procedures Committee is considering and will advise on later this year as part of its review of the cost/benefit assessment. In the meantime, the Government will continue to work to ensure that animals are only used where there are no alternatives.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Community Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of applications for community care grants have been given a priority of medium or high; and how many applications regarded as of high or medium priority have been(a) fully awarded, (b) partially awarded and (c) not awarded in each year since 1997. [48645]

  Malcolm Wicks
  (holding answer 15 April 2002]: The available information is in the table.

  Community care grant awards by priority

  Year

  High priority awards

  Medium priority awards

  1997–98

  229,000

  6,000

  1998–99

  218,000

  7,000

  1999–00

  215,000

  4,000

  2000–01

  223,000

  2,000

  Source:

  Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures are for initial awards only.

  3. Data on the numbers of applications by priority are not held. It is not practical to collect such data as one application could include requests for high, low and medium priority items.

  4. Details of full and partial awards and refusals are not held by priority.

  Carers Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the work of the new Disability and Carers Service and the arrangements for handling of individual cases in which other services within the Department may also be involved. [45809]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The Disability and Carers Service aims to provide a responsive, consistent and reliable service in administering Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Invalid Care Allowance. It is working with other parts of the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that a quality service is available to all customers from April 2002.

  All DWP businesses operate within a single Department and the customer of one should be treated as the customer of all. Any customer who contacts a DWP business outlet that is not focused upon their particular needs, will be helped to find the assistance they need as quickly as possible and with the minimum of inconvenience. This may mean redirecting them and telephoning in advance, or arranging an appointment on their behalf. Comprehensive guidance has been issued to staff setting out the standards of service we expect when the needs of customers span more than one business.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families there are with two or more disabled children who are in receipt of disability living allowance in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [47984]

  Maria Eagle
  Disability Living Allowance is awarded to severely disabled people on the basis of their individual care and mobility needs, and information on family circumstances is not collected. At 31 August 2001, about 196,100 children aged under16 were receiving Disability Living Allowance in England, 21,000 in Scotland, and 14,000 in Wales. These figures are based on 5 per cent. data and rounded to the nearest hundred. The Northern Ireland Assembly is responsible for social security matters within Northern Ireland.

  Rents
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the Rent Service report indicating that the number of localities would have increased from 400 to 4000 as a result of the Court of Appeal judgment on local reference rents in Stockport delivered on 26 October 2001, referred to in the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation,Official Report, 14 January, column 12. [45853]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have not received a formal report from the Rent Service. The likely increase in the number of localities was a Rent Service estimate for England.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 729W, how many housing benefit claimants are subject to non-dependent deductions; and

  887W
  what percentage of that number are (a) registered disabled, (b) aged 60 and over, (c) in receipt of income support or JSA and (d) lone parents. [45854]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing Benefit cases in Great Britain to which non-dependant deductions have been applied—May 2000

  Cases

  Cases with non-dependant deductions (number)

  159,000

  Of which:-

  Receiving a disability premium (percentage)

  20

  Aged 60 or over (percentage)

  49

  In receipt of Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (percentage)

  64

  Lone parents (percentage)

  16

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. The data refer to Housing Benefit recipients who may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit recipient can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share.

  3. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number and do not sum because Housing Benefit recipients can fall into more than one client group.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System. Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2000.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to speed up the processing of housing benefit applications; and if he will make a statement. [40470]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Under Best Value, we have set a range of performance indicators for HB which are designed to ensure that authorities provide their communities with a faster, more accurate service which is more secure against fraud, and which provides value for money and takes account of the views and needs of clients. Authorities are required to set challenging local targets against the indicators and, from April 2002, will be set aspirational national targets for speed of processing.

  On 21 March we published performance standards for the full range of HB administration. These address all aspects of administration including effective strategic management of the service; speed and accuracy of processing; modern accessible customer service; preventing and tackling fraud; working with landlords; and overpayments. Local authorities will be able to self-assess their performance against standards.

  The HB Help Team is working in partnership with local authorities to support them in improving the administration of HB. We are already seeing real improvements in administration as a result of the Team's work and the ongoing programme of inspections by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. We also want to help more authorities deliver
  888W
  a high standard of HB service by sharing good practice. We are developing a dedicated web-site to do so and we plan to make available shortly on CD a "toolkit" which the Help Team has developed.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average time taken for local authorities to process housing benefit applications has been over the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [40471]

  (2) what the target time is for local authorities to process housing benefit applications; how many achieved that target in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [40472]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer March 2002]: The first full year in which data was collected on the performance of local authorities against performance indicators was 2000–01. The average times for local authorities to process Housing Benefit applications in England and Scotland are in the tables.

  England

  Average time for processing new claims

  52 days

  Average time for processing notifications for changes of circumstances

  17 days

  Percentage of renewal claims processed on time (ie by the end of the existing benefit period)

  63 per cent.

  Note:

  Not all local authorities provided the data requested and some expressed doubt about the way their data had been collected. Therefore, the figures given are an average of the performance of the local authorities who responded.

  Source:

  Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000–01.

  Scotland

  Average time for processing new claims

  48 days

  Average time for processing notifications for changes of circumstances

  22 days

  Percentage of renewal claims processed on time (ie by the end of the existing benefit period)

  75 per cent.

  Note:

  Three of the 32 local authorities in Scotland failed to provide the data requested and, in some cases, the appointed auditors expressed doubt as to the reliability of the data collected. Therefore, the figures given are an average of the performance of the local authorities who responded.

  Source:

  Accounts Commission "Performance Indicators 2000–01—Benefits, Finance and Corporate issues".

  Best Value performance information for local authorities in Wales will be published very shortly by the Audit Commission.

  At present there are no national target times for local authorities to process Housing Benefit applications. However, on 21 March we published national performance standards for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit administration. Local authorities will he able to assess their own performance, identify areas that need attention and work towards achieving the standards.
  889W
  The performance standards for processing benefit claims are shown in the table.

  Performance standards

  Average processing time for new housing benefit and council tax benefit claims

  36 days

  Average processing time for housing benefit and council tax benefit changes of circumstances

  9 days

  Percentage of renewal housing benefit and council tax benefit claims processed on time (ie by the end of the existing benefit period)

  83 per cent.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for alignment payments from the Social Fund have been received each month since January 2001; and what proportion were(a) refused, (b) fully awarded and (c) partially awarded. [48643]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The available information is in the table.

  Social Fund crisis loan awards—alignment payments

  Month

  Number of awards

  January 2001

  44,831

  February 2001

  38,164

  March 2001

  40,940

  April 2001

  37,331

  May 2001

  39,785

  June 2001

  38,588

  July 2001

  40,876

  August 2001

  41,618

  September 2001

  37,566

  October 2001

  43,585

  November 2001

  41,318

  December 2001

  32,677

  January 2002

  46,522

  February 2002

  42,732

  Note:

  1. The Social Fund computer system does not capture separately the number of applications for alignment payments nor the number of such applications that are refused or result in a partial award.

  Source:

  Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  Pension Service
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on his plans to create Pension Service and Job Centre Plus; and what access pensioners will have in person to these offices; [50487]

  (2) what access pensioners will have in person to Benefits Agency offices under the new Pension Service arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [50488]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 25 March 2002,Official Report, columns 651–52W.

  Personal Pension Funds
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have personal pension funds. [46918]
  890W
  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  People who have a personal pension

  Million

  Numbers contributing to a personal pension

  4.08

  Numbers receiving income from a personal pension

  0.02

  Total number of people with a personal pension.

  4.10

  Notes:

  1 Information is drawn from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for the year 2000–01 and covers Great Britain only.

  Due to the size of the FRS sample and the fact that the Survey relies on self-reporting of pension income the information may be subject to a margin of error.

  War Pensions
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason MOD War Pensions will be subject to compulsory automated credit transfer in advance of state pensions and benefits. [47424]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  War pensions will be treated no differently from other state pensions and benefits. At this time there is no compulsion for customers to change from their current method of payment. From October 2002 the Veterans Agency will be inviting existing customers paid by order book or payable order to change to payment through a bank or building society with effect from April 2003. The Department for Work and Pensions will be issuing similar invitations to recipients of child benefit.

  Basic Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners receiving one or more means-tested benefit have a weekly income of(a) up to £100, (b) £101 to £120, (c) £121 to £140, (d) £140 to £160, (e) £160 to £180, (f) £180 to £200, (g) £200 to £220, (h) £220 to £240 per week, (i) £240 to £260, (j) £260 to £280, (k) £280 to £300 and (1) over £300 per week. [35845]

  Mr. McCartney
  [pursuant to the reply, 12 February 2002, c. 257W]: The information requested is as follows.

  Number of pensioners in receipt of means tested benefits by weekly income band—Great Britain 1999–2000

  Weekly income before housing costs

  Number of pensioner units

  Up to and including £100

  440,000

  £101 to £120

  510,000

  £121 to £140

  460,000

  £141 to £160

  310,000

  £161 to £180

  250,000

  £181 to £200

  190,000

  £201 to £220 weekly income

  160,000

  £221 to £260

  160,000

  £261 and over

  100,000

  Total

  2,590.000

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1999–2000

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what recent assessment he has made of
  891W
  whether the PSA target that 25 per cent. of all business transactions should be capable of being carried out electronically by 2002 will be met on time; [46097]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of whether the child support scheme targets for accuracy of payment arrangements and the level of compliance will be achieved by April 2003; [46101]

  (3) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target that a new assessment of liability to pay child support maintenance shall be completed within seven weeks will be met by the end of 2002; [46099]

  (4) what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target to reduce benefit losses from fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 10 per cent. by March 2002 will be met; [46098]

  (5) which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44822]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Progress against PSA targets is set out each year in the departmental report. The 2001 report, Cm 5115, sets out our progress against the PSA targets for the period April 2000–01. The 2002 report will set out our progress for the period April 2001–02.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many members of staff of his Department are members of the Territorial forces; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces; [44066]

  (2) how many members of staff at his Department are locally elected democratic representatives; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives. [44540]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not held centrally and could be assimilated only at disproportionate cost. Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) requires employers to allow their staff reasonable time off for public duties. The Civil Service Code (Para 9.2.5) requires Departments and agencies to allow time off for attending these duties. Responsibility for the decision making, in relation to attendance, for such activities has been delegated to business units within the Department.

  £

  Total NEG funding

  LEA name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Camden

  1,661,012

  707,078

  743,998

  829,868

  City of London

  25,893

  18,407

  8,739

  9,589

  Hackney

  2,574,606

  649,922

  823,863

  761,122

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,442,670

  328,243

  277,154

  336,321

  Haringey

  3,111,948

  178,857

  228,405

  584,764

  Islington

  2,075,786

  337,116

  348,345

  363,544

  Kensington and Chelsea

  805,775

  251,970

  208,222

  262,080

  Lambeth

  2,170,135

  720,105

  937,331

  1,093,867

  Lewisham

  2,977,996

  431,562

  618,404

  432,917

  Newham

  4,202,907

  123,746

  161,050

  337,115

  Southwark

  3,032,361

  494,272

  515,208

  725,614

  Tower Hamlets

  2,852,105

  94,748

  132,919

  109,428

  Wandsworth

  2,169,446

  973,936

  1,372,461

  1,067,739

  Westminster

  1.208,802

  506,879

  521,302

  543,259

  892W
  However, I am pleased to confirm that my right hon Friend, the Secretary of State's Diary Manager holds a commission with the Territorial Army.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Vocational Engineering
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the vocational engineering GCSE is to become an option for those not undertaking any physics courses at the same level. [49854]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department will not prescribe how the new GCSEs in vocational subjects may be combined with other subjects. Those decisions will be taken at local level within the context of the requirements of the statutory curriculum.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the vocational engineering GCSE is to be presented as an option for students considered less academically capable. [49855]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The new GCSEs in vocational subjects, which will include engineering, will be promoted' by the Department as being available and suitable to young people of all abilities.

  Nursery Education (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what nursery provision has been provided by her Department to each London education authority in inner London boroughs over the last five years. [48682]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since September 1998 all four-year-olds in the inner London area have been able to access a free, part-time, early education place prior to statutory education.

  In 2002–03,11 of the fifteen local education authorities will be able to provide a free early education place to all three-year-olds in their area. The remaining authorities are able to offer a free place to over 65 per cent. of their three-year-olds. All three-year-olds will have access to a free early education place by September 2004.

  The following table shows the amount of specific funding received by inner London education authorities to fund free early education places for four-year-olds. From April 2001, all free four-year-old places have been funded by local authorities from their own resources.
  893W
  Note:

  The funding figures for four-year-olds in 1997–98 are significantly higher as all free places in this year were funded centrally. From 1998–99 only new places created in the maintained sector and all free places in the private, voluntary and independent sector were funded through specific grant. Existing places in the maintained sector were funded by the authority from their own resources.

  The following table shows the amount of specific funding received by inner London education authorities to fund free early education places for three-year-olds. This funding commenced September 1999.

  £

  Total NEG funding

  LEA name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–2002

  Camden

  514,872

  825,919

  987,228

  City of London

  0.00

  1,160

  14,256

  Hackney

  597,915

  1,155,980

  1,768,932

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  275,401

  618,429

  706,860

  Haringey

  511,711

  690,364

  958,716

  Islington

  606,558

  994,046

  1,163,052

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.00

  341,506

  825,660

  Lambeth

  957,549

  1,524,750

  1,955,448

  Lewisham

  592,391

  1,110,739

  1,860,408

  Newham

  547,647

  1,004,639

  1,325,808

  Southwark

  510,820

  1,231,909

  1,182,060

  Tower Hamlets

  227,797

  317,143

  702,108

  Wandsworth

  1,153,768

  1,699,174

  2,050,488

  Westminster

  218,579

  815,164

  1,090,584

  The information contained in the tables have been extracted from LEA Nursery Education Grant returns and is subject to change as a result of external audit.

  School Absences
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the number of half days missed through authorised absence in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools; and if she will make a statement. [48262]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department's analytical section provides analysis of all absence data collected by the Department. A statistical bulletin was published in December 2001 and is available on the DfES website. Authorised absence accounts for nearly 90 per cent. of all school time missed and therefore can be as much a barrier to improving school standards as unauthorised absence.

  In addition, the Department has commissioned a research project on the causes of absence from school. This project will interview children, parents and teachers about the cause of absence and will report in the autumn.

  Swimming Advisory Group
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Swimming Advisory Group has completed its work; and when a report will be made. [48058]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Swimming Advisory Group has completed its work and its report is now under consideration within the Department for Education and Skills.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many bodies receive some or all 894W
  of their funding from her Department; how much funding was received by each body in each year since 1997; and who the chief executive of each body was. [47748]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for the five largest PFI contracts let by her Department in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [45601]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: My Department has only one PFI contract, which is with Capita, to deliver the Connexions Card project. The final contract price was £109.7 million over seven years. The details of the various bidding stages during contractual negotiations are commercial in confidence and in terms of Part II of the code of practice on access to Government information are exempt from disclosure.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on progress with the investigations into abuses of the Individual Learning Account scheme; and in how many cases money has been recovered from ILA providers who abused the scheme. [48254]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: In respect of current investigations, 117 learning providers have been passed to the Department's Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Following detailed SIU work, 80 of these have been referred to nine different police forces: Cheshire, City of London, Cumbria, Dorset, Kent, Leicestershire, Metropolitan, National Crime Squad and West Midlands and the SIU are discussing a further 16 with the police. To date police have made 45 arrests that have resulted in 8 accepting cautions and charges being brought against 13 individuals, 12 of whom are awaiting court appearances and one person has been convicted.

  A total of £4.47 million of payments are withheld from the 80 providers referred to the police and the 16 SIU are discussing with the police.

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been given by her Department for section 11 funding for schools in each Inner London borough in the last year. [48683]

  Mr. Timms
  The education element of the Home Office's Section 11 Grant scheme ceased on 31 March 1999. It was replaced with the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant, which is administered by my
  895W
  Department. For 2002–03 £155,862,368 is available nationally to improve attainment of minority ethnic pupils. The amounts allocated to London boroughs are set out.

  Ethnic minority achievement grant

  LEA

  £

  Corporation of London

  107,415

  Camden

  2,931,900

  Greenwich

  1,912,505

  Hackney

  4,299,222

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  1,202,577

  Islington

  2,529,175

  Kensington & Chelsea

  1,164,506

  Lambeth

  3,402,055

  Lewisham

  2,698,457

  Southwark

  2,053,869

  Tower Hamlets

  8,044,136

  Wandsworth

  2,332,179

  Westminster

  2,136,538

  Barking

  634,870

  Barnet

  1,913,572

  Bexley

  273.969

  Brent

  2,991,961

  Bromley

  112,808

  Croydon

  2,107,095

  Ealing

  3,701,735

  Enfield

  2,476,533

  Haringey

  3,599,985

  Harrow

  1,263,821

  Havering

  109,926

  £

  Total allocation

  LEA number

  LEA

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  2001–02

  201

  Corporation of London

  108,500

  107,415

  107,415

  202

  Camden

  2,931,900

  3,102,868

  2,931,900

  203

  Greenwich

  1,783,616

  1,866,510

  1,912,505

  204

  Hackney

  4,299,222

  4,442,766

  4,299,222

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  940,880

  1,189,642

  1,202,577

  206

  Islington

  2,529,175

  2,529,175

  2,529,175

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,177,506

  1,219,975

  1,164,506

  208

  Lambeth

  3,436,055

  3,603,405

  3,402,055

  209

  Lewisham

  2,211,561

  2,543,947

  2,698,457

  210

  Southwark

  1,431,818

  1,910,192

  2,053,869

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  8,125,390

  8.095.454

  8,044,136

  212

  Wandsworth

  1,912,879

  2,163,323

  2,332,179

  213

  Westminster

  2,151,538

  2.136,538

  2,136,538

  301

  Barking

  662,475

  672,625

  634,870

  302

  Barnet

  1,459,113

  1,190,476

  1,913,572

  303

  Bexley

  179,781

  313,705

  273,969

  304

  Brent

  2,370,904

  2,804,240

  2,991,961

  305

  Bromley

  51,161

  166,547

  112,808

  306

  Croydon

  2,032,254

  2,163,023

  2,107,095

  307

  Ealing

  2,949,203

  3,556,921

  3,701,735

  308

  Enfield

  2,293,602

  2,357,497

  2,476,533

  309

  Haringey

  3,337,039

  3,526,622

  3,599,985

  310

  Harrow

  863,751

  1,214.881

  1,263,821

  311

  Havering

  75,640

  131,090

  109,926

  312

  Hillingdon

  629,631

  872,091

  792,240

  313

  Hounslow

  1,829,207

  2,279,528

  2,360,138

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  222,389

  309,329

  312,69(1

  315

  Merton

  803,895

  913,930

  989,608

  316

  Newham

  253,058

  1,038,976

  1,410,781

  317

  Redbridge

  1,965,442

  2,228,929

  2,417,966

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  76,785

  164,041

  142,621

  319

  Sutton

  151,345

  301,005

  229,067

  320

  Waltham Forest

  2,054,111

  2,426,419

  2,557,579

  330

  Birmingham

  5,908,043

  7,288.725

  8,211,164

  331

  Coventry

  3,208,635

  3,208,635

  3,208,635

  332

  Dudley

  1,679,723

  1,679,723

  1,679,723

  896W

  Ethnic minority achievement grant

  LEA

  £

  Hillingdon

  792,240

  Hounslow

  2,360,138

  Kingston Upon Thames

  312,690

  Merton

  989,608

  Newham

  3,333,858

  Redbridge

  2,417,966

  Richmond Upon Thames

  142,621

  Sutton

  229,067

  Waltham Forest

  2,557,579

  Note:

  All figures include both DIES grant and LEA Contribution

  English Teaching
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grant aid has been paid to each local education authority in each of the last five years to assist in the teaching of English to ethnic minority pupils. [48753]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department provides additional ring-fenced support to raise the achievement of ethnic minority pupils and meet the needs of those for whom English is an additional language through the Ethnic Minority Achievement (EMAG) strand of the standards fund. EMAG replaced the education element of the Home Office's Section 11 grant scheme in April 1999. Individual programme allocations for each authority for each year from 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are as follows:
  897W

  £

  Total allocation

  LEA number

  LEA

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  2001–02

  333

  Sandwell

  331,689

  1,594,539

  1,736,068

  334

  Solihull

  —

  73,120

  39,978

  335

  Walsall

  1,962,120

  1,962,120

  1,962,120

  336

  Wolverhampton

  2,498,696

  3,566,228

  2,498,696

  340

  Knowsley

  —

  4,002

  6,760

  341

  Liverpool

  444,014

  519,083

  573,262

  342

  St. Helens

  27,343

  86,914

  34,064

  343

  Sefton

  —

  79,841

  13,525

  344

  Wirral

  —

  12,340

  20,631

  350

  Bolton

  938,052

  1,147,765

  1,052,062

  351

  Bury

  487,320

  539,266

  487,320

  352

  Manchester

  2,988,148

  3,305,363

  3,013,363

  353

  Oldham

  2,423,068

  2,423,934

  2,403,068

  354

  Rochdale

  1,490,703

  1,608,763

  1,490,703

  355

  Salford

  94,732

  206,052

  125,078

  356

  Stockport

  114,892

  103,080

  120,653

  357

  Tameside

  531,905

  646,649

  531,905

  358

  Trafford

  421,131

  518,210

  523,308

  359

  Wigan

  121,503

  243,818

  121,503

  370

  Barnsley

  —

  81,322

  11,316

  371

  Doncaster

  139,870

  324,711

  174,730

  372

  Rotherham

  628,345

  667,136

  628,345

  373

  Sheffield

  1,870,859

  2,018,222

  1,870,859

  380

  Bradford

  7,569,000

  7,788,980

  7,569,000

  381

  Calderdale

  1,150,746

  1,150,746

  1,150,746

  382

  Kirklees

  4,152,833

  4,187,568

  4,152,833

  383

  Leeds

  1,186,136

  1,704,706

  1,512,802

  384

  Wakefield

  474,288

  563,667

  474,288

  390

  Gateshead

  54,404

  128,279

  65,549

  391

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  504,213

  600,263

  613,453

  392

  North Tyneside

  155.504

  198,051

  161,012

  393

  South Tyneside

  208,885

  208,885

  208,885

  394

  Sunderland

  128,867

  194,214

  144,208

  420

  Isles Of Scilly

  —

  0

  63

  800

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  45,686

  51,622

  801

  Bristol

  1,126.875

  1,036,269

  1,036,269

  802

  North Somerset

  —

  14,479

  18,253

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  404,142

  44,911

  805

  Hartlepool

  23,221

  23,722

  25,807

  806

  Middlesbrough

  459,107

  612,787

  454,607

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  45,820

  45,320

  45,320

  808

  Stockton-on-Tees

  197,972

  195,418

  195,418

  810

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  51,694

  52,791

  60,019

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  387,330

  19,690

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  43,476

  43,476

  43,476

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  281,121

  281,121

  281,121

  815

  North Yorkshire

  72,456

  174,580

  43,963

  816

  York

  —

  146,838

  58,901

  820

  Bedfordshire

  1,018,635

  1,227,363

  1,018,635

  821

  Luton

  2,215,052

  2,287,952

  2,188,832

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  1,594,891

  1,803,612

  1,594,891

  826

  Milton Keynes

  384,562

  480,419

  467,667

  830

  Derbyshire

  —

  107,991

  121,568

  831

  Derby City

  1,741,890

  1,911,083

  1,653,054

  835

  Dorset

  —

  65,534

  26,415

  836

  Poole

  48,708

  67,272

  22,098

  837

  Bournemouth

  —

  24,909

  31,284

  840

  Durham

  —

  336,146

  92,529

  841

  Darlington

  191,074

  114,645

  114,645

  845

  East Sussex

  149,209

  334,931

  180,666

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  247,270

  247,270

  247,270

  850

  Hampshire

  177,125

  397,838

  250,513

  851

  Portsmouth

  217,491

  217,491

  217,491

  852

  Southampton

  483,237

  483,237

  483,237

  855

  Leicestershire

  634,726

  1,048,455

  811,986

  856

  Leicester City

  3,255,001

  3,645,064

  3,645,064

  857

  Rutland

  —

  0

  1,630

  860

  Staffordshire

  490,666

  490,666

  528,985

  898W

  899W

  £

  Total allocation

  LEA number

  LEA

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  2001–02

  861

  Stoke-on-Trent

  614,112

  614,112

  614,112

  865

  Wiltshire

  —

  280,985

  89,375

  866

  Swindon

  178,352

  128,473

  142,712

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  18,058

  23,219

  868

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  242,142

  281,552

  307,795

  869

  West Berkshire

  —

  20,692

  26,541

  870

  Reading

  503,353

  480,975

  480,975

  871

  Slough

  1,084,527

  1,238,694

  1,344,916

  872

  Wokinghain

  25,109

  297,927

  72,947

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  461,390

  889,509

  456,390

  874

  Peterborough

  1,008,312

  1,084,212

  981,212

  875

  Cheshire

  —

  280,000

  35,384

  876

  Halton

  —

  0

  4,175

  877

  Warrington

  110,886

  108,886

  108,886

  878

  Devon

  17,597

  325,827

  36,839

  879

  Plymouth

  108,390

  108,390

  108,390

  880

  Torbay

  —

  3,563

  6,159

  881

  Essex

  10,658

  548,237

  124,623

  882

  Southend-on-Sea

  —

  17,583

  31,111

  883

  Thurrock

  51,146

  133,954

  72,670

  884

  Herefordshire

  —

  2,019

  3,480

  885

  Worcestershire

  374,099

  374,099

  374,099

  886

  Kent

  1,824,159

  2,459,221

  1,824,159

  887

  Medway

  456,320

  343,320

  343,320

  888

  Lancashire

  4,134,560

  4,506,176

  4,134,560

  889

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2,069,706

  2,069,706

  2,069,706

  890

  Blackpool

  —

  5,176

  8,491

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  176,832

  362,633

  267,267

  892

  Nottingham City

  1,989,797

  2,004,797

  1,973,797

  893

  Shropshire

  —

  35,230

  39,608

  894

  Telford and Wrekin

  216,498

  211,140

  228,496

  908

  Cornwall

  —

  124,501

  10,843

  909

  Cumbria

  —

  86,920

  12,900

  916

  Gloucestershire

  329,641

  534,935

  361,118

  919

  Hertfordshire

  2,272,207

  2,841,259

  2,272,207

  921

  Isle Of Wight

  —

  0

  4,168

  925

  Lincolnshire

  124,699

  369,384

  153,817

  926

  Norfolk

  317,925

  679,779

  305,925

  928

  Northamptonshire

  837,562

  1,139,918

  837,562

  929

  Northumberland

  —

  89,118

  12,271

  931

  Oxfordshire

  690,665

  1,188,472

  742,282

  933

  Somerset

  94,353

  246,840

  94,353

  935

  Suffolk

  357,869

  519,886

  356,984

  936

  Surrey

  433,308

  886,970

  596,398

  937

  Warwickshire

  1,498,412

  1,498,412

  1,498,412

  938

  West Sussex

  312,228

  571,061

  430,072

  England Total

  139,274,586

  162,946,443

  153,907,740

  1For 2000–01 Ethnic Minority Achievement grant was combined with Traveller Achievement grant. It is not possible to disaggregate the figures for each.

  Note:

  All figures include both DIES grant and LEA contribution

  Organisational Requirements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirements have been(a) placed on and (b) removed from (i) head teachers, (ii) school governors, (iii) local education authorities, (iv) universities, (v) further education and sixth form colleges, (vi) the Office for Standards in Education and (vii) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in each year since 1997. [49799]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people, broken down

  by sector and region (a) have undertaken and (b) are undertaking modern apprenticeships. [49849]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following tables contain the requested information. The first table contains the total number of starts on Advanced Modern Apprenticeships (AMA) and Foundation Modern Apprenticeships (FMA) between September 1995 and December 2001. The second table contains the number in learning on
  901W
  23 December 2001. For both tables, the breakdown sector and region is estimated from incomplete information. Where the total number of learners in a

  Number of modern apprenticeships undertaken from September 1995 to December 2001

  Sector

  South East

  London

  Eastern

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire and Humber

  North West

  North East

  England

  101 Agriculture and commercial horticulture

  190

  50

  380

  1,130

  770

  430

  760

  567

  220

  4,500

  102 Business administration

  10,220

  6,080

  9,130

  8,100

  13,700

  9,880

  13,610

  21,928

  12,030

  104,540

  103 Chemicals industry

  30

  20

  10

  0

  20

  10

  170

  462

  150

  860

  104 Early years care and education

  4,480

  4,750

  1,900

  2,330

  3,090

  2,250

  1,730

  4,893

  890

  26,360

  105 Electrotechnical industry

  3,010

  2,300

  1,850

  2,280

  2,100

  2,190

  2,240

  3,390

  730

  20,110

  106 Engineering manufacture

  7,500

  2,360

  4,550

  6,260

  7,790

  5,130

  5,940

  11,044

  5,680

  56,230

  107 Engineering construction

  100

  20

  40

  10

  90

  40

  70

  345

  490

  1,170

  108 Information technology

  2,950

  1,920

  1,900

  1,280

  1,710

  1,800

  5,520

  2,670

  1,710

  21,440

  111 Polymers

  0

  10

  20

  0

  40

  70

  60

  48

  10

  270

  112 Retailing

  10,030

  9,140

  9,530

  5,840

  9,290

  5,460

  8,900

  11,418

  7,430

  77,070

  113 Steel industry

  40

  10

  30

  70

  340

  80

  290

  50

  50

  960

  115 Travel services

  1,410

  990

  970

  1,470

  1,420

  760

  1,100

  2,056

  650

  10,830

  116 Construction

  4,940

  2,130

  5,490

  4,460

  4,770

  4,860

  7,490

  11,206

  4,890

  50,140

  117 Plumbing

  1,370

  730

  910

  1,070

  970

  1,150

  1,260

  1,752

  720

  9,940

  201 Accountancy

  1,840

  820

  1,550

  1,520

  1,990

  2,010

  2,210

  3,009

  920

  15,860

  202 Aviation

  210

  110

  300

  60

  2,030

  10

  30

  330

  0

  3,100

  204 Craft baking

  40

  10

  40

  80

  50

  50

  20

  233

  120

  640

  205 Builders merchants

  90

  50

  60

  60

  100

  50

  80

  146

  50

  680

  206 Bus and coach

  40

  70

  70

  20

  420

  10

  0

  305

  0

  930

  210 Clothing

  10

  10

  20

  0

  70

  140

  120

  292

  100

  740

  211 Electricity supply industry

  60

  50

  70

  40

  40

  70

  100

  113

  10

  540

  212 Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

  510

  770

  300

  440

  300

  310

  380

  728

  150

  3,900

  213 Residential estate agency

  390

  210

  400

  220

  130

  90

  60

  146

  70

  1,730

  214 Furniture manufacture

  80

  10

  30

  90

  30

  200

  150

  427

  20

  1,030

  216 Glass

  100

  40

  70

  120

  140

  180

  250

  1,074

  40

  2,000

  217 Hairdressing

  8,310

  5,890

  5,940

  5,520

  5,630

  4,720

  6,220

  10,413

  3,960

  56,620

  219 Amenity horticulture

  640

  130

  420

  490

  390

  290

  260

  751

  200

  3,580

  220 Hospitality

  9,550

  9,660

  8,030

  7,300

  9,180

  7,110

  7,040

  11,639

  3,980

  73,610

  225 Meat industry

  50

  0

  350

  50

  360

  220

  180

  450

  150

  1,800

  227 Printing

  500

  690

  400

  440

  200

  360

  510

  570

  160

  3,830

  228 Road haulage and distribution

  450

  60

  180

  130

  120

  210

  350

  350

  310

  2,160

  230 Security

  90

  550

  50

  130

  20

  20

  40

  493

  70

  1,470

  231 Sports and recreation

  1,810

  1,010

  1,000

  1,020

  920

  390

  800

  2,175

  580

  9,700

  232 Telecommunications

  490

  1,640

  260

  1,970

  320

  70

  260

  686

  200

  5,930

  234 Marine industry

  130

  0

  70

  270

  0

  10

  30

  153

  70

  730

  235 Motor industry

  5,880

  3,740

  3,820

  6,020

  4,120

  4,650

  4,390

  6,411

  2,330

  41,410

  236 Health and social care

  6,920

  2,100

  4,110

  5,340

  5,460

  3,080

  4,790

  9,261

  3,560

  44,610

  237 Newspapers

  40

  60

  10

  20

  50

  10

  10

  78

  0

  270

  241 Banking services

  0

  230

  90

  0

  220

  120

  50

  7

  0

  730

  244 Floristry

  160

  30

  100

  130

  100

  40

  80

  148

  40

  840

  247 Horse industry

  70

  10

  160

  90

  50

  80

  20

  63

  20

  550

  248 Insurance

  50

  290

  120

  130

  220

  80

  110

  452

  10

  1,460

  254 Agriculture and garden machinery

  80

  0

  170

  280

  240

  180

  180

  105

  40

  1,270

  257 Electronic system servicing

  260

  80

  60

  10

  250

  20

  50

  38

  0

  760

  259 International trade

  50

  110

  80

  20

  100

  20

  60

  106

  10

  560

  260 Management

  260

  360

  260

  220

  400

  280

  150

  367

  240

  2,540

  262 Animal care

  560

  370

  1,560

  760

  540

  520

  490

  626

  240

  5,690

  263 Customer service

  6,990

  10,040

  5,010

  5,250

  5,490

  5,940

  5,610

  10,370

  5,180

  59,930

  264 Food and drink

  70

  0

  110

  60

  50

  210

  260

  419

  40

  1,200

  265 Gas industry

  120

  60

  70

  50

  70

  30

  140

  211

  20

  770

  267 Warehousing

  240

  80

  230

  140

  360

  300

  360

  590

  240

  2,550

  276 Textiles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  200

  170

  42

  0

  440

  270 Health and beauty therapy

  10

  0

  0

  20

  20

  20

  30

  64

  60

  230

  282 Building services engineers

  10

  30

  0

  20

  40

  30

  0

  72

  0

  210

  283 Manufacturing

  40

  0

  80

  100

  340

  40

  320

  314

  40

  1,260

  Sources:

  Trainee Database System (to 25 March 2001)

  LSC Individualised Learner Records (from 26 March 2001)

  Number undertaking modern apprenticeships on 23 December 2001

  Sector

  South East

  London

  Eastern

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire and Humber

  North West

  North East

  England

  101 Agriculture and commercial horticulture

  50

  50

  140

  350

  360

  140

  190

  220

  40

  1,530

  102 Business administration

  2,490

  1,370

  2,250

  2,060

  3,280

  2,280

  3,610

  5,190

  2,680

  25,200

  104 Early years care and education

  1,610

  1,690

  720

  970

  1,090

  830

  510

  1,840

  320

  9,590

  105 Electrical installation eng./national electrot

  970

  1,070

  730

  940

  850

  750

  810

  820

  220

  7,160

  106 Engineering manufacture

  3,740

  730

  1,600

  2,780

  2,690

  1,840

  2,110

  4,200

  1,900

  21,590

  107 Engineering construction (AMA only)

  40

  50

  30

  20

  130

  10

  60

  150

  260

  740

  108 Information technology

  940

  370

  340

  280

  430

  310

  1,290

  550

  480

  5,000

  112 Retailing

  1,840

  1,260

  1,800

  1,180

  1,540

  970

  1,850

  2,110

  1,200

  13,750

  115 Travel services

  100

  180

  30

  340

  250

  30

  60

  360

  40

  1,390

  116 Construction

  2,040

  740

  2,250

  1,760

  1,680

  1,620

  2,420

  3,780

  1,820

  18,110

  117 Plumbing

  660

  310

  400

  500

  450

  470

  540

  710

  270

  4,320

  201 Accountancy

  490

  130

  360

  390

  450

  500

  610

  840

  210

  3,980

  202 Aviation

  110

  10

  140

  50

  2,000

  0

  10

  200

  0

  2,540

  902W
  sector across all regions is estimated to be 200 or less, no sector and region is estimated from incomplete estimate is provided. All other estimates are rounded to nearest 10.
  903W

  Number undertaking modern apprenticeships on 23 December 2001

  Sector

  South East

  London

  Eastern

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire and Humber

  North West

  North East

  England

  206 Bus and coach

  10

  20

  40

  0

  140

  0

  0

  80

  0

  290

  211 Electricity supply industry (AMA only)

  20

  10

  10

  50

  90

  60

  70

  40

  0

  350

  212 Heating, ventilation, air conditioning and

  refrigeration.

  120

  320

  90

  140

  110

  50

  210

  330

  20

  1,390

  213 Residential estate agency

  90

  10

  50

  40

  30

  20

  20

  10

  20

  280

  215 Furniture manufacture

  60

  10

  20

  20

  10

  90

  100

  180

  0

  490

  216 Glass

  10

  0

  0

  30

  0

  0

  20

  540

  0

  600

  217 Hairdressing

  2,450

  1,370

  1,760

  1,650

  1,560

  1,300

  1,750

  3,050

  1,120

  16,020

  219 Amenity horticulture

  280

  30

  150

  160

  110

  120

  110

  310

  70

  1,350

  220 Hospitality

  2,380

  1,450

  1,800

  1,900

  2,320

  1,970

  1,730

  3,070

  1,030

  17,640

  225 Meat industry

  0

  0

  70

  10

  60

  50

  30

  80

  40

  340

  227 Printing

  20

  30

  50

  50

  50

  70

  90

  100

  20

  480

  230 Security

  10

  220

  0

  30

  0

  0

  10

  160

  10

  450

  231 Sports and recreation

  520

  260

  350

  250

  290

  70

  250

  720

  170

  2,870

  232 Telecommunications

  80

  1,220

  120

  900

  110

  0

  60

  200

  300

  2,720

  233 Timber trade (wood machining) (AMA only)

  10

  40

  20

  40

  20

  50

  30

  30

  0

  240

  234 Marine industry (AMA only)

  30

  0

  0

  180

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21(1

  235 Motor industry

  1,480

  930

  750

  1,810

  930

  1,060

  1,120

  1,840

  740

  10,660

  236 Health and social care

  1,760

  650

  1,090

  1,440

  1,240

  830

  1,280

  2,340

  950

  11,560

  244 Floristry

  70

  10

  30

  40

  30

  10

  30

  50

  10

  270

  247 Horse industry

  80

  120

  250

  150

  70

  90

  50

  90

  10

  910

  248 Insurance

  60

  80

  50

  100

  30

  60

  40

  180

  0

  590

  254 Agriculture and garden machinery

  40

  0

  40

  100

  90

  70

  60

  50

  10

  460

  257 Electronic system servicing

  130

  40

  30

  50

  20

  10

  20

  30

  0

  32(1

  260 Management (AMA only)

  180

  170

  120

  120

  170

  120

  80

  210

  110

  1,261

  262 Animal care

  80

  40

  290

  90

  60

  20

  70

  140

  50

  830

  263 Customer service

  1,960

  1,730

  1,250

  1,240

  1,390

  1,590

  1,510

  2,800

  1,400

  14,87(1

  264 Food and drink manufacturing operations

  40

  20

  50

  70

  60

  80

  80

  150

  40

  580

  265 Gas industry (AMA only)

  40

  10

  0

  20

  10

  0

  50

  90

  10

  23(1

  267 Warehousing

  140

  50

  200

  110

  270

  190

  230

  510

  190

  1,900

  283 Manufacturing operation (FMA only)

  30

  0

  20

  90

  230

  20

  120

  150

  10

  670

  Sources:

  Trainee Database System (to 25 March 2001)

  LSC Individualised Learner Records (from 26 March 2001)

  Mathematics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how she plans to replace the British mathematics students who have dropped the subject after taking their AS-level examinations. [49853]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In response to concerns about the high failure rate in AS mathematics in summer 2001, the Secretary of State commissioned the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to investigate the cause as part of the Review of Curriculum 2000.

  This review is expected to result in revised specifications for first teaching from 2004. In the meantime, there will be an additional opportunity for students to sit mathematics units in the autumn of 2002 to 2004 inclusive, and additional funding for teaching these units.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of her Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48391]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental annual reports.

  Television Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the number of subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by her Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [48337]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: My Department has four subscriptions to digital satellite at a cost of approximately £5,000 per year and up to 25 subscriptions to digital cable at a cost of approximately £15,000 per year. We do not have any subscriptions to digital terrestrial television. The purpose of the subscriptions is for parliamentary business and constant access to news and House of Commons transmissions.

  Property Protection
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what new measures her Department took in 2001–02 to protect its property from theft or damage. [47324]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: My Department takes physical security of its headquarter buildings seriously and is constantly looking at ways to improve the systems in place. As well as introducing new measures we already have a number of security measures/systems in place, which include:
  Clear written policy that is communicated to all staff;
  Asset registers and inventories that record asset descriptions, serial numbers, location, who has responsibility for them and value;

  905W
  "Ownership" of assets assigned to named individuals;
  Periodic checks (both management and independent) to confirm the continued existence and condition of assets;
  Passes needed by staff giving permission to take assets such as laptops and projectors out of Government buildings;
  Random searches of bags by security staff;
  Clear written procedures about what to do when assets are damaged or go missing; and
  Security markings on equipment.

  Additional measures that have been introduced during 2001–02 include the:
  Upgrading of the alarm system on the London estate so that it is capable of detecting movement on roofs and within its buildings;
  Fitting of alarms to the main computer stores on the London estate;
  Replacing the doors to the IT server with stronger materials to prevent forced access;
  Electronic tagging of any new laptops which are supplied from our Information Technology team. This system records the exact time and date when the equipment leaves the building; and
  Upgrading of the photo pass equipment on all headquarter sites to digital images which are stored electronically.

  Secondments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many members of staff were employed by jer Department on secondment from non-Governmental organisations in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45229]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Since April 1999, 19 members of staff have been seconded to this Department from non-Government organisations, as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1999-31 March 2000

  9

  1 April 2000-31 March 2001

  14

  1 April 2001—31 March 2002

  6

  Where a secondment covers two or more financial years, it has been counted in all the financial years it Occurs.

  Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the companies from which her Department has obtained timber and wood products and the total spent with each firm over the last five years. [43404]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff in her Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41084]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the former Department for Education and Employment one member of staff in the press office received a termination payment in 2001. No other such payments were made in the preceding three years, and there were no redundancies.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will ltst the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost to public funds in each case is. [38938]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Unlicensed Medicines
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those websites that have been(a) closed and (b) forced to amend their webpages by the Medicines Control Agency due to breaching the law on the sale of unlicensed medicines via the internet since March 2000; [39022]

  (2) how many prosecutions by the Medicines Control Agency against sellers of unlicensed medicines via the Internet (a) have been undertaken, (b) have been successful and (c) are in preparation since 12 July 2000. [39023]

  Ms Blears
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has no powers contained within its statutory enforcement provisions to force closure of websites. However, MCA achieves compliance from internet service providers who are given advice on UK legislation. Websites are usually withdrawn or modified to comply with UK law.

  To date the MCA has achieved six site closures through voluntary compliance from ISPs, seven compliances by operators amending their website, one successful prosecution and 12 referrals to other Government agencies or overseas enforcement authorities.

  There are 10 further cases under investigation.

  As a matter of policy the MCA does not publish details of voluntary compliance.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) appraisals and (b) sets of guidelines were issued by NICE in (i) Q4 2000–01 and (ii) Q1, (iii) Q2 and (iv) Q3 in 2001–02. [46284]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of technology appraisals

  Number of clinical guidelines

  January-March 2001

  5

  0

  April-June 2001

  4

  3

  July-September 2001

  4

  1

  October-December 2001

  1

  0

  Total 2001

  14

  4

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence also published "Referral advice, a guide to appropriate referral from general to specialist service" in December 2001.
  907W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appraisals of new or existing technologies by NICE were produced in 2001. [47293]

  Yvette Cooper
  holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) today.

  GP Home Visits
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce compulsory home visits by GPs for elderly patients. [39455]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no plans to vary the existing arrangements. General medical services general practitioners (GPs) must currently offer to make an annual home visit to all patients aged 75 years or over. GPs working within personal medical services are required to make arrangements which best meet the needs of the local population, including elderly patients, but the detail of the arrangements are a matter to be agreed locally as part of the Personal Medical Services pilot agreement.

  Registered Homes Act
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most recent date of publication has been of the statistical report on private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984. [40873]

  Jacqui Smith
  The statistical bulletin—"Community Care Statistics 2000—Private Nursing Homes, Hospitals and Clinics" was published in February 2001.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42477]

  Ms Blears
  As any annual leave taken by staff is recorded and checked locally by business areas within the Department, there is no centrally held information available on the cost of parental leave taken by staff.

  The Department has for some time had a special leave policy enabling its staff to take parental leave. Since it came into force the Department has complied with the Parental Leave Directive. As a responsible employer the Department is committed to supporting its staff to work flexibly around their family responsibilities and has a flexible working pattern policy and a child care and carer support scheme. The Department benefits by retaining skilled staff and being valued as an employer.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of time taken to answer letters to Ministers has been in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [43948]

  Ms Blears
  For the calendar year 2001, the average time Ministers have taken to reply to letters is 22.91 days.
  908W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter dated 17 October 2001 from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell relating, to any inquiry by Mr. Reeve of 6 Wellesford Close Banstead, Surrey. [48209]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 23 October 2001.

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff of his Department are members of the Territorial forces; and if he has a strategy to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces. [44069]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not record details of civil service staff who are also members of the Territorial forces.

  The Civil Service Management Code (paragraph 9.2.5) requires Departments and agencies to allow members of the Reserve Forces, Territorial Army or Cadet Forces time off work. The decision over whether such time off is, paid or unpaid has been delegated to Departments and agencies.

  The Department has a special leave policy that allows members of the Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces to take special leave with pay for periods of training. Staff are also permitted to accept payments in respect of their membership of the Reserve Forces. Territorial Army and Cadet Forces.

  Advertising
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department will spend on advertising, other than for job vacancies, in the current financial year. [43883]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has spent £19.81 million so far on advertising in this current financial year.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Department has spent on the Queen's Jubilee in each of the past three years; how the money was allocated; and if he will make a statement. [44597]

  Ms Blears
  No specific allocations have been made for expenditure on the Jubilee by the Department. Information is not collected centrally in a form to identify any incidental expenditure that may have taken place.

  Staff (Locally Elected Representative)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff at his Department are locally elected democratic representatives; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives. [44544]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not record details of civil service staff who are locally elected democratic representatives.
  909W
  Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) requires employers to allow their staff reasonable time off for public duties. The Civil Service Management Code (paragraph 9.2.5) also requires departments to allow time off for attendance required by section 50 of the ERA 1996.

  Special leave policy rests with individual departments and agencies who are free to decide on the amounts of special leave, and the circumstances for which it is granted and whether such leave is paid or unpaid.

  As part of its commitment to encouraging staff to be active in the community, the Department of Health has a special leave policy that allows staff who are elected members of local authorities an annual limit of 18 days paid leave.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been employed by his Department in each of the last three years under(a) the New Deal for Young People, (b) the New Deal for the Over 50s and (c) the New Deal for Lone Parents; and at what cost, listed by category, to public funds. [44925]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not record New Deal recruits under these categories.

  New Deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs to public funds are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot be readily identified.

  Since joining the scheme in 1998 the Department of Health has taken 72 New Deal recruits. The Department also regularly provides Cabinet Office with New Deal statistics for progress reports for Department for Work and Pensions Ministers on recruitment to meet the benchmark figure for civil service participation in the New Deal programme.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people employed by his Department under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [44905]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not held centrally on the number of New Dealers who have found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks or who have returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44867]

  Ms Blears
  While the Department does not provide creche facilities for its staff, it does provide staff with an allowance towards the cost of nursery care.

  The allowance year runs concurrently with the academic year and the cost of providing nursery allowance (£600 per parent) for the last academic year 1 September 2000 to 31 August 2001) was £95,725.

  Anaesthetic Services
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of anaesthetic services(a) in the Scarborough accident and emergency Yorkshire NHS Trust area and (b) in the Yorkshire and north-east area as a whole. [45107]

  Ms Blears
  Clinical governance was introduced into the national health service for the first time in 1999. This is underpinned by a statutory duty of quality on NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities in the Health Act 1999, which requires them to put and keep in place arrangements for monitoring and improving the quality of health care they provide.

  In the case of the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust, difficulties were identified in the provision of services for general anaesthetics across the trust due to a shortage of consultant anaesthetists. In order to ensure adequate cover, the trust decided to restrict operations that require general anaesthetics to three sites and as Malton Community Hospital was the site with the lowest general anaesthetic activity, general anaesthetic services at Malton will cease with effect from 1 April 2002. From that date patients will either have their operations under a local anaesthetic, where appropriate, in Malton or be treated under a general anaesthetic at one of the trust's other sites at Scarborough, Bridlington or Whitby.

  National Care Standards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2002, ref 43898, on National Care Standards, how many and what percentage of care homes have completed their(a) application for registration, (b) statement of purpose and (c) application for registration; and what enforcement action the Commission can take if compliance with these standards is not achieved. [45659]

  Jacqui Smith
  As of 1 April 2002 the National Care Standards Commission had received approximately 2,500 applications from providers and managers who were required to apply for registration by that date. It is not possible to say how many of these applications are from care homes since the commission is still assessing from which service areas the applications originated and the associated documentation with them.

  Providers who have submitted their application for registration will be given protection from section 11(1) of the Care Standards Act until their application can be processed by the commission. Providers who failed to submit their application for registration by 31 March are committing an offence under section 11(1), of the Act. However, before taking prosecution action as set out at section 11(5), we would expect the commission to take account of the circumstances as to why an application was not made.

  Nursing Care Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is towards nursing homes passing on an administration charge to residents for the payment of the free nursing care money. [46575]
  911W
  Jacqui Smith
  The allocations made to health authorities for NHS funded nursing care include an amount for general administration. In implementing the arrangements, the national health service has been asked to ensure that the administrative burdens on both the NHS and homes should be kept to a minimum. Care homes with concerns about the administrative burden should raise this with the responsible local NHS service body.

  NHS Procurement
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 304W, on Procure 21, if he will list the pilot areas for the NHS procurement initiative Procure 21; and what the minimum financial level will be of the contract which will be awarded in relation to NHS Procure 21. [46322]

  Mr. Hutton
  Procure 21 comprises programmes to improve the performance of the NHS as a client of the construction industry, to improve design, and to introduce partnering frameworks. "Best Client" and design initiatives apply nationally. Partnering frameworks are being piloted in the North West and West Midlands regions of the NHS. The minimum financial value of contracts that will be awarded under NHS Procure 21 will be £1 million (this is the works cost as defined in the NHS Capital Investment Manual). This information was detailed in the Contract Notices placed in the Supplement to the European Journal in April 2001 (refs Works Contracts (Publicly Funded Schemes) 2001/S 71-048469, Services Contracts (PFI/PPP Schemes) 2001/S 71-048708).

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a decision was made after the pilot scheme on the best use of a Government procurement card in his Department. [45721]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: On 7 April 2000, it was decided that use of the Government procurement card should be made available to any units across the Department who can justify its issue in terms of the transactions they undertake.

  Autism
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding was made available to the Medical Research Council for research into autism each year from 1992 to 2001; and how the £2.5 million funding available to the Medical Research Council for continued research into autism will be used. [46423]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) funds a large amount of work on the causes and treatment of autism, and to increase the knowledge base of issues surrounding autism. In recent years the MRC has spent the following amounts on autism research:

  £

  1996–97

  826,000

  1997–98

  905,000

  1998–99

  1,041,000

  1999–2000

  1,114,000

  2000–01

  1,182,000

  912W
  Information for earlier years is not readily available.

  I announced on 14 February an extra £2.5 million to the MRC to help them to take forward recommendations on further research contained in their report of their review of the epidemiology and causes of autism. The additional funds provide the opportunity for the MRC to accelerate research on autism, building on existing strengths and addressing gaps which were identified in the report. It will complement and add to the MRC's current support for research in this field. It is likely that the range of research supported will be broader than that of the MRC review and may include research to develop and evaluate interventions. Previous research has not been supported from ring-fenced funding. We will continue to pursue our constructive dialogue with the MRC on autism research.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason he has not yet issued guidance on atypical and traditional anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia; when he expects to issue guidance to NICE to investigate the use of atypical and traditional anti-psychotic medication for older people in care settings; and if he will make a statement [46554]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is appraising atypical anti-psychotic drugs for schizophrenia. NICE has produced its final appraisal determination which is subject to appeal. We are not in a position, until the result of the appeals is known, to state when guidance will be issued.

  There are no plans at present for NICE to consider separately the use of anti-psychotic drugs for older people in care settings. Through measures such as the National Service Framework for Older People and the Care Standards Act, we have set out clear requirements for the proper management of medicines for older people.

  Pharmacies
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the limited opening hours of local pharmacies on Sundays. [44040]

  Ms Blears
  Under the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 arrangements for pharmacies to open on Sundays are determined locally.

  "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan" commits the NHS, in partnership with NHS Direct, local pharmacies and patient representatives, to review arrangements so that patients who need medicines out of hours will get them easily. We plan to issue advice for the NHS later this year.

  Residential Care
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concerning the use of rural leisure accommodation for residential care for the elderly. [47028]
  913W
  Jacqui Smith
  No discussions have taken place on this subject with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There are no proposals that rural leisure accommodation should be used to provide residential care for the elderly.

  Public Relations Companies
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which public relations companies have been used by the NHS; how much money has been spent in the past 12 months on each of them; and on which projects. [47850]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Intermediate Care Beds
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the composition in terms of location of the extra intermediate care beds which have been introduced, and are planned to be introduced, under the National Plan. [47843]

  Jacqui Smith
  A survey of NHS intermediate care in England was carried out in August 2001. Local health and social care communities were asked to provide data for intermediate care services in place in 1999–2000, and those planned at that time for 2001–02, to enable progress lin achieving the NHS Plan targets for intermediate care beds and places to be measured.

  The results of the survey showed that by the end of 2001–02 there would be, compared to the baseline of 1999–2000, around an additional 2,400 intermediate care beds. The full results of the survey, giving data by region and by health authority, are in the Library.

  Haemodialysis Stations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) new and (b) replacement haemodialysis stations have come into operation since the publication of the NHS National Plan. [47009]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since the publication of the NHS Plan in July 2000, capital modernisation allocations from the Department have wholly or partly funded the delivery of 277 new and 22 replacement haemodialysis stations in England. These are in addition to those implemented locally by the NHS in line with regional expansion and development programmes.

  Table 1: Number of discharges where the main diagnosis was malnutrition and mental illness was a secondary diagnosis, by age and year; finished episodes, 1996–97 to 2000–01; NHS Hospitals in England

  Age

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  All 5 years

  0–16

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3

  17–24

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  3

  25–44

  4

  10

  11

  5

  11

  41

  45–64

  16

  19

  20

  6

  14

  75

  65–74

  7

  8

  14

  7

  4

  40

  75–84

  2

  3

  3

  4

  8

  20

  85+

  3

  2

  4

  0

  0

  9

  Total

  32

  42

  52

  22

  37

  185

  Mental Health
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the London region of the NHS decided to reduce the number of mental health services bought from outside London. [47500]

  Jacqui Smith
  London is developing local national health service mental health services, in line with the adult mental health national service framework and NHS Plan. The development and expansion of local services will also reduce London's reliance on out of London placements in the independent sector and on other NHS facilities. This will mean less travelling for patients and their carers and is therefore supported by them. Where local services do not exist, London will continue to use mental health facilities outside of London based on clinical advice and appropriate services being available.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of people, broken down by age, were(a) admitted and (b) discharged from hospital in each of the last five years where the main diagnosis was mental illness, but the patients also suffered malnourishment. [40579]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: There was one admission and one discharge from NHS Hospitals in England in 2000–01 with a main diagnosis of mental illness and with malnutrition as a secondary diagnosis. The admission and discharge were aged over 85. There were no discharges or admissions in the previous four years (1996–97 to 1999–2000).
  Note:
  Malnutrition = ICD-10: E40–E46; mental illness = ICD-10: F00–F99.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of people, broken down by age, were(a) admitted and (b) discharged from hospital in each of the last five years where the main diagnosis was malnourishment, but the patients also suffered from mental illness. [40578]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The figures represent the number of discharges (table 1) and admissions (table 2) to NHS hospitals in England, where the main diagnosis was malnutrition and mental illness was a secondary diagnosis, by age in each of the last five years.

  Between 0 per cent. and 0.002 per cent. of all discharges and admissions had a main diagnosis of malnutrition with mental illness as a secondary diagnosis.
  Note:
  Malnutrition = ICD-10: E40-E46; mental illness = ICD-10: F00-F99.
  915W

  Table 2: Number of admissions where the main diagnosis was malnutrition and mental illness was a secondary diagnosis, by age and year; finished episodes, 1996–97 to 2000–01; NHS Hospitals in England

  Age

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  All 5 years

  0–16

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3

  17–24

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  3

  25–44

  8

  15

  11

  8

  12

  54

  45–64

  20

  21

  19

  15

  18

  93

  65–74

  7

  8

  18

  13

  6

  52

  75–84

  11

  10

  7

  8

  16

  52

  85+

  9

  4

  4

  4

  3

  24

  Total

  55

  58

  59

  48

  55

  275

  Notes:

  1. Admissions are defined as the "first" period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. Discharge episodes are defined as the last period of in-patient care and ends with death, discharge or a transferred to other hospital.

  3. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  4. Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2000–01 which is not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  NHS Treatment
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements exist for paying the travel costs of people from outside London who travel to London for specialist NHS treatment not available in their region. [41285]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Hospital Travel Costs Scheme which is part of the NHS Low Income Scheme exists to assist patients with the cost of travel to hospital for NHS treatment under the care of a consultant, irrespective of the distance to be travelled. The scheme is intended to assist patients on low incomes to receive full or partial reimbursement of reasonable expenses for travel to hospital by the cheapest means of travel available to the patient.

  Primary Care Workforce Review
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the contributors to the Primary Care Workforce Review have received copies of the final report; [42587]

  (2) when he will publish (a) the report and (b) the conclusions of the Primary Care Workforce report; and if he will place copies in the Library. [42589]

  (3) when his Department received the Primary Care Workforce review; and if he will make a statement. [42590]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Primary Care Workforce Review was an internal exercise conducted and written by the Department, which engaged with a large group of external stakeholders. This review covered both the numbers and skills of staff needed in primary care and how the workforce should be planned in future years. Ministers received a draft report on these issues last year.

  The work underpinning the review will form the basis of guidance on workforce planning in primary care to be issued shortly.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private care and acute NHS trusts which 916W
  have applied to share in resources for monitoring hearing aid services in 2002–03 and, in respect of each, the sum of money awarded. [45980]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: We will announce the national health service trusts that will be taking part in the second wave pilot when a decision has been made. Private hospitals will not be involved in the project. A small pilot project is about to begin to look at the possible role that private sector hearing aid dispensers could have in a modernised NHS hearing aid service.

  National Care Standards Commission's Business Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the National Care Standards Commission's business plan; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [45640]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The National Care Standard Commission is expected to publish its business plan in late April or early May. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Inspection Consistency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that there is consistency between Commission for Health Improvement and National Care Standards Commission regulation inspections. [45644]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: We will be bringing section 9 of the Care Standards Act 2000 into force shortly and making regulations so that the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) and the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) may arrange for CHI to exercise NCSC's function on its behalf in relation to independent hospitals. We will be preparing these regulations and discussing their implementation with the chief executives of CHI and NCSC to enable appropriate arrangements to be brought into force later this year.

  Care Workers (Training)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the total number of staff working in the(a) health sector and (b) social care sector with NVQ level II in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [45632]

  (2) how many people in the care sector in each of the last five years (a) obtained National Vocational Qualification level II and (b) held National Vocational Qualification level II; and how many staff were working in the sector. [45622]

  (3) what estimates he has made of the cost (a) to local authorities, (b) to health authorities, (c) to individuals and (d) in total of training care workers to NVQ level II. [45633]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: Although we collect data about the number of staff who work in local council's social services departments every year, information about the number of staff working in social care in the voluntary and private sectors has only been collected through ad-hoc surveys which look at specific service user areas. From this information we estimate that there are over one million people in the social care workforce.

  We do not hold data on the "total" numbers of staff in either the health or social care sectors that hold their NVQ Level 2. Some data on the numbers of local council social services staff who have either already achieved their Care Level 2 NVQ, or who are working towards attainment of this qualification has been collected through the Training Support Programme (TSP) Grant since 1999. Other data on the numbers of social care staff who hold qualifications has been obtained though various ad-hoc surveys.

  Data about the numbers of social care staff with NVQ Level 2 taken from the training support programme grant forms

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Number Holding NVQ Level 2 at the beginning of the year

  5,357

  11,627

  15,480

  Number Achieving NVQ Level 2 during the year

  3,004

  4,595

  1—

  1Data is not yet available on the numbers of staff who completed their NVQ Level 2 during 2001–02.

  The above table shows the data about completion of Care NVQ Level 2 that has been collected through the Training Support Programme grant since April 1999. Although data was collected about the completion of NVQs prior to this date it was not split between the various levels.

  The staff that have attained their NVQ Level 2s will be mainly employees of the local council social services department, but some may be working for voluntary or private social care employers who are contracted by the local council to provide statutory services.

  In the report "Who Cares? A Profile of the Independent Sector Home Care Workforce" (which was produced in September 2000) it states that there were an estimated 121,500 home care workers and 5,000 home care managers working in the independent home care industry. Of the 1292 home care staff who responded to the survey, 8.2 per cent. held an NVQ Level 2.
  918W
  In future, we are anticipating NVQ information to be available centrally on most healthcare staff in the form of the Electronic Staff Record. This system is being developed currently and is intended to be operational for all staff employed by the NHS in hospital and community health services from early 2005.

  The National Care Standards Commission will be collecting data about both the number of staff who work in the services that they regulate, and the qualifications that staff and managers hold. We are presently considering what other systems can be implemented in order to collect data for the whole of the social care workforce.

  The National Training Strategy "Modernising the Social Care Workforce" considers the cost of improving the qualifications of the social care workforce and in Appendix 5 it provides calculations showing the estimated costs of numbers of staff undertaking qualifications over the five year period 2000–05. However, these calculations do not give a breakdown of the cost per employer or individual. They consider the cost of staff who work in a particular client group area achieving a specific qualification.

  Funding has been provided to help implement this Training Strategy with £2 million being disseminated through the National Training Organisation for Social Care (TOPSS) for 2001–02. This amount has been used to promote and embed Induction Training. There will be £15 million in the Training Strategy Implementation Fund for 2002–03 and it is intended to use these funds to enable various staff to undertake Induction Training; to compete the new Registered Managers NVQ Level 4 and to undertake Assessor, Verifier and Mentor training.

  Care Home Standards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps the National Care Standards Commission will take if a care home is failing to comply with National Minimum Standard 18; [45631]

  (2) how he plans to measure the compliance of care homes on National Minimum Standard 18 of the Care Standards Act 2000. [45643]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: It will be for the National Care Standards Commission to decide in the particular circumstances of each individual home whether the home conforms to the standards necessary to meet the assessed needs of its residents.

  Where a care home fails to comply with one or more standards the Commission will have a number of options as to what action to take. The Commission's decision will depend on the degree to which the home fails to meet the standards and the risk to the welfare of the residents. The Commission could impose requirements on the care home to make improvements in a given time scale and monitor the home to ensure that this is done. Standard 18 of the national minimum standards for care homes for older people concerns abuse. In the case of abuse by an individual member of staff the Commission could insist on his or her removal as a person unfit to work with vulnerable adults. As now, if the welfare of the residents was at serious risk, the Commission will have the power to close the care home.

  Health Protection Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional expenditure has been incurred by the Health Protection Agency on(a) counter-terrorism and (b) civil protection since 11 September 2001. [46615]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) and the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR), which will be incorporated into the Health Protection Agency from April 2003, have incurred £1,176,000 of additional expenditure since 11 September 2001 on counter-terrorism and civil protection work. These sums are in addition to programmes of related work which were in place prior to 11 September. It has not been possible to divide these figures up between counter-terrorism and civil protection as the two areas involve overlapping work. No additional expenditure has been incurred by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and the National Focus for Chemical Incidents (NFCI).

  The Chief Medical Officer's strategy, "Getting Ahead of the Curve", proposes the creation of a Health Protection Agency which will take over functions currently performed by the PHLS, CAMR, NRPB and the NFCI. We aim to establish the new agency by 1 April 2003.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001, to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson),Official Report, column 410W, how many smallpox vaccine doses would be required to contain a smallpox outbreak with a two-week time to disease recognition, in an area with a population density of (a) 100 persons per sq km, (b) 1,000 persons per sq km and (c) 10,000 persons per sq km. [44006]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: Because of the large number of variables involved in calculating possible smallpox transmission rates it is not possible to provide specific answers to the questions posed. These variables include, among others the nature of the release of the organism and the number of individuals initially infected as well as the effectiveness of public health interventions such as patient isolation and contact tracing.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are part-time employees. [47191]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department currently has 496 staff (9.5 per cent.) working part-time.

  The Department has for some time had a flexible working patterns policy and actively encourages and supports its staff and managers to work flexibly. A range of flexible working patterns including part-time working, job sharing and home working is available to staff by arrangement with their management.

  Service Reviews
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many departmental services have been reviewed since agreement in September 1999 on the programme to do so. [47365]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Since September 1999, the Department has reviewed 30 of its services, equating to approximately 25 per cent. of its activities. The review process was in accordance with Government policy in the handbook "Better Quality Services".

  Since March 2001 specific BQS activity has been incorporated into a fundamental review of all the Department's services and activities. This fundamental review was carried out in the spirit of BQS in line with Government policy. It has generated a programme of change that focuses on the Department's delivery contract and which aims to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who undertakes the review of departmental services. [47364]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Reviews of departmental services are undertaken by using either in-house expertise or external consultants, where it is felt that they can add value.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for £15 million savings from action on contractor fraud will be met on time. [47288]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The target was to prevent £9 million worth of pharmaceutical contractor fraud and to recover £6 million worth of the same fraud by the end of 2001–02. The table shows prevention figures to March 2002 and recovery figures to February 2002. Both elements of the target have been met, and in the case of recovery ahead of the end date set.

  Pharmaceutical contractor fraud outputs—Prevention1

  £

  December 1998 to March 19992

  52,882

  April 1999 to March 2000

  2,103,119

  April 2000 to March 2001

  3,189,111

  April 2001 to March 2002

  3,972,342

  Total

  9,317,454

  Pharmaceutical contractor fraud outputs—Recoveries

  £

  December 1998 to March 2000

  32,251,815

  April 2000 to March 2001

  3,097,676

  April 2001 to February 20024

  2,130,260

  Total

  7,479,751

  1Figures relate to prevention of continuing fraud.

  2Progress tracked since December 1998 when PSA targets on pharmaceutical contractor fraud for the period to the end of 2001–02 were published.

  3Figure relates to all recoveries December 1998 to March 2000.

  4Recovery figures for March 2002 not yet available.

  921W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of whether the PSA target for a 50 per cent. reduction in prescription charge evasion by the end of 2002–03 will be met on time. [47289]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: On its formation in late 1998 the NHS Counter Fraud Service (NHS CFS) inherited the public service agreement target to reduce patient prescription charge fraud by 50 per cent. by 2002–03.

  The progress the NHS CFS has made against the target has already shown a reduction in losses to fraud in this area of 41 per cent. (£48 million) by the end of 2000–01. This is a good indication that the target of a 50 per cent. reduction by the end of 2002–03 will be met.

  Mastectomy
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the criteria used for deciding when to carry out a mastectomy. [46753]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: "Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer: The Manual (Guidance for Purchasers 1996)" states that a range of operations should be available for the treatment of breast cancer. If the cancer is not too large or diffuse, surgical options include mastectomy or breast conserving surgery. In such cases, the choice should be made jointly by the surgeon and the patient, who should be fully informed of all the options and their potential risks, benefits and implications for further treatment. Breast reconstruction should be discussed with patients who are to undergo mastectomy.

  A copy of the guidance is available in the Library.

  Intensive Care Baby Incubators
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for an intensive care baby incubator in London NHS hospitals at the latest date for which figures are available. [46688]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department does not collect information on the average waiting times for intensive care baby incubators.

  Intensive care baby incubators are always available for sick babies.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of intensive care baby incubators in London NHS hospitals; and what measures are being taken to increase availability. [46686]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: In 1999 the London Health Authority chief executives convened a steering group to oversee a review of neonatal intensive care services in London. A discussion document was published in September 2001 which set out proposals for modernising the provision of neonatal intensive care for London. This also included the revised standards recently published by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM). Copies of the discussion document have been placed in the Library.
  922W
  A number of initial consultation meetings have been undertaken to agree on next steps which include establishing managed clinical networks and determining the levels of care to be provided within the networks. This work is currently in progress.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances serve Greater London; and how many paramedics there are(a) in cars and (b) on motorbikes. [46759]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The number of resources on duty at any one time varies according to the time and day. The London Ambulance Service has a fleet of 395 front line ambulances, 204 patient transport vehicles, 30 fast response cars, 10 motorbikes and eight special care baby units.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of breast screening. [46763]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) recently evaluated the evidence on breast screening. The results of the evaluation were announced on Tuesday 19 March this year and confirmed earlier advice as to the effectiveness of breast screening.

  IARC concluded that trials have provided sufficient evidence for the efficacy of mammography screening of women between 50 and 69 years and that the reduction in mortality from breast cancer among women who chose to participate in screening programmes was estimated to be about 35 per cent.

  The working group which consisted of 24 experts from

  11 countries also considered the earlier criticisms of the trials and concluded that many of these were unsubstantiated, and the remaining deficiencies were judged not to invalidate the trials' findings.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the extent of mastectomies carried out as a precaution on women who have had a tumour detected by breast screening but were of a kind that may never develop into cancer; [46764]

  (2) what proportion of women who undergo breast screening have had mastectomies carried out as a result of the screening in the last three years. [46762]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: One in five breast cancers detected through screening will be found when still within the milk duct. This is called Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS). DCIS is difficult to treat as it is not known which women might progress rapidly to invasive cancer and need extensive treatment, and which women could be managed more conservatively. Detecting DCIS does not necessarily lead to mastectomy. Treatment options are always discussed with women and most women will be offered a choice between mastectomy and less drastic treatment.
  923W
  Of the 9,525 cancers detected by the breast screening programme in the UK in 1999–2000, 2,009 were DCIS. 29 per cent. of non-invasive screen-detected breast cancers resulted in mastectomy'.

  NHS Cancer Screening Programmes are funding a study to improve quality of care for women with screen detected DCIS. The results of the study will lead to an evidence-based review on the approach taken to the management of women with DCIS. The study is due to report in 2004.
  1British Association of Surgical Oncologists, May 2001

  Property Protection
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new measures his Department took in 2001–02 to protect its property from theft or damage. [47248]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department takes very seriously the theft of and damage to its property. We keep under continuous review the steps we take to protect our property and introduce new security measures where these are cost effective.

  In 2001–02 we introduced the following new measures:
  The setting-up of a cross-departmental management security forum to strengthen policy and compliance;
  Issue of cable locking devices to secure laptop computers;
  Issued guidance to all staff on the identification and record keeping of unique serial numbers for mobile telephones to help deter theft.

  Other security measures already in place include:
  Periodic checks to confirm the continued existence and condition of assets;
  Individual authorisations to staff to take mobile IT assets from official premises;
  Random searches at building exits by security staff;
  Clear written procedures to staff on procedures to protect assets;
  Checks to detect unsecured portable property;
  Security markings on IT equipment.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48398]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 April 2002]: In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental annual reports.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community hospitals there were in settlements with under 3,000 people in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [46456]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: This information is not collected for individual hospitals.
  924W
  The concept of care closer to home as identified by the National Beds Inquiry (NBI) underpins our plans for modernising the health service. To this end maximum use needs to be made of community hospitals in delivering and coordinating the local population's care. Community hospitals are working hard to develop their roles, for example in carrying out day surgery, minor procedures and caring for patients in the recuperative phases of recovery from illness or accident. They will be key players in meeting our target of introducing an additional 5,000 intermediate care beds—the bridge between hospital and home—by 2004.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were admitted to wards from accident and emergency departments within(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four and (e) more than four hours, after being seen by a doctor or consultant in (i) March 1997 and (ii) the latest month for which figures are available. [46707]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Figures for March 1997 were not collected.

  The latest published figures are for the third quarter of 2001–02. These are in the table.

  Admission from Accident and Emergency Departments, England, 2001–02, quarter 3

  Number

  Percentage

  Patients admitted through Accident and Emergency

  573,266

  —

  Patients placed in bed in a ward within two hours of a decision to admit

  396.016

  69.1

  Patients placed in bed in a ward within two to four hours of a decision to admit

  111.493

  19.4

  Patients not placed in bed in a ward within four hours of a decision to admit

  65,757

  11.5

  Source:

  Department of Health form OMNG

  International Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2002,Official Report, column 486W, on international nurse recruitment; (1) how he plans to inform (a) NHS trusts, (b) overseas Governments, (c) overseas nurses and (d) nursing organisations of those nursing recruitment agencies which have failed to adhere to the code of practice; [39224]

  (2) how many people have been assigned to assess international nurse recruitment agencies' compliance of the code of practice; how long each assessment takes; and what additional funding has been allocated to the code of practice to ensure that standards are enforced; [39302]

  (3) how many international nurse recruitment agencies (a) are to be assessed by the code of practice, (b) had been assessed by 1 March 2002, (c) had signed up to comply to the code of practice and (d) had failed to adhere to the code of practice; and by when he expects code of practice reviews to be completed. [39303]
  925W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 28 February and 4 March 2002]: We are working with international recruitment agencies and their representative bodies and other stakeholders to establish arrangements whereby agencies can register their agreement to comply with the Code of Practice on international recruitment.

  Those commercial agencies who agree to adhere to the Code of Practice will be listed on the Department's
  926W
  website. In addition, overseas Governments will receive information via the Embassies and High Commissions and through the Commonwealth Secretariat.

  This work will be undertaken by departmental officials in conjunction with international recruitment leads working with NHS trusts. No date for completing this work has been set.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Armed Forces: Trade Union Membership
Lord Vivianasked Her Majesty's Government:
What rights members of the Armed Forces have under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights to form a trade union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Article 11 of' the European Convention on Human Rights provides for a right to peaceful assembly and association, including the right to form a trade union. The article allows the position of lawful restrictions on the exercise of those rights by members of the Armed Forces.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his Answer. I understand that Article 10(2) provides an exemption to Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but only if restrictions on trade union activity by members of the Armed Forces are prescribed by law with sufficient certainty in primary or secondary legislation, so as to give them sufficient clarity as to what they are and are not allowed to do. Where is that legislation laid down?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the law that covers the Armed Forces is to be found in Queen's Regulations. Of course, that is law evolved through the Royal Prerogative rather than statute. The point about Queen's Regulations is that they have power if necessary to control the effect of Article 11, if that is how it is deemed to be used. So in the second part of my Answer, we point to the Queen's Regulations which, as the noble Lord well knows, exist for all three services.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, considering the number of cases at present being brought against the Ministry of Defence, does the Minister agree that the system of redress is not working as well as it should? Perhaps a review of the means of arbitration for members of the Armed Forces should be considered.
Lord Bach: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's suggestion. It is well known that any soldier from the least rank can ultimately have his complaint dealt with by the Defence Council, if he is so inclined. That there are sometimes delays, as unfortunately there are in dealing with complaints in many fields, is true, but he has that right. Indeed, the
816
system of complaints in the Armed Forces has been well received, so for once I must disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, would my noble friend like to take this opportunity to confirm that many members of the Armed Forces are indeed members of trade unions?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can confirm that some are members of trade unions. The Ministry of Defence has agreements with several major trade unions and concessions with professional associations whereby service personnel may be recognised as eligible for membership. That is often regarded as an aid to eventual resettlement into civilian life. Those due to leave the services are encouraged to seek membership of an appropriate organisation. I may say in passing that doctors in the Armed Forces are members of the British Medical Association and some members of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers are also members of the appropriate trade union. That is different from saying that there is a trade union for the Armed Forces.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that this takes us back to my amendment for an opt-out for the Armed Forces? Does he also accept that Queen's Regulations are no answer to the problem posed by the Question and that it will require primary legislation, if that is the Government's wish?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord at my peril, but as I understand it, either primary or secondary legislation would cover the matter.
If I may, I should like to make clear to the House that at present there appears to be no great urge on behalf of those who serve in the Armed Forces to concern themselves with whether they are members of an Armed Forces trade union. At present—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, shares my view on this—the Armed Forces are wrapped up in serious work all over the world, in particular in Afghanistan. It is perhaps more important that we think of them today than that we deal with this issue.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does it not seem a reversal of the usual historic process for members of the Tory party to be advocating people's right to join trade unions? My noble friend is right to be cautious. Nevertheless, given that many of us are concerned about the problems of the Armed Forces and the controversies surrounding their health and welfare, will he reconsider the matter?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that seems a strange state of mind, but of course every sinner who repents will be well received both by him and by me. I stress again that the complaints and grievances procedure works pretty well. Of course, matters are raised frequently in this House, not least by my noble friend, that are matters of public importance

817
with which the Ministry of Defence is dealing. But on the specific matter raised by the Question, there is at present no great impetus from those who serve in our Armed Forces to take the matter further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on a lighter note, if such a trade union were to be formed, can the noble Lord visualise who would be its shop stewards? Some sergeant-majors and drill sergeants would have to undergo considerable change of personality if they were to fill such roles.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know whether I agree with the noble Lord. I am not sure that there are not sergeant-majors and warrant officers who would make superb shop stewards.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a serious issue here about representation? It is not a joke, and it is not answered by saying that there are not many trade unionists in the Army or that there are not many soldiers who want to be a member of a trade union. It is an issue of representation. Are the Government in favour of having a system of representation—not necessarily trade unions—for members of the armed services?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is a serious issue. The Government will treat it accordingly. However, I must point out that there are no provisions in Queen's Regulations that either forbid or expressly permit the formation of a union to represent service personnel. Should a proposal arise from service personnel—that is the relevant point—we would consider it and assess its implications, particularly those relating to operational effectiveness.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that certain of our neighbours in the European Community recognise trade unions? Will he name those countries?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is true that there are countries in the European Union that do so; the Netherlands and Sweden are frequently mentioned in that regard. It is equally true that there are other countries that do not do so.

Ascension Island
2.44 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the inhabitants of Ascension Island can hold free elections by secret ballot so that the implementation of tax legislation on 1st April 2002 does not result in taxation without representation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Ascension Island Government are undertaking a public consultation exercise on the options for democratic representation on the island. We want to see democratic representation in place quickly. The Ascension Island Government recognise that taxation without representation is an important issue and have had extensive discussions with employers to seek to ensure that no individual will see a reduction in take-home pay after the introduction of income tax.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is satisfactory as far as it goes. Is it not deplorable that, although public consultation opened in April 1999, there has, until now, been no public meeting with the governor to discuss matters? Will the Minister also comment on the progress of the negotiations with the Americans about the freeing of the airport? Mr Hoon recently said that those negotiations had not got far.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it was agreed in 1999 that St Helena and its dependencies would be consulted about the development of the democratic and civil rights of the people on Ascension Island. Since that decision, several reports have gone to the Ascension Island Government. One of those was a fiscal and economic survey. There was also a recent visit by the constitutional adviser, as a result of which the first public consultation meeting took place on 10th April. There is a further meeting tonight on two specific options. There has been a time lapse between 1999 and now, but several actions have been taken to develop those options.
We have been in discussion with the United States about the airport. Those discussions, understandably, stalled following 11th September, but we are in the process of restarting them.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how many people there are on Ascension Island?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are 980 people on Ascension Island, 700 of whom are from St Helena.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it would probably have been better to get the representation arrangements straight, before imposing the income tax. I appreciate that not one but two elections are in prospect. Are we to believe the report in the Ascension Island newspaper that advice on organising the elections is being taken from the Zimbabwean "How to host an election" committee? Is the Minister convinced that that is the best possible source of advice?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's final point, I must say that I was unaware that advice was being taken from the Zimbabwean "How to host an election" committee. I would certainly not

819
recommend that advice should be taken from the Zimbabweans. Noble Lords know my views on that matter very well.
With regard to the issues of representation and taxation, the noble Lord will be aware that the users made the decision that they would no longer fund essential services on Ascension Island, so we needed to make a decision. It would, of course, have been preferable for the two things to go hand-in-hand. The situation is not ideal, but two options have been put to the islanders, and we hope that a decision will be taken shortly.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, where do the Government stand on the issue of an airport for St Helena? Most of'the 980 people that we heard about are from St Helena. They have a two-and-a-half-day journey to work on only a handful of days each year.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the Question. I am happy to write to the noble Lord on the matter. Progress is being made.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, what are the implications for the economy of St Helena of the changes that are to take place on Ascension Island? In particular, what decision has been made about the revenues from the licences for fishing in the waters around Ascension Island? Has any decision been reached as to whether the people on Ascension, who are, as has been said, almost exclusively St Helenians, should have representation in the St Helena House of Assembly?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, a number of those questions relate more directly to St Helena than to Ascension Island. In terms of the impact of decisions taken in respect Ascension Island on the economy of St Helena, we do not anticipate any adverse impact. The noble Lord will he aware that many individuals on Ascension Island who come from St Helena remit some of their salaries to St Helena and we expect that to continue.
With respect to the revenues from fishing licences, I am not aware of any decisions that have been made. However, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.
As regards representation, there is a constitutional review in St Helena. A report has been received and is under consideration.

Iran
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Waverleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will be submitting the name of their new preferred ambassador to Iran.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made no decision on this.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, while regrettable, this must not be allowed to dislodge the relationship. Will the Minister undertake to underpin the steady advance in bilateral relations by expediting the process, given the constructive Iranian attitude on a wide range of issues, not least from matters relating to Afghanistan in the international arena and to a resolution of ECGD quandaries in the domestic arena?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we felt that Iran gave a serious negative signal when it rejected David Reddaway, who we considered to be exceptionally well qualified for the job.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we made it absolutely clear at the time that it would have an impact on the conduct of our bilateral relations. However, it is important to say to noble Lords that our policy with Iran remains one of critical engagement aimed at supporting reforms, while maintaining a robust dialogue on areas of concern, such as human rights and the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Temple-Morris: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend's views about the rejection of David Reddaway, but does she not agree and is she not well aware that much of mutual benefit is presently taking place between Britain and Iran? At the end of this very week, an oil and gas show will open in Tehran which will have more than 70 British exhibitors, including many of our most prominent companies. In addition, in May there will be the first ever Majlis visit to Westminster since the Iranian revolution. Those are but two examples. In view of them and others, is it not more than appropriate that a British ambassador should be in post in Tehran as soon as possible?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said at the outset, we have not made a decision on submitting the name or a new preferred ambassador. I agree with my noble friend that there are some good areas of co-operation. There have been initiatives to strengthen co-operation in the fight against drugs. We have given assistance to Iran for the large number of refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan. Co-operation is taking place in the cultural and educational fields and commercial links are also expanding. Noble Lords will be aware of the statement made by the Iranian Government with regard to terrorism.
Yes, there are important areas of co-operation but we maintain that there has been an impact on our bilateral relations as a result of Iran's refusal to acceat David Reddaway. My noble friend will also know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Iran twice last year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the Minister said about the suitability of David

821
Reddaway for the post of ambassador. In the absence of an ambassador, have any special steps been taken to convince the Iranians that we are genuine in calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Occupied Territories in Palestine? She will be aware that the request made by Secretary of State Colin Powell for the Iranians to use their influence to restrain Hezbollah has fallen on deaf ears because they do not believe that the American demands were genuine.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we send strong messages and we will continue to do so. We recognise that peace in the Middle East is in everyone's interest, including Iran's. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have discussed those issues with their Iranian counterparts.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as regards the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, which I totally and strongly endorse, will the decision, which has not yet been made, be about trying to persuade Iran and Tehran to change their minds and understand that their original objections appear to be ill-founded and inaccurate; or will it be to put forward a new name; or will it be simply to leave the post vacant until the matter can be sorted out?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that in my original Answer, which I thought was short and to the point, I made it clear that we had not yet made a decision on this. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, set out three different options. We are examining those options but a decision has not yet been made.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether in the light of the unrest in the Middle East there may be some justification for the concerns laid before Her Majesty's Government by the Iranian Government? Is it the practice of Her Majesty's Government to accept or reject the response from countries to which ambassadors are sent?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, when making decisions about who we would propose to governments, we look at the qualities of those individuals. As I said at the outset, we thought that David Reddaway was well suited for the job and we were extremely concerned at his rejection. We are now examining the implications of that.
Of course the bilateral relationship continues but the rejection has had an impact on it. There are some good areas of co-operation and I have outlined them. However, whatever the country, we would be concerned if an ambassador whom we had proposed was rejected on spurious grounds.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Iran Freedom. Why do we not make clear to the regime in Iran, which sponsors terrorism abroad, denies human rights and builds weapons of mass
822
destruction, that if it wants critical engagement it can be critical of the person whom we want to send as an ambassador but we will engage that ambassador?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that I have made it absolutely clear that our policy is a twin policy; one of critical engagement but also one of robust engagement on issues such as human rights, terrorism and related concerns and weapons of mass destruction. However, at the same time we recognise that there is a reform agenda in Iran which needs a degree of support. We are working to support those reformers while being robust on the issues of concern.

Postal Deliveries
2.58 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Department for Work and Pensions will abandon the assumption that communications to claimants have been received two days after posting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, in practice 97 per cent of benefit cheques are received within two working days of posting and other urgent communications to clients are posted in good time. For example, notification of work-focused interviews are sent by first-class post at least four days before the interview date and, if necessary, clients are given three opportunities to attend over and beyond good cause.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the ability to communicate with claimants by post is a vital part of the work of her department? Does she also agree that despite those few encouraging statistics, the assumption that communications are received within two working days, as a result of changes in the Post Office, is degenerating from the optative into a legal fiction? Will she attempt to ensure that in any discussions on the future of the Post Office her department is involved in putting the case for it to remain a genuinely universal service?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I certainly agree with the last point made by the noble Earl. The position of the Government is clear; we are committed to the postal service remaining a universal service. However, I wonder whether the noble Earl can help me because I do not understand where he has identified the problem. As I have said, although 97 per cent of all correspondence arrives within two days, urgent notifications such as interview details, are posted four days ahead. Furthermore, if the letter fails to arrive, another opportunity is given. If that letter fails to arrive, then a third opportunity is offered. Furthermore, most such notifications are in fact made by telephone and then followed up with a letter. I do not fully understand the problem identified by the noble Earl.

823
I agree that if 97 per cent of all correspondence arrives within two days, then 3 per cent does not. However, I am not sure what the noble Earl thinks may hinge on that.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the Post Office had been given the commercial freedom promised in the last Labour Party manifesto and if it was properly funded and free of political interference, then it would be safe to assume that the once great Post Office could be relied on to deliver within two days?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would hope that that was the case. However, that would be what is called a counterfactual; that is, if and only if. It is the case that most of the department's communications with people, including pensioners, are conducted on the telephone. Those calls are followed up by letter. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has evidence to suggest that people have been seriously inconvenienced by the failure of key letters to arrive when they should have and, as a result, suffered hardship. I do not have any such evidence.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the problem may not lie entirely with the Post Office? In exchanges yesterday in another place, it was pointed out that the Secretary of State, in writing to his opposite number concerning pensions, addressed his letter to:
"Mr David Willetts, Member of Parliament, Labour Party, Regent Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/02; col. 351.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord has persuaded me that Mr Willetts is all things to all people.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that those of us who have lived in other countries still find the postal service in this country remarkably good in comparison? Can she also comment on the problems that arise when a letter is misaddressed? Usually there is quite a time lag before the letter that has been wrongly addressed is returned to the sender. Does this situation present any problems in her department?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The one area where a problem can arise is not so much within the department but when local authorities send out housing benefit cheques to a tenant who has moved on. On occasion the landlord will then collar the cheque or giro. Housing benefit is the one area which so far as I am aware has a problem. As a result, around a year ago the Government encouraged local authorities to insist that the Post Office does not redirect giro cheques; that is, if the letter cannot be delivered to the individual, it should be sent back to the department. I am pleased to say that
824
around three-quarters of all local authorities have now incorporated that condition in respect of their correspondence.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision to contain disruption of public services by collective industrial action; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 34 [Police powers for police authority employees]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 132:
Page 32, line 9, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (11),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 34 provides that:
"The chief officer of any police force may designate any person who…is employed by the police authority",
under one of four categories: as a community support officer, as an investigating officer, as a detention officer or as an escort officer. Amendments Nos. 132 and 129 provide, first, that this should be, "subject to subsection (11)". At the end of the clause we seek to introduce a new subsection designed to ensure that the chief officer may make such designations only if he has already received the approval of his authority in an approved annual policing plan. This seems an entirely proper procedure which I am not sure is covered adequately anywhere else in the Bill; namely, that it has to happen.
In previous debates the Minister commented that it would be "inconceivable" that this would not happen but, as I have pointed out before, we must concern ourselves with what is set out on the face of the Bill rather than what we think will happen. It is important that the approval procedure is subject to the proper

825
planning process and to the approval of the police authority before the chief officer makes any designations, if he is so minded to do. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can be extremely brief in my response. I agree with the spirit of the noble Lord's amendments. As proof of that, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 35, subsection (4), he will see that we require annual policing plans to give details of the existence or otherwise of designated support staff under Schedule 4 to the Bill, as well as any plans for the establishment of a community safety accreditation scheme. Obviously it will be for the chief officer to draft the plan, which will need to be approved by the police authority before it is issued. However, I believe that what is already contained in that part of the Bill meets the noble Lord's genuine point, with which of course I agree.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I think that I can take his assurance that the point is covered sufficiently. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 133:
Page 32, line 9, at beginning insert "Subject to subsections (2A) to (2E) below,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 133 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 135, 172, 175 and 177. Perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 133 and 135 which address the arrangements for accreditation. No one would dispute that the proposals in Part 4 of the Bill represent a potentially significant step change in policing in this country.
It is no secret that both the Metropolitan Police Authority, which I chair, and the Metropolitan Police force are keen to take advantage of the proposals for community support officers set out in Clause 34. But, as has frequently been mentioned in the House, we are aware that that enthusiasm is not shared by all of our colleagues in other police authorities and forces.
The most welcome of the Government's proposals is that the question of whether to have community support officers will be a matter of local choice. For a moment I shall put to one side the scepticism expressed by some noble Lords that the Government might use money or other incentives to force local police authorities and chief officers down that route. Assuming that the decision will be a purely local one, the question is who should make that decision and how should it be made. As the Bill stands, it would be entirely a matter for the chief constable or, in the Metropolitan Police area, the commissioner.
It is presented as a purely operational decision about the deployment of resources. I suggest that it is much more than that. The introduction on our streets of community support officers exercising police powers has significant and far reaching implications for the
826
nature and style of local policing. Like the regular force, if I may call it that, community support officers will need to have both the consent and confidence of local communities if they are to provide reassurance and operate effectively.
At the heart of these amendments is the view that any local decision to have community support officers must be supported by local people. It is the job of police authorities to represent the views of those local people and to oversee the force on their behalf. Decisions about the principle of whether to have such officers should therefore be a matter for the police authority. Decisions about whether or not to designate this or that individual as a community support officer are rightly for the chief constable.
The amendment seeks to address that key element, which is missing from the Government's proposals. It would ensure that decisions about whether to introduce, or indeed continue with, community support officers in an area are made by the police authority. To help in that decision, the chief officer would prepare a draft scheme, which would address fundamental issues such as how the use of community support officers will help to meet the national and local policing priorities and local policing plan; the standards or criteria individuals will need to satisfy to become community support officers; how such officers will be trained and equipped; and the costs and benefits of using such community support officers.
I do not see this as a bureaucratic or burdensome exercise. On the contrary, as a matter of good management practice, before taking such a step the chief officer would need to think through all of these issues. However, by drawing the issues into a draft scheme, the police authority could then engage in a full and open debate about the issues with their communities and with partners such as local authorities.
I am aware that the Minister may choose to direct me to the provision in Clause 35(4), but I wonder whether those who drafted that provision had any first-hand experience of developing and agreeing a policing plan. The policing plan is not a vehicle for the kind of decision-making process and considerations of principle which my amendments are designed to provide. I welcome Clause 35(4), but let us be clear about what it does. It simply requires the chief officer to say in the draft policing plan whether any powers in Schedule 4 will be applied to designated persons. As the clause is drafted, the chief officer could simply report that this has been done after the event.
There must be agreement and approval by the police authorities, as the representatives of local people, before such steps are taken if we are to increase and strengthen community confidence in policing. The whole purpose of the introduction of community support officers is to provide local public reassurance. That is why the arrangements are there.
I am quite prepared to accept that the detailed drafting of my amendment may not be to the Government's taste—I am sure that we can come to suitable arrangements before Third Reading if that is a problem—but the principle is clear.

827
I turn now, briefly, to Amendments Nos. 172, 175 and 177. Under Clause 35, chief officers will have to produce a community safety accreditation scheme setting out the arrangements for giving police powers to persons outside the police service, such as local authority wardens. It seems rather like the scheme that I have asked for in relation to designated persons. I wonder why there is no proposal for a similar scheme for the introduction of community support officers. I welcome the fact that in Clause 35, at least, the Government think it appropriate for the police authority to he consulted by the chief officer about any such scheme. I suggest that we need to take that one small step further and provide for the police authority to approve the scheme.
As with community support officers, the introduction of the safety accreditation schemes must have the support and consent of local people. Local police authorities will wish to seek the views of their communities on whether such a step is right for their areas before making a decision. The introduction of community support officers, wardens and others patrolling the streets with police powers is likely to have a significant impact on local policing. It is important that we monitor that impact and the effect of these schemes on local community confidence and reassurance. That is what Amendment No. 177 seeks to do.
Taken together, these amendments propose a number of minor safeguards as we venture into this brave new world. If the Minister feels unable to accept them, I hope that he will at least be prepared to take them away for consideration, and, if necessary, discuss ways of how these concerns may be accommodated before we come to Third Reading. The principle is a simple one. These are important additions to the portfolio of arrangements that can exist in a local area for the policing of that community. That is why the involvement, participation in discussions and approval of the police authority must be an essential part of the process of implementation. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I thought that the police authority squad would have come out before I responded to my noble friend. Perhaps it will do so later.
I am grateful to my noble friend but I cannot accept his amendments. Basically, I do not accept the premise on which they are founded. We had an interesting debate yesterday about accusations that the Home Secretary is trying to micro-manage police forces. I do not think it is the function of police authorities to try to micro-manage chief constables. That is not their function. Their function is oversight. They should not have the role set out by my noble friend in his amendments. I hope that in due course noble Lords will agree to the Bill as drafted.
These amendments are similar to the ones discussed in Committee when we were debating the processes provided for in Clauses 34 and 35. We have no difficulty whatever with the proposition that a chief
828
police officer should make the police authority aware of his plans to extend any powers to civilian police authority employees. This is provided for in the Bill. But there is a danger—my noble friend pre-empted me—that some of these amendments would create an additional burden and duplicate what we have tried to provide in the clauses.
I accept that police authority members have a role as a voice on behalf of the general public—that is their function—but no one is going to kid me or anyone else that they actually represent anyone. I see signs of dissent from the representatives of police authorities. I know that I am in a minority on this because, quite clearly, there is a large caucus of representatives of police authorities. I wish there were more policemen than police authority members in the Chamber to balance matters up a little.
Let us not beat about the bush. The fact is that if one person in three knows the name of his Member of Parliament, I doubt whether more than one person in a thousand knows the name of any member of the police authority in his area. Let us not elevate this issue way beyond what it is. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will he known, by name, by all the people in the area of which he is a member of the police authority.
I say that as a caveat because police authorities have the crucial role of oversight as part of the tripartite arrangements. They should look at what is happening and what the chief officer is doing—that is absolutely crucial—but giving them the powers proposed in these amendments would be going much too far.
Amendment No. 133 would require a chief officer to consult his police authority before designating the community support staff. Amendment No. 135 is wide-ranging and comprehensive. It is very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee but has a new subsection in regard to equipment following our debates about this issue in Committee. As well as being comprehensive, it is potentially time consuming in its effect.
The amendment proposes a system of consultation with the police authority which is based cm establishing a designation scheme for the extension of powers to support staff employed under Clause 3.4. The proposal would be drafted by the chief officer and submitted to the relevant police authority in the same way as the annual policing plan. As I said in Committee, in many ways this would duplicate the police plan process which is now established.
Amendments Nos. 172, 175 and 177 are concerned with the community safety accreditation schemes and, again, are a factor in a role for the police authority for which we have already tried to cater. Amendments Nos. 172 and 175 require the chief officer to "obtain the approval of" the police authority rather than to "consult" it.
Amendment No. 177 instructs the police authority to keep itself informed about the workings of any accreditation scheme. I am not sure that such prescription is necessary. I should have thought that, if an accreditation scheme was up and running, part of

829
the oversight role of the police authority would be to keep itself up to date and aware of the schemes that were operating, and to monitor the chief officer's aspirations in setting up and designating the scheme in the first place.
I say to my noble friend with all due respect that we have not overlooked the role of the police authority—far from it. It would be foolish if we attempted to do so. But we believe that the day-to-day operation of designation and accreditation properly falls to the chief officer. We shall have a more detailed debate shortly about the functions and decisions of the chief officer, the role that is given to him or her in the Bill and the degree of freedom that a chief officer has to make decisions regarding community support for the police in a wide range of matters. I do not want to preempt such debate by going into the matter in detail now.
As I said in Committee, in Clause 35 we have already made it a requirement that plans to designate support staff or to establish a community safety accreditation scheme are set out in the annual policing plan. The Police Act 1996 ensures that drafts of that document are submitted by the chief officer to the police authority. Therefore, the annual policing plan is the right vehicle for the consultation. I accept that it is a question of striking a balance between the operational role of the chief officer and the oversight role of the police authority.
I emphasise that a balance must be struck between the oversight role of the police authority and the operational role of the chief officer. I firmly believe that the issue is one of oversight for the police authority in terms of what the chief officer has decided to do, after consultation, regarding the powers in the Bill, and not itself taking that decision—which, frankly, is the implication of this group of amendments. I hope that, on reflection, my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I have always understood—perhaps it is a mistaken assumption—that when you are addressed by a colleague who prefaces virtually every paragraph with the phrase, "with all due respect", it often means, "I have complete contempt for the arguments that you have expressed". I have to say—with all due respect to my noble friend—that to talk about the issue being one of micro-management rather than oversight misses the point.
The amendment does not require the agreement of police authorities as to which members of staff are designated as community support officers. The requirement is that, on one occasion in advance of the introduction and use of these powers, a report should be brought forward by the chief officer concerned to the police authority setting out all the matters contained in the amendment. There is no requirement for an annual presentation and annual approval. The proposal relates to the initial occasion, and to subsequent occasions as and when required.
830
The key point is that, prior to the introduction of community support officers, a report examining the thinking processes as to why their introduction is a good thing, how it would work in practice, what the relationship would be with mainstream officers and so on, would be brought to the police authority for approval. I do not call that micro-management. I call it proper oversight and proper accountability.
I do not believe that the amendment involves any additional burden. It merely says that chief officers will be required to codify in a report the detailed considerations that I hope will take place before any decision is made. It implies an additional burden only if those thinking processes have not been gone through beforehand. If my noble friend is suggesting that community support officers will be introduced without proper thought in advance, fair enough; this imposes an additional burden. But I should have thought that your Lordships would want to make sure that those thinking processes would go forward before things happened.
I am tempted not to rise to the argument about police authorities not representing anyone and not being recognised. I nearly missed introducing this amendment because I was stopped in the street by a gentleman from Hounslow—whom I had not previously met, as I rarely visit Hounslow—who wanted to discuss the affairs of the police authority. I suspect that other police authority chairs will find that that is not an uncommon situation.
This proposal is not about duplication of the policing plan: it is about bringing forward proposals for major changes. The Government have presented the idea of community support officers and the accreditation of warden schemes as a major new plank in the policing and safety of local communities. If it is such an important and significant new plan in the policing arrangements for those areas, then it is appropriate that there should be proper consideration by the police authority before such a scheme is implemented.
I put this proposal forward from the point of view of someone who believes that such schemes are important and that they should go ahead. I do so from the point of view of a police authority which, by and large, thinks that such schemes are important and should go ahead. But we also recognise the importance of there being proper discussion about how this scheme would work, and about its implications and impact. I know from recent discussions with the Police Federation that it has strong feelings on these issues. For that reason they should be properly aired and discussed and approved by the police authority.
Therefore, I am very disappointed with my noble friend's respectful response to the amendments that I have proposed. I hope that he will consider the matter further in the light of the points made. In the expectation of such further consideration, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 134:
Page 32, line 14. leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to the point in the Bill where our disagreements with the Government as to the nature of policing in this country become slightly sharper.
Clause 34 provides that a chief officer may designate civilian staff in certain capacities. The categories set out in the clause are: community support officer; investigating officer; detention officer; and escort officer. Three of those categories of civilian operators would not be mightily exposed to the public. An investigating officer may well meet members of the public during the course of an investigation, but he or she is not concerned with the maintenance of law and order on the streets. A detention officer will work within police stations and an escort officer will work between police stations. Under Schedule 4 they all have varying and appropriate police powers.
But a community support officer will be a policeman on the street. He or she will be the public face of the police force. That causes us very real concern. This is the place where the reputation of the police is made or damaged. We believe that it is wrong to put people on the streets who do not have full police powers, if they are to have police powers at all.
It is already possible for local authorities to have street wardens, community wardens and all kinds of people of that nature if they wish. They do not need the provisions in the Bill in order to do that. Many authorities already have people operating in this way. It is not at all unusual to see a major shopping centre being "policed" by one of the various well-known major security firms. Such people operate without police powers and they fulfil a very useful role.
However, the Government are suggesting something different: that people can go on the streets with a limited and not determined basket of police powers. We shall deal later with the schedule setting out the powers of community support officers. It is a basket of powers from which the chief officer may pick those that he wishes to apply. That is a recipe for public confusion over and above the devaluation of the police presence that we think that the public have a right to expect on the streets.
We think that it would be appropriate to delete the category of community support officer from this clause. Amendment No. 137 follows the same principle. This is a fundamental difference between us and the Government. We think that the Bill's proposals will diminish the stature and status of policing on the streets. There is a demand for increased support, but we do not think that this is the best way of providing it. We think that it could be done better.
There is plenty of work of a policing nature to which police civilians can reasonably be applied through the other three categories of support, if that is considered desirable to relieve the problems of policing, without exposing them to full contact with the public on the streets. In this limited way, we think that it is appropriate to delete the category of community
832
support officer from this part of the Bill and leave the other designations there for the chief officer to call on in aid of his police. We shall come to accreditation schemes later. There is an issue of principle that we wish to pursue in this limited category. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I hate making the same point time and again, but the Minister has done nothing so far to meet the frequently expressed concerns that financial pressure might be brought on the police to designate people as community support officers when, all things being considered, they would not have taken that step. The Treasury is in a position to say that any increase in police budgets ought to be conditional on the police using the funds available to them in the most economical way and recruiting community support officers, who are cheaper than fully trained police officers.
So far, the Minister has merely asserted that that will never happen. Assertions are not good enough. The time has come when an argument must be put forward. We all know perfectly well that these are just the sort of arguments that are advanced by the Chief Secretary in a public expenditure round. When he looks at the money that the Home Office has asked for on behalf of the police, he will say that there are better ways of spending that money and making it go further. The most obvious way of making money go further is to use community support officers much more often.
Assertions will not do any longer. The noble Lord owes it to us to explain why it is not possible for the Government to table an amendment at Third Reading to make it plain that no pressure can be brought on the police in the way that we fear and that in no circumstances would funds be withheld because of a failure by a police authority or a police force to employ a given number of community support officers. If he is not prepared to do that, there is an argument for deleting from the Bill the power to designate community support officers.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I strongly support every word that my noble friend has just said. This provision is at the root of a great deal of worry among members of police forces throughout the country, because they fear that the Government are trying to get police services on the cheap. That is a real worry. It would be a disaster if the provision were used to make do with lower standards.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, in many ways this is the most crucial part of the Bill. I remain very concerned about the Government's proposals. The obvious response to the rise in crime and lawlessness and the increase in muggings in some of our big cities is to increase the strength of the police service by having more police on the streets and on the beat. Every opinion poll seems to show that that is exactly what the public want. I know of no opinion poll that has indicated mass support for community support officers. People want policemen to be there.

833
As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, pointed out at Second Reading, London is under-policed compared with New York. There is no conceivable doubt or serious debate about that. The police service in London is under strength compared with overseas cities such as New York. New York was not the only city that increased the strength of its police force. Other cities in the United States have done the same and a similar comparison can be made with other cities in this country.
We are urging a stronger police service against the background of the Government having made virtually no addition to the police service in their first four years in office. They now talk about record numbers, but that simply means that they have just managed to edge ahead of the position that they inherited in 1997. It is worth remembering that zero tolerance was not introduced in New York until the city authorities had recruited 8,000 more policemen. As far as I know, civilian support officers were not promoted as the fulcrum of that drive.
I am not saying that everything that the New York police or other American police forces do is right. I had a wonderful example the other week when I was writing an article on zero tolerance. I rang up the New York police and asked for confirmation of the name of their chief officer. I was ringing on a Sunday and I was told that the office was closed and there was a public holiday on Monday, but by Tuesday someone might be able to tell me the name of the chief officer of the New York police. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, never had such problems in the Metropolitan Police.
New York is not the only example. First and foremost, I am an enormous supporter of the British police service. The characteristic of the British police service is not that it has been equipped much better than others or that it has much more scientific support; it is the relationship between the public and the police. One of the reasons for that is that the public have seen the police as approachable people and as friends to whom they can go for help on the street. I fear that the Government's proposals will damage that. I want the police to carry out what I regard as one of the most basic functions of any police service.
As my noble friend Lord Waddington has just said, the only reason that the Government are seeking to introduce new people is that it will cost less than recruiting trained police officers. Those of us who have experienced a public spending round with the Treasury know perfectly well that that is precisely the type of argument that the Treasury would put forward.
One does not have to think too deeply about that. I am sure that the Treasury thinks that the provision is a vastly good idea and that it will put more people on the streets for the money being spent. However, that is not the question. The question is what kind of people the Government will get and whether they will get better people. I very much doubt that that will be the case.
834
Yesterday, I raised with the Minister the issue of the Police Federation and its total opposition, as he knows, to giving police powers to community support officers. I am sure that noble Lords will have seen the federation's very long and detailed submission on the issue. One of the federation's basic and, I think, very important points is that community support officers would be deployed in some of the potentially most difficult if not dangerous situations facing police officers generally. Providing public order support is one example.
In Committee, community support officers were compared to traffic wardens. That is a totally false comparison. We are not talking about traffic wardens or people dealing with parked vehicles. We are talking about community support officers who will have to deal with the typically difficult situations that occur daily. What powers will they have? They will be able to use reasonable force to detain a person for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable. That seems, again, to beg almost every imaginable question.
I realise the pressure that the Treasury must have applied to the Government on this issue. Indeed, it is not even a new proposal within this Government; the previous Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, proposed it in the previous Parliament. However, I do not believe that community support officers will bring to the country a better service than we have now. I tell the Minister that the public would overwhelmingly prefer to see more trained policemen on the streets fighting crime. The public recognise crime for what it is—a very major issue—and I do not think that they want community support officers. I think that they want trained policemen. They are the ones whom the public trust, and the public would like to place their trust in them.
Lord Condon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for reminding me of my request for more police officers in London. I shall continue to champion the cause of more police officers across the country. However, I believe that some important principles are at stake in this proposal. Clause 34, as drafted, is an enabling clause. I have made it absolutely clear that I would not support it if I felt that it in any way diluted or undermined the office of constable. I believe that, with proper explanation and reassurance, it will not undermine the office of constable. I therefore find it difficult to support the amendment.
In recent days, I have checked again with former colleagues. The current position, after the earlier debates in your Lordships' House, is that about one quarter of the police services in the country would like actively to explore the provision. That number will grow. They have no intention of rushing into it or of regarding it as a cheap substitute for regular officers. However, about a dozen police services are now fairly keen to explore the notion of community support officers.
I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to provide sufficient reassurances that this will not be policing on the cheap, a substitute for regular officers or to the detriment of specials. I hope that he can

835
reassure us that this is an enabling provision to allow chief officers and local communities to explore other innovative ways of providing policing and police-related services in their areas.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in this debate I stand somewhat humbly before the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in view of the length of his experience and the closeness of his contacts. Nevertheless, I was a little surprised to hear him describe the support of about a quarter of police forces for the provision as almost enthusiastic. I understand from those among the Metropolitan Police who support the Bill that almost every expression of support has been accompanied by a caveat. One example is that the provision would be acceptable only if more fully trained policemen were not available. Another is that they would support the provision only if the funds to implement it were ring-fenced.
In support of the earlier comments of my noble friend Lord Waddington, I should like to quote from the chief constables, police authority chairmen and clerks of Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and North Wales. Among other things, they said that they were concerned that the local choice proposed in the legislation might be,
"eroded by the application of centrally held, ring-fenced funding specifically for one or other of the several options available".
They also called for local discretion to be allowed. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Waddington and I tabled an amendment to Clause 5 to that effect. As the life of that clause seemed pretty tenuous, I did not move the amendment, and Clause 5 did indeed disappear. However, should the Minister persist on this course, it would seem proper to guard against the use of the Treasury's big guns in forcing chief officers of police to adjust their employment lists to reflect the cheapest option rather than the best option for policing their areas.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the Minister will recall that, in Committee, when winding up the debate on the principle which we are now discussing, he expressed pleasure that the final five speeches—all made by Peers with some London experience—had been rather more in favour of the Government's position than had those preceding them. I rise now because I am conscious that, of the five who spoke on that occasion, the others—except for my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—are absent today. I also did not want the Minister to take my silence as an indication that I have been wholly convinced by the arguments of all my colleagues.
I am not, however, resiling from the position that I adopted in Committee. I have taken that view particularly because the legislation is permissive, discretionary and optional, and because it will be for individual forces in different parts of the country to decide whether they wish to make use of this power. I also support the general thrust of the Government's position because I am in favour of decentralisation.
836
On the other hand, a real point has been made by my noble friends Lord Waddington, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Fowler on the potential hazards in relation to Treasury interference. The Minister and I have taken, in other fields and in other worlds, a separate interest in higher education. Those who followed that particular narrative cannot help but recall that, once the Treasury had adopted the view that the unit of resource in polytechnics should be cut whereas the unit of resource in universities should not be cut, all was well until the polytechnics were turned into universities—not a decision of which I personally approved, but that is what happened. At that point, the Treasury moved against the unit of resource in universities, where the move was rather more formulaic as the principle had been established at the polytechnic level.
I therefore believe that it is in the Government's own interest to say, as my noble friends have urged the Minister to do, how they will handle this particular issue and particular fear. It is in the Government's interest to provide reassurance on the issue which arises out of this innovation. If my noble friend Lord Elton is right about the caution expressed by supporters of the concept in the Met—I am not surprised by that caution—and if the concept is to be carried forward and made a success, it is even more important that there are no misgivings about that concept.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am on my last sentence but of course I shall.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I seek to correct the record. As far as I understand the position, the Met is warmly enthusiastic about the measure; I quoted its account of its colleagues.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I do not think that that affects the basic point I seek to make. If the measure is to be carried forward, those forces that do so must be confident that it will not result in a diminution of police resources for the rest of the service throughout the country.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as the noble Lord has just mentioned, we were two of the five who expressed a certain point of view on the matter in a previous debate. I listened carefully as the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, moved the amendment. I absolutely agree that we do not want the police force to be shortchanged. I seek an assurance from the Minister on that.
I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, as I did in Committee. I could not vote against retaining the measure in the Bill as I believe that many areas would benefit from it. In Committee I said that people wanted borough constables. Since then, my husband's ward, which used to be considered the safest ward of any borough council in the whole of London, has been hit by a spate of muggings. Some people pay £1,000 per household to be able to

837
telephone a private security guard at night to tell him that they are on their way home. The private security guard meets them outside their house with a big dog and enables them to walk safely in the door. That is all very well if one has a spare £1,000 with which to pay for that. However, many people are not in that fortunate position. Unless we have some additional facility of the kind we are discussing there will be clear discrimination between those who can afford personal protection on a private basis and those who cannot. I refer to providing borough constables in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea considers that the people we are discussing will be recruited mainly from former police or former military personnel wherever possible; their training will be provided in collaboration with the Metropolitan Police and will be virtually police standard; they will be issued with protective clothing and will follow operational protocols. A number of precautions are envisaged. Obviously, the matter has been carefully thought through. For that reason, although I would not vote against the measure of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I do not agree with him and I certainly reserve my position on the matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that there will be no reduction in the standard police force, or the funding thereof, in order to provide this facility as an additional service for the public.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, there is a fundamental disagreement between the two Front Benches as regards the two amendments we are discussing. However, that does not necessarily apply throughout the House. My remarks will be general as we shall discuss the specifics of the matter later. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for reasserting her views. I hope that I shall be able to reassure noble Lords that the provision we are discussing does not constitute an attempt to shortchange the police service, to cut police numbers, to have policing "on the cheap" or to diminish the quality of personnel on the streets. I hope that I shall succeed in reassuring noble Lords on that point.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that in my experience as a Minister—that may be cut short due to the remarks I am about to make—the Treasury has virtually wrecked every good idea I have come across in the past five years due to the narrow, short-term view it takes. Sometimes it takes a Mr Gradgrind approach and does not seek value for the community simply because one cannot always say at the outset what sum of money will be involved in a measure although one knows that ultimately it will result in a saving and a better quality of life for people. I assure the noble Lord that the Home Secretary will not allow penny-pinching approaches to wreck the concept of community support officers as that government policy is accepted throughout the Government following the publication of the White Paper. There will be no acquiescence in any attempt to short-change the police service. That is not the policy of the Government.
838
I refer to what I thought were the rather grudging comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. However, I accept that this Government's record in this regard is not so brilliant in that police numbers dropped after 1997. However, at the end of March this year the figure is projected to be 128,000—we do not have the final figure—and by March next year 130,000. It is interesting to note that these days the Home Secretary does not fix police numbers. I refer to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Peyton. The Home Secretary does not fix police numbers as was the case in the past. Chief constables do that from within their budget. The idea, therefore, that we might impose a financial squeeze on police numbers—that was the impression noble Lords gave although it is obviously not my view—and try to force chief constables to act in a way they do not wish is nonsense because the Government do not set police numbers.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall give way in a moment. We provide the funding and we want more police but we do not set police numbers for each police force as in the old days, if I may put it that way. As a point of principle, therefore, a financial squeeze—I shall mention this matter in more detail later—is not a "runner".
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, on a point of clarification, the police authority approves the relevant budget and the number of policemen. Although we had a 2.3 per cent rise in money from the Government, the police authority set a budget which was 14.3 per cent above—miles above—that set by the Government. Council tax payers pay for that extra policing. There is no doubt that a big rise in policing is paid for locally.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, nothing I said gainsays that. In a slip of the tongue I may have said that chief constables fix the budget. The police authority fixes the relevant budget. But it is at those two parts of the tripartite arrangement where that is fixed, not from the centre, as used to be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned financial pressure on numbers but that is not the case as regards what were described as "regular constables".
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to a fundamental disagreement. I assume that the argument about finance is irrelevant to the fundamental disagreement he mentioned. I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been made about finance and the views of other police forces on the matter. Those views vary enormously. Our discussion on the matter has been shorter than in Committee when we had a wide-ranging debate. I now "home in" on the fairly fundamental approach of the amendments we are discussing.
Noble Lords should be aware from our earlier discussions why the Government want to allow chief officers to appoint properly trained and accountable

839
community support officers and give chief officers the option to extend to such individuals limited powers. The introduction of community support officers is a key element of the White Paper proposals and, indeed, figured as such when the White Paper was published in December last year. I accept that the introduction is a major innovation in the policing of this country. We are not trying to hide that fact; far from it; rather we celebrate the fact that it is a major innovation in policing in this country.
Community support officers will boost the police presence on the ground, not replace it. They will help us provide higher visibility of authority figures. They will tackle challenging problems of anti-social behaviour in our communities, increase public reassurance and provide better intelligence gathering. Community support officers are in no way a replacement for regular police officers. They will not be allowed by the Home Secretary, the Treasury or anyone else to be a replacement for regular police officers; that is not their function. When we have reached the figure of 130,000, with the support of police authorities, the Home Secretary will, as I said in Committee, set a new overall target for the country. That is not a question of saying, "We have got to the plateau of 130,000. Bring in the community support officers and fix police numbers nationally". That is not our intention. We shall review the matter and fix a new overall target when we have reached the figure of 130,000.
Community support officers will complement rather than replace the police and they will be in addition to the Specials. We have debated the Specials and, regretfully, a decision has been taken, although we are taking action in respect of that. They will perform those functions that do not require the full powers and expertise of a police officer.
Community support officers will have a clearly focused role. They will specifically target low-level crime, anti-social behaviour and what might generally be called environmental problems. They will have a role to play in community regeneration and will free up police officers' time for those functions that require all of their training and skills. I shall soon give a couple of examples.
Anti-social behaviour is a serious problem that blights many communities. It ranges from graffiti and environmental problems to vandalism, bullying and harassment. All of those problems can make people's lives an absolute misery. However, in the grand scheme of things they are not the most important matters for the police—although that is not to suggest that they are ignored. Noble Lords will understand what I mean. Such low-level criminal activity alters people's standard of living—more so, in some ways, than bank robbery does. Bank robbery is a major crime but what are classed as low-level crimes can have a greater effect on people's lives.
Anti-social behaviour takes up a significant amount of police time but it is difficult for police forces always to provide an effective and targeted response. Community support officers who are based in
840
communities, on estates or in parts of boroughs will have a key role to play in deterring and tackling such anti-social behaviour.
As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, the Metropolitan Police has been arguing strongly for the introduction of community support officers, particularly in view of the difficulties of providing high levels of security policing while fulfilling the public wish to see a widespread police presence tackling low level crimes and anti-social behaviour, which is in addition to other work.
The proposal to extend limited police powers to police authority employees—I stress that that is what they are—who are designated as community support officers is intended to enable chief officers to address those low-level crimes without taking skilled officers away from other duties. We remain of the view that the potential effectiveness of community support officers would be significantly and unnecessarily undermined if there was no possibility of their being granted certain limited and appropriate powers. The potential menu of powers in Schedule 4—I believe that it contains 13 separate powers, although I speak from memory and we shall discuss it later—is a proportionate and realistic response to the problem of anti-social behaviour.
The concept of community support officers is an enabling concept; it does not involve prescriptive legislation. It involves the flexibility necessary to respond to local needs and expectations. Issues are not the same all over the country or, indeed, within London. It allows, but does not require, chief officers to appoint support staff to provide a visible presence in the community, with powers that are sufficient to deal with minor disorder, if they —that is, chief officers— so choose.
It is important to remember that there are safeguards throughout this part of the Bill regarding both the designation of support staff and the exercise by them of limited police powers to ensure that powers are used appropriately. For example, it provides that chief officers must be satisfied that the person is suitable to carry out the relevant functions. They must he capable of carrying them out and they must be adequately trained. Community support officers will not be vigilantes or "have a go" characters in uniform; they will be properly trained and equipped professionals. They will be quality people. I regret some of the language that has been used in this regard. Reference has been made to diminishing the state of the police and diluting the quality of the people on the street. The fact is that professional people are involved.
The chief officer may modify or remove designation, including the powers conferred on community support officers at any time. Support staff, including community support officers, will be employed by a police authority and will he under the direction and control of the relevant chief officer. They will come within the remit of the independent police complaints commission, which we discussed in relation to Part 2

841
of the Bill, and they will be required to have regard to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice.
Community support officers are an essential part of reassurance policing. They will have a vital role to play in support of the police not only by tackling anti-social behaviour, as I said, but also by increasing public safety and contributing to community safety. They will enhance the relationship between the police and communities; they will not diminish it. They are an important part of the police family. They will boost the police presence on the ground and certainly improve police intelligence by providing more "eyes and ears" on the streets. The amendment would prevent our being able to complement the work of police officers.
Community support officers will have a much narrower role than that of regular police officers, which means that they are less likely to be redeployed when something serious happens. There is nothing more irritating for communities in some of our big cities, and even in rural areas, than when the local community police—the bobby and the "bobbess", if I can use politically correct language—are called away to another area because something has happened down the road. The expertise that they have built up would be absent for a week or a month. The local community bobby goes missing because he has been redeployed by the chief constable to another locality where a bigger police presence is required. It is less likely that community support officers will be redeployed in those circumstances, which is very important.
The amendments would condemn communities to the risk of the continual redeployment of "their" PC, and it would condemn central London police officers—the regular police officers—to having to maintain their anti-terrorism watch. Early this year, possibly when we were discussing the White Paper or perhaps during Second Reading, one of my noble friends said that some of the regular uniformed police officers were getting pretty bored with parts of their anti-terrorism role, which involved marching the streets of central London and being the eyes and ears of the police. Moreover, they were being taken away from areas in which they would have been much more effectively used deploying their full police powers. It is very important to point out that the police officer gets fantastic training and that we want to be able to use all of that training in the circumstances in which police officers are required. Community support officers will be much more narrowly focused. They will be trained but will not be sent into areas or asked to perform roles for which they are not trained.
The proposal to remove the relevant provisions from the Bill implies that the Opposition Front Bench is saying that it cannot trust chief officers to make the right decisions for their areas. We think that chief officers are the best people to make those decisions, in consultation with their police authorities. We are trusting and enabling chief officers to make those local decisions. We are not saying that chief officers have to
842
have community support officers. We are saying that they can have community support officers if they believe that that is in the interests of their area.
This is not policing on the cheap. Community support officers will not replace police officers. As I said, the Government are committed to an overall target for police numbers. When we reach that, we shall set a new target.
It is worth reminding noble Lords of Diary of a Police Officer, which was published last year and which I and other noble Lords quoted in, I believe, Committee. The research on which it was based showed that the average bobby spent 43 per cent of his or her day in the police station. Only 17 per cent of a patrol officer's time was spent out on the street. There must be a better way to organise matters so that quality police officers are used in a full policing role and, in areas where the full role is not required and where eyes and ears are required for low-level activities, other quality trained people are used.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, referred to other police forces. I agree that mixed views are held. Assuming that Parliament places the powers into the Bill and that they are available to chief officers, I suspect—I do not know because I have not held any individual discussions—that if the Met is first out of the starting gate on this issue, it will almost form a pilot project. Obviously London does not represent England; that is true. Nevertheless, it will almost form a pilot.
It is not true that only the Met is keen on this proposal. However, from the caveats that have been given—I am happy to place some of them on the record—I also accept that some chief officers and, indeed, police authorities, say on the one hand, "We'll have them if we cannot have more police officers", while, on the other hand, in some areas a chief officer wants them but the police authority does not. For example, the chief constable in Northamptonshire is discussing with his police authority the possibility of piloting a rural version of community support officers in the force area. Such a pilot in an urban situation would provide a nice contrast to that of the Met. I agree that the chief constable of Nottinghamshire has indicated that he will be keen to pursue the option in his force. That is interesting.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is not in his place, mentioned that the chief constables, police authority chairmen and clerks of Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside and North Wales said that they believe the issue would be eroded by the application of centrally held, ring-fenced funding. They wanted local discretion, whereas the chief constable of Nottinghamshire indicated that he wanted to pursue the option provided that the Government made available ring-fenced funding for community support officers.
Therefore, on the one hand, some chief constables and police authorities are saying, "This is great if the funding is ring-fenced"; on the other hand, others are saying, "This is great. If it is not ring-fenced, then we have local discretion". Therefore, the idea that a

843
uniform pattern is to be laid down by central government is absolute nonsense. I believe that we must get the thrust of the overall enabling policy correct on the face of the Bill. We must then allow local decision-making within the context of making it absolutely clear that these will not be replacement, alternative police officers; they will be complementary and additional to police officers. If that is set as the parameter, I believe that that is where the fundamentals can be agreed.
The chief constable of Warwickshire said that he would support the introduction of community support officers as proposed in the Bill. He went on to say in an analogous way that we have seen the benefit of classroom assistants, and the National Health Service benefited from auxiliary nurses. He also made a point in relation to funding. I accept the caveats about funding, which forms a key element. In Lincolnshire, I understand that the chief constable has indicated that he personally supports the proposal, but his police authority has indicated that it is not in favour. Therefore, there will be a mixed bag of views.
The whole point is that this clause and this concept of the legislation—I am trying to stick to the central point—is enabling. No one will be forced to implement the proposal. Those concerned will be professional people of quality who are properly trained. They will not be alternative police officers. Their powers will be extremely limited but nevertheless extremely valuable at local level.
I shall run through a few of the provisions; I shall not list them all: the issue of fixed-penalty notices in respect of offences of disorder; fixed-penalty notices for dog fouling, littering and riding on the pavement; the power to use reasonable force to detain a person to prevent him from making off—a fair point has been made in relation to that because the other accredited people will not have that power; the power to confiscate alcohol from young people; the power to confiscate cigarettes; the power of entry to save life or limb or to prevent serious damage to property; the power to stop vehicles for the purposes of a road check; and the power, established under the Terrorism Act 2000, to maintain and enforce a cordoned area.
Quite clearly in those circumstances the police would he on the case. However, in respect of maintaining the enforcement of a cordoned area, one could ask, "Is that what we really want or do we want the officers to investigate a terrorist offence?" It would be ideal to use properly trained uniformed officers, as they would be, who were part of the police family and employed by the chief constable, to maintain a cordoned area. It would be ideal for such officers to have the power, under the Terrorism Act, to stop and search vehicles and items carried by drivers and passengers and items carried by pedestrians, but not to search them, in the company of, and supervised by, a constable. Therefore, one constable together with several community support officers would be able to do the job with the power to stop and search vehicles.
No one can argue that this does not appear to be a good idea. It may be said, "Well, no, we do not want any staff". I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord
844
Dixon-Smith, was not arguing about detention officers and escort officers. But, fundamentally, the same arguments could be made because of the powers that they will have, designated by the chief officer. Therefore, I believe that one can take a broad sweep approach to this issue and say, "Let's trust the chief constables".
It is for the Home Office and the Home Secretary to get the mechanism right in respect of our spending review and the allocation of resources. We want this proposal to work. It is a flagship policy—I make lo apology to noble Lords for that—both in the White Paper and in the Bill. It is our job to ensure that resources are available in order to get the policy on the road so that it can be seen to work by other police forces.
It is clear that not all 43 police farces will have community support officers. Certainly they will not all have them straightaway. However, we want to provide the opportunity for chief officers who see the proposal as a good use of quality professional time to expend effort on training and recruiting such staff in order to augment and complement their existing police forces. Although I see that a fundamental difference of opinion exists, I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, presses the matter to a vote it will be seen that the proposal has a great deal of force. The Home Office is not being at all prescriptive because this is enabling legislation.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has argued long and forcefully in favour of the Government's proposals. I am bound to say that we must take into consideration what he has said. I commence by saying how pleasing it is that we have achieved a far more focused debate than we did in Committee at this stage when we confused community support officers with accredited support officers. As a result, the debate became quite difficult to follow. We have trespassed into that area once or twice with noble Lords mentioning the possibility of accredited, situations in "borough police forces". I believe that we should keep off that issue and deal with it in later discussions on the Bill when appropriate. But, frankly, I find the phraseology used rather frightening.
Perhaps I may deal with the canard of trusting chief officers of police. We do not question their integrity or anything else when we argue against these proposals. I have absolute confidence that, if this power is brought into law, chief officers of police will exercise it with the utmost responsibility. I have no hesitation in saying that. Let us put that to one side. However, there is an issue of principle.
Another point raised by the Minister which caused me a certain amount of concern but which is, in a sense, a diversion, is the boredom of professional policemen with their anti-terrorism responsibilities in London. I was not sure whether, implicit in those remarks, was the suggestion that community support officers might be deemed to be appropriate to do that work. I am even less certain of the reaction of the

845
diplomatic community if that were to take place. Perhaps we could hear about that matter at a later stage.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I must mention that community support officers will not replace the Diplomatic Protection Squad—far from it. That is not the issue. I did not mention it, but the fact that police officers were brought into London from outside after 11th September was mentioned in the House. We saw them every 50 yards, walking around in pairs, keeping eyes and ears open. That work had to be done, but it took fully trained police officers from other areas when the work could have been carried out by trained community support officers. That point was made at the time.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I listened with care to what he said and it was open to another interpretation. I am immensely relieved to hear what he has said. We should be clear that the funding of the police will not change in any way as a result of the introduction of this policy. Whether a chief officer can make additional resources available for such people is a moot point indeed. We should be clear that although this proposal is in the Bill and was in the Government's White Paper last autumn, it was not in their election manifesto last year so we cannot be absolutely certain that the public completely support the proposal.
The fact is that we have an issue of principle. I completely understand the reaction of chief officers of police, who see this option coming, saying that they will want to consider it. If that is a condemnation of anything, it is a condemnation of the funding that is provided by the Home Office for the police service and nothing else. Local police forces, through their local communities, are calling on local taxpayers to pay for the police service over and above the normal funding and normal standards that the Government expect to be provided. That may be all well and good and it may be the Government's intention.
As a man who has always believed in local responsibility I cannot and do not object to the principle, but we must be quite clear about what will happen. Some areas that are prosperous and well off will feel that they can do that but some areas that are not so fortunate will not feel that they can. The idea of approved standards of policing and quality of policing in a relatively uniform manner across the country will fly out of the window.
I believe that we are justified in treating this point as an issue of principle. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Waddington, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Fowler for their support. My noble friend Lord Elton raised the important issue of caveats to ensure that Treasury pressure cannot be exerted to bring in such people. I accept that my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Brooke have some hesitations about that view, although I am sure that they will accept that there is an issue of principle. But we have the problem of trying to meet local demands.
846
I do not believe that this is the time to decide this issue. We shall consider carefully all that has been said. In our view, these proposals devalue and will diminish the quality of policing on the street. We are not concerned with what takes place in the stations or once an investigation is under way; we are concerned with that most open and public aspect of policing, the bobby on the beat. While what is being proposed may have some beneficial side-effects, on balance it is regrettable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 136:
Page 32, line 32, leave out from "duties" to "that" in line 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a fairly simple amendment. I can see the Minister's ears pricking up for this one and at my lack of faith in local discretion. The Bill provides a basket of police powers from which the chief officer of police may choose. He can choose to give different individuals different ranges of powers from within that basket. I believe that that is a recipe for public confusion. A chief officer may decide within his policing area that all the staff will have the full basket of powers or a particular section of the basket of powers.
There is then the problem that a neighbouring police force may pick a different section of the basket of powers so that a police force on one side of a boundary may operate with one set of powers and a force on the other side may operate with another set. Not only do criminals not know or acknowledge police force boundaries, but the general public lives in precisely the same way. Someone living on one side of a boundary may work on the other side and he would have to learn two lessons instead of one.
We believe that if the basket of powers is relevant it should be used. We shall return to the argument about those powers later on. Either the basket is appropriate or it is not. We believe that that is a perfectly proper matter to be determined at this time. These amendments are designed to narrow the scope for confusion by removing discretion and to ensure that the basket remains complete so that only one basket of powers is applied around the country. We believe that that is a reasonable thing to do. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have come full circle. I recognise the amendment as similar to one that was moved in Committee. As the noble Lord said, it would have the effect of removing flexibility and flexibility would be taken away from chief officers. Yesterday we had a debate about how this Government wanted to centralise matters and to determine everything from the centre. Here we are providing for local flexibility and a degree of local autonomy.
The other ironic aspect of the amendment is that it would also have the effect of requiring designated staff to have powers that in all probability they would never be required to use.

847
We want to make the introduction of designated officers, including community support officers, a local decision. We want to give chief officers the flexibility to mould their introduction to meet the precise needs of the community rather than prescribing this from the centre.
The noble Lord appears to be fearful that this part of the clause, as it is drafted, could mean that all support staff have different powers and that that would confuse the public. In practice there may be two or three groups of powers for each category of support staff in each force area, developed for and identifiable by the communities in those areas.
In Committee we used the example of the Metropolitan Police who have indicated that they will establish just three categories of community support officers, each performing different functions, hence having different powers. Different forces could have different functions for their community support officers and hence different combinations of powers. Indeed, some variation is to be expected when a new concept such as this is being introduced, and that can be beneficial.
Similar arguments could apply to other categories of support staff. In order to suit local policing arrangements, chief officers may well choose to confer on support staff only some but not all of the powers available under Schedule 4. The clause enables chief officers to tailor precisely the designation of support staff to suit those local needs. We believe that local flexibility is worth having. The amendment would remove that.
By insisting that chief officers extend the full range of powers to each category of support staff, we argue that that would prejudge the roles that they are to fulfil. Throughout these clauses we have aimed to allow local flexibility, hence the clauses are enabling rather than being prescriptive.
The amendment would require, for example, that a detention officer who would only be dealing with handling people in custody would also have to be trained in interviewing suspects; that a community support officer working on community regeneration would have the same anti-terrorism powers as a colleague performing a security function. I question the need for that. If a designated officer had powers that he was not using, he would still be required to be fully trained and competent in the exercise of those powers. That is totally unnecessary and puts an additional financial burden on forces.
If a community support officer performing a security role will only be using three or so powers, what is to be gained by training him or her in the exercise of all the powers in Part 1 of Schedule 4? By the time they come to use those powers they may have become so rusty in understanding them that they have forgotten how to exercise them.
We are not saying that chief officers must select variations of powers from each menu; we are simply saying that that option should be available to them. That is not the same as automatically giving each designated person different powers. I do not believe
848
that chief officers would want to do that. Leaving aside the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on potential confusion for the public, it would be an unnecessarily complex situation and create extra bureaucratic and training burdens for the police. However, there may be some circumstances in which the flexibility provided by this clause will prove to be useful to chief officers.
That said, I suspect that over time we will see some convergence in the approach adopted by forces in the light of experience. That is to be expected. Through best practice forces will no doubt learn from each other to secure the best use of the flexibility given. The code of practice to be issued under Clause 40 will play an important part in encouraging that. If, over time, experience suggests that only limited variations in powers are appropriate, we can promote that good practice through the medium of the code of practice.
This is an area for local discussion. It is an area where local flexibility is to be welcomed. It will enable experimentation to take place and that will be a valuable role for community support officers and others to fulfil. It will be left to the discretion of the chief officer to determine how that is best done, though guidance will be issued through the code so that the roles are better understood. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, is it possible that there is a defect in the drafting of the amendment? If the amendment is accepted, as I understand it subsection (6) will read:
"A designation under this section shall confer powers and impose duties…that are to apply to the designated person: and for this purpose the applicable Part of that Schedule is…".
What schedule? Schedule 4, referred to in the previous line, comes out. So perhaps the noble Lord can explain what "that schedule" means.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for drawing my attention to that point. It highlights the problem of being an amateur when drafting amendments. The noble and learned Lord is quite right; without the schedule I have removed the purpose of the amendment and therefore the amendment is at fault. That can be corrected.
I was interested in the Minister's response. He was talking about having to train community support officers in all four of the possible disciplines mentioned. In fact they would only need to be trained in each basket. A community support officer would need to know about the police powers relating to community support officers in Schedule 4. An investigating officer would need the powers of an investigating officer. The two do not need to mix.
The criticism made was that we were prejudging the roles that such people would play. But what is extraordinary about that? We prejudge the roles that the police themselves play. Their powers are defined by law. That is not an optional basket. If it is deemed that

849
those powers should be changed, it is a matter for Parliament and not for chief officers. That is not an inappropriate decision to take.
We shall need to think seriously about this matter. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137 to 139 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Powers exercisable by police civilians]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 140:
Page 121, line 6, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 4 provides a menu of police powers for community support officers. This point parallels our earlier debate. Police powers should not be exercised by non-police and this group of amendments is to give effect to that. The House will remember that we have already put forward an amendment to remove the category of community support officer. If that is done we do not need the powers in Schedule 4.
Amendment No. 40 simply applies consistency with the earlier amendment. The Minister may not even need to reply to it. But in the event that finally there is a decision that community support officers should come into being—we will no doubt reach that at Third Reading—we may well need to look at this basket of powers in detail. However, as far as I am concerned, Amendment No. 140 was tabled to make that point. We could not have had the earlier debate without including these amendments on the Marshalled List. But there may come a time later in the consideration of the Bill when this becomes a serious issue. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords. I have to say to the House before calling Amendment No. 140, that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 141.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, Amendment No. 140 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 141, 142 and 144, some of which are our amendments and one is tabled jointly with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. A number of amendments in this group and in following groups deal with the exercise of police powers by civilians. We could debate each of them at length but that would be time consuming.
The schedule provides for specified police support staff and for civilians to be given particular powers in identifiable circumstances. There is no dispute that better use ought to be made of police resources through more effective deployment of support staff but there is a need to exercise great care in granting powers that, while making policing easier, might increase anxiety in the community.
One problem is the Bill's terminology. There is confusion because of the widespread use of different terminology and varying public perceptions of the new powers. The provisions need to be rationalised. In particular, I recommend that consideration be given to a title that is common to all the functions in
850
question—perhaps something in the nature of "community safety wardens", to ensure that everyone understands the meaning of a second-tier police service.
Under the amendments, community service wardens would be accredited by the police but be under local authority control. We make a distinction in the case of the Metropolitan Police but propose greatly reducing the powers proposed by the Government.
The Police Federation strongly opposes the Government's proposals. They and we know already of the confusion surrounding various strands of policing support. There are community safety officers, community wardens, neighbourhood wardens—one could go on. Even the Prime Minister managed to use four different titles when referring to the CSOs that the Bill proposes. There is a need for a rational approach to avoid confusion.
We must make sure also that the public are able to distinguish between the powers of police officers and those proposed for second-tier support. The solution is clearly to indicate the nature of the new powers and to use a title such as "community safety wardens". We propose also that wardens wear the same visible uniforms and display identifying badges, to indicate the local authority by which they are controlled. All wardens will have been accredited by the police, after assuring themselves of an individual's suitability for the role. Wardens will also be required to complete some training to the satisfaction of both the police and the local authority.
The police and local authorities already work closely together. Our proposal would put community safety wardens at the heart of local community working. They would have fewer powers than those proposed in the Bill and everyone would understand what those powers are.
The Police Federation helpfully drew attention to the possible implications, in exercising the power of detention by CSOs, of Articles 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I should like the Minister to comment. I draw to his attention also the federation's concern that CSOs could potentially find themselves in dangerous and volatile situations, in providing public order support and operating at times of terrorist threat. I accept the Minister's comments, but does he not agree that sudden escalations of violence are not unknown and require the highest standard of training and professionalism among those who confront them? What kind of expert training does the Minister intend for officers likely to find themselves in such circumstances and whose lives might be put at risk?
The Bill should keep it simple by identifying police officers and then others in a supporting role, so that the public will be neither confused nor uncertain.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I confess that I am in danger of being swept along and losing my balance by the sheer enthusiasm of the Minister who is in loco

851
parentis to the Bill. He seems such a zealous convert in its cause that he can see no objections. I believe that he has misunderstood one point that we have tried to make. It is not so much that we suspect the Home Secretary of some devilish scheme to compel chief constables to make use of designated officers. Rather, we fear that they will feel under pressure, because of their limited budgets and lack of resources, to make use of cheaper manpower. I wish that the Minister would get that clear in his mind.
The noble Lord, in his enthusiastic advocacy, referred to this part of the Bill as a major innovation. Some aspects of it puzzle me. I am particularly interested in Amendment No. 142, which seeks to leave out paragraph 2 of Schedule 4. That schedule refers to a designated person with a limited function, who will not receive the full training given to a police officer. The Minister said that such an officer would have the advantage of not being so likely to be called away because of the pressures on a chief constable.
The schedule allows a designated person to stop someone whom he suspects of having committed an offence and to demand the individual's name and address. If the individual declines or the designated person suspects that he is being fobbed off with a false name and address, he has the power to request the suspect to wait with him for 30 minutes while a police constable is sent for and turns up.
I cannot help feeling that it is unrealistic to expect a person who has not received full police training to wait with his suspect for 30 minutes on the roadside, perhaps in the rain, while a police constable is sent for to do the job that he—and only he—is fully trained to do. That scenario verges on the unreal to such an extent that it would be as well if the Minister would agree to leaving that provision out of the Bill. It asks an awful lot of a designated officer, who is not as well trained as a policeman. That officer would for up to half an hour be the acting policeman and that is a little too much. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the worry that the schedule represents a rather devious means of obtaining a larger force on the cheap.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, by saying that there is nothing devious about this matter. We have been totally upfront. We want a greater uniformed presence on the streets. We are not being devious about it. I have always said that it is a flagship part of the White Paper and of the Bill. We are not hiding that light under a bushel.
I am sorry if I have come across as being zealous. I am more jealous than zealous. If these powers had been available during some periods of the 27 years when I served my constituency in the other place, my constituents' lives would have been vastly improved. So I fully support them.
With regard to our not listening, as a result of discussion in Committee I have returned—yesterday and today—with a sack load of amendments to the Bill. Half of today's amendments will be government ones. So we have gone away and thought about the
852
matters. We also went away to think about this aspect. But we are still of the view that the powers are worth keeping.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did me a favour. He accepted that this group of amendments was really part and parcel of Amendment No. 134. I have 30 pages of notes which explain each and every one of the powers. But I do not think that that is the issue at stake.
The central point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is that it is important that people clearly understand the powers of their community support officers. It is incumbent on the police authority and the chief officer when they designate and choose from the menu that there is clarity and not confusion about the powers of the support officers.
What they are called colloquially does not matter. There is nothing in the law that talks about a "hobby on the beat". But people will go to police consultative meetings and other public meetings and will talk about bobbies on the beat because people understand what is meant by that. I accept that "community support officers" is a piece of legalise in the Bill. I do not know whether in future they will be known as that. The London authority has already said that it will designate three types of community support officer and probably give a name to each of them, but the name is connected to the police because they will be police authority employees. However, the public needs clarity.
Perhaps I may address the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He asked me especially about paragraph 2 of Schedule 4. He jested about detaining a person for 30 minutes without a power of arrest. He asked when the clock would start ticking and so on. Given the support officer's existing powers—whether it is in order to remove alcohol or because of anti-social behaviour—basically we need him to be able to get a person's name and address. In most cases he will be limited to asking for a name and address. He may get details that he does not think are true and which he wants to check. He should be reasonable and not oppressive. In order to check he could say, "Will you wait until a police constable comes?" If the person makes off, the support officers will not have the power to go after him, as it were, "to search and rescue". I make clear that the officers do not have a power of arrest.
In a way we must strike a balance in the powers between having support officers dealing with some of the low-level crime matters that I have discussed earlier and the matters dealt with by the fully trained police constable. I cannot say how this will work out in practice. It will be for the community support officer to judge whether to detain, say, a gang of youths and ask for their names and addresses; as indeed it would be for a police constable on his own to make a judgment whether to apprehend a person or to make an arrest. The community support officer would call for extra support. The support officers will be in contact with the police. They will not be isolated out there. They will be the eyes and ears of the police.

853
They will have the ability to contact the station and to contact patrolling officers when they need that kind of support.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I failed to ask him the right question. Given that the suspect may not be an entirely reasonable, patient and well-behaved character, is it not verging on the unreasonable to expect a not fully-trained designated officer to handle him for 30 minutes while he waits for a policeman to arrive? That seems to me to be a little unrealistic.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that that is unrealistic or unreasonable. As I have said, it depends on the circumstances. Whether it is a gang of marauding, strapping youths as opposed to strapping "kidlets"—although they can be equally dangerous these days—it is a matter of judgment. The support officers will be trained. They will not be sent out untrained with these powers. They will go through the processes and the scenarios of what happens—as indeed police officers are trained—and then make judgments. They will use their common sense in the ultimate circumstances. But it is not unreasonable for them to have these modest powers to detain for 30 minutes if they need a name and address.
After the 30 minutes the officers will not have a power to detain. That is a matter of local contact with the police. It will be a matter of custom and practice and what actually happens in the locality. It will be up to the chief constable and other police officers to make the best use of their community support officers. Time will tell what happens. But the training will be provided to meet those circumstances. I have no doubt that in due course—I suspect although I cannot make these offers—the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, could be appraised of the kind of training that goes on. Other noble Lords could be, because this is not being done furtively. It is not being done deviously, as the noble Lord claims. We are quite open about this matter. We shall be quite boastful of its success in due course.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for his supportive remarks on the principles that we have been following. I am grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for explaining his amendments and indeed his concerns about the basket of powers and the flexibility within it. It was right that he raised that at this stage. I dealt with this group of amendments as a simple follow-on from the case that we had been arguing that in fact we should not be putting people exercising police powers on the streets who are not in fact full policemen with full police powers.
We have had a long and fascinating debate across various groups of amendments in this field. One point appears to be strongly made. I return to the point raised by the Minister in the diary of a policeman who has to spend 42 per cent of his time on administration. If by legislation we could reduce the administrative burden on that man by one half, so that he only had to
854
spend 22 per cent of his time—nearly one-quarter of his time—on administrative duties in the police station, we would do far more good for the police service than anything that has been proposed here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 151 not moved.]
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 152:
Page 124, line 39, at end insert—
"(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No 152 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 154, 156 to 158 and Amendments Nos. 159 to 169. There are a large number of amendments in this group. They all deal with the exercising of powers. We believe that persons who undertake powers of search, of entry and of seizure should be under the direction of a police officer. Similarly, Amendments Nos. 159 to 169 would ensure that a constable directed a community safety warden. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 152 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 153 under the preemption rule.
5 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his intention commendably plain. To a degree, I can understand his caution about the provision. But ultimately I am drawn to conclude that it would be an unnecessary fetter on the police service's ability to make full use of what we are enabling. That is especially true of the first set of amendments. The second set of amendments have a comparable feature in that they would require any powers used by a detention officer to be pursuant to an instruction from a constable. I will say more about detention officers before I conclude my remarks, because there are some particular points worth making about them, but I shall first set out some general concerns about how the amendments would seriously undermine what we are trying to achieve by the Bill.
The purpose of the designation process is to create a flexible and proportionate response to tackling antisocial behaviour and freeing up police officers' time from doing certain tasks. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has emphasised several times how important that is, and it is a shared belief across the House. We want to ensure that we have designated officers who do not require the full skills and training of police constables so that there can be some flexibility of use.
Community support officers, or whatever they are called in the end, will allow police officers to focus on serious crime and public disorder, which is highly desirable and at the top of most people's agenda—street crime in particular—while community service

855
officers will be able to provide a visible, public and authoritative presence on the streets to deal with minor but nevertheless corrosive misconduct. That may help us to advance the notion of there being zero tolerance of certain behaviour. The other types of designated individual will have specialist and specific roles that can tie up police officers' time and mean that they are unable to spend more time in public carrying out the duties and functions for which they are uniquely trained and equipped.
We fear that the amendments would prevent us from doing that to the full because they would remove the flexibility that we have frequently discussed this afternoon and which is a key feature of the Bill. They would require police constables to accompany community support officers or investigating officers when carrying out some of their functions, rather than allowing the designated officers, who will be thoroughly trained and accountable, to carry out the task themselves.
Although I understand the noble Lord's concerns, the amendments would lead to duplication, inflexibility and added bureaucracy. That is undesirable. We want designated people to work closely with the police in what could be accurately described as a virtuous partnership. Like most noble Lords, I am sure, I should prefer to leave decisions about deployment and making the best use of valuable human resources to the chief officer, rather than prescribing in the Bill a requirement that will constrain the chief officer's operational discretion, which is key to making good use of staff in any situation.
I said that I would also comment on the amendments relating to detention officers, which work in a similar way and to which the same arguments apply. We must ensure that police officers do not have to spend unnecessary time in the station and that we do not constrain how the chief officer and his senior management deploy their staff. We want properly trained and accountable detention officers to be able to carry out their range of functions without constant supervision and being second-guessed by a busy police officer in attendance.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Police Federation drew attention to the possible implications of the exercise of power of detention by community support officers that the Minister mentioned under Articles 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Is the Minister satisfied that there are no difficulties in that regard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that point has been fully checked out and we are satisfied that the provision is fully compliant. The issue has been raised, rehearsed and considered and we are confident that that is the case.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides significant safeguards in relation to what happens in the police station. For that reason, the amendments are unnecessary. For example, as we discussed in Committee, in future an inspector must authorise an intimate search of a detained person and
856
in practice a custody officer will instruct a detention officer to take fingerprints without consent or undertake a non-intimate search of someone who was detained.
We think that we have the checks and balances right. We have taken a flexible but accountable approach that allows chief officers to exercise the necessary local discretion in deploying their staff resource—whether police officers or designated support staff. The amendments would fetter, damage and undermine that important point of principle. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We fully understand his cautious approach to the introduction of the provisions, although they have been broadly welcomed.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I must study carefully what he has said. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said earlier, the powers vested in community support officers is a matter of serious concern to us. We may return to it at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 153 to 162 not moved.]
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 163:
Page 130, line 15, leave out paragraph 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the provision for the intimate search of detained persons. We raised the matter in Committee and raise it again on Report. We must carefully consider what is appropriate and what is excessive. I have studied carefully and at length the explanation offered by the Minister in Committee, but I am still concerned.
The Minister said:
"Code of practice C which contains guidance on the conduct of intimate searches is currently under review as part of the general review that we are undertaking of all codes of practice. We are including clearer guidance for inspectors on exercising discretion in cases where a doctor or nurse is not available to conduct an intimate search".—[Official Report, 7/4/02; col. 483.]
We certainly hope that that code of practice—or at least some of the trends that may be reflected in it— will be available to your Lordships' House before Third Reading, so that we can decide whether to table an appropriate amendment. Intimate searches are likely to create serious problems, especially in relation to community support officers, whether or not they take place in the presence of police officers. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, on the last point made by the noble Lord, I shall certainly ensure that whatever is available on PACE code of practice C is made available in the Library, if it is not already. What I can provide, I will. However, although I have a long note about it, I am not sure whether the information is fully public.

857
It is a serious issue; I am not gainsaying that. Intimate searches are not made on that many occasions, but they are the most intrusive procedure that can be carried out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is right that the House should address the issue. I said in Committee that there was no point in having civilian detention officers if we gave them only limited powers, preventing their performing the full range of necessary duties.
Intimate searches are comparatively rare, and there is no obvious reason why a suitably trained detention officer should not carry one out in appropriate circumstances. Indeed, it would be better to have the search carried out by a trained detention officer—someone who does it all the time—than by an untrained police officer. Most importantly, the significant safeguards set out in Section 55 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the PACE code of practice will continue to apply.
Under PACE, codes of practice are subject to extensive statutory consultation and the affirmative resolution procedure. I regret to say that the relevant code will not be available for Third Reading; I shall find out why. However, I shall provide the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, with whatever is available.
There are safeguards in Section 55 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I described them at some length in Committee, as the noble Lord has seen in Hansard. The circumstances in which—at present—a police constable and—in future—a designated detention officer can conduct an intimate search for potentially dangerous articles are very limited. Such a search may be carried out only on the authority of a senior officer and must be conducted by a registered doctor or nurse, unless such an officer considers that that is not possible—for example, if the senior officer reasonably suspected that a person had concealed a harmful article, such as razor blades, on his person and no doctor or nurse was readily available to conduct the search.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the codes contain significant safeguards, which Schedule 4 does not alter. The Bill does not affect the existing safeguards. Any intimate searches done by those designated under the schedule will be done only with the authorisation of a senior officer and will be in limited and controlled circumstances. I shall take further advice on what I can provide to the noble Lord before Third Reading.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164 to 171 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Community safety accreditation schemes]:
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 173:
Page 33, line 33, after "him" insert "as community safety special constables"
858
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we come to the point at which our difference of opinion with the Government follows on from the argument we had earlier. The argument is not whether such officers should exist but how they should exist.
We argued earlier that we should not put people with police powers on the streets unless they were fully empowered policemen. The community safety accreditation schemes set out in the Bill provide a golden opportunity to restart completely the special constable scheme. We have already heard that the number of special constables has gone down from 19,000 to 12,000. Short of some radical change in the approach to the Special Constabulary, that diminution cannot be arrested.
We propose that the people to be accredited should be enrolled as special constables. That is a radical new approach, and it would, of course, involve a heavier training cost for the police and heavier commitment. We must also consider the down side: some communities may feel that they would not have the absolute control over such people, if they enrolled as special constables, that they would have if they were simply accredited community safety officers. The accredited community safety officer will operate within tight geographical limits, whereas the special constable is under the control of the chief police officer. It might be argued by some communities that the chief officer could remove such special constables from the place of service where they receive their bread and rations. I do not see that as a problem.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is not in his place; he could correct me if I am wrong. I think that he has come to an arrangement with the Metropolitan Police under which the Greater London Authority will provide 100 police officers to police London's transport system. The mayor had a real concern that, if there were some form of emergency, the policing of the transport system provided by the Greater London Authority would cease, and his 100 policemen would be taken away. I understand, however, that there is a contractual arrangement with the Metropolitan Police. They are fully trained policemen, who are there to police London's transport, and there are financial penalties payable by the Metropolitan Police if those officers are removed from the transport system to deal with some financial emergency. That is a perfectly reasonable way to arrange things. I hope that my understanding is correct.
We are still wholly convinced that people on the streets acting as policemen should have full police powers. That is the merit of the status of special constable. A special constable may, at present, be a volunteer. We suggest accreditation as a different route to that status. He may be part-time, but, when the special constable is in action, he has full police powers. That is preferable to the diminished status of accredited community safety officer.
If such a change were made, it would completely transform the Special Constabulary. Consequential amendments might be required to make it work. I

859
accept that. However, it is an important matter, and we feel that we ought to press it at some stage. I accept the concerns of local authorities who might feel less secure about keeping the accredited community safety officers in their community. However, I have already suggested one way in which that concern could be answered. The other point is that some local authorities are beginning to discuss having their own police officers on the streets, outwith the normal police service. I am not sure that I would find that principle particularly tolerable.
I am aware that there is an increasing volume of support for the Government's proposals. However, that arises out of desperation because people feel that they are not receiving the policing they want or ought to have. That is not a proud motivation on which to introduce changes in the Bill but our amendment would at least improve that situation. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I rise to address Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 and the amendment tabled jointly by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, which states that if the local authority is the employer, it must be deemed to be a fit and proper person. I believe that that is right. However, I want to address my most important points to Amendments Nos. 173 and 174.
I understand the Opposition's reasons for bringing forward the amendments. They are attempting, as are we on these Benches, to remove the worst parts of the clause. I respectfully suggest that we are both trying to achieve the same ends but are approaching them from different angles.
Our concerns about making CSOs special constables is that people who apply to be Specials are not necessarily the same people as those who apply to be security officers, neighbourhood wardens and suchlike.
A Home Office circular, HOC 12/2000, sets out guidance on eligibility for recruitment, including ineligible occupations and activity. At present, traffic wardens, school crossing patrols and parking attendants are ineligible to be special constables. Indeed, at paragraph 23 the circular recognises the difficulties of distinction. It states:
"However, since most members of the public do not appreciate the distinction between police authority and local authority wardens, the Working Group concluded that any uniformed persons enforcing parking or controlling traffic in public places should be ineligible for recruitment to the Special Constabulary".
The same applies to what are referred to as "non-Home Office constabularies" or "private police forces". Again, I quote from the Home Office circular. Paragraph 24 states:
"(for instance, parks police, police forces maintained by government departments, and other bodies with constabulary powers not maintained under the Police Act 1996). The powers of such individuals are prescribed by law and relate to the particular duties they are to perform on behalf of their employers. Special Constabulary status would enable them to go beyond the confines
860
of existing legislation in respect of their normal employment and there might be problems in ascertaining accountability if they were involved in a policing incident during their normal employment".
The circular goes on to state at paragraph 32:
"Holders of these occupations might be tempted to use police uniform or the police organisation to advance their personal business interests—presumably, either because they would have constabulary powers and police training, or because they would have access to information as police officers that would be denied them as civilians. This potential enhancement to an employed function is both unfair and unmanageable, and it is recommended that bailiffs, warrant officers, private detectives, and inquiry agents should not be appointed as special constables".
Security personnel, guards and doormen are also ineligible; neighbourhood wardens are ineligible; civilian detentionofficers are ineligible; and civilian staff employed by police authorities, who deal with the public and whose employed function would be enhanced or a business advantage to the police service gained by having constabulary powers are ineligible.
For all those reasons, we believe that the proposals are perhaps not the best way of dealing with these matters. I greatly regret that we on these Benches cannot wholeheartedly support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I reiterate that we want the same, or similar, ends and I hope that we can move forward in that spirit.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is an interesting area of debate and discussion. We are trying to focus on having members of the public acting as volunteers within the Special Constabulary while at the same time creating a "broader family" of uniform presence to achieve and secure public order and have people doing appropriate jobs. I can see where there is a debate between the two Opposition Front Benches as to how that is best achieved, but we are trying to get the balance right.
On a number of occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Benchhave made the point that there has been a falling away in the number of special constables. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, sees the potential for accredited community safety officers as a way of pumping up those numbers. I can see the attraction of that, but the problem is that we are talking about two different things.
The problem with the noble Lord's amendments is that there is a confusion in his mind about what an accredited community support officer would be doing and the roles, duties and functions of special constables. My speaking notes contain the following good example. Let us take an accredited neighbourhood warden appropriately attired in his usual neighbourhood warden outfit—i:n my area they wear rather nice orange jumpers and ride orange push-bikes and they feel comfortable with that—which is a casual livery. Let us say that the neighbourhood warden, who has the powers of a Special, is confronted with a situation in which he might want to use them as a Special. What does he, or she, do? Does he take off for the local telephone box, have a quick spin, change

861
and become a uniformed presence? Where does it begin and where does it end? That is the great difficulty.
The noble Lord said that it was a radical measure and it certainly is that. It could also lead to considerable confusion. In our view, the amendments would not achieve the result that the noble Lord intends. When we debated the matter yesterday, I thought that we offered a high degree of reassurance as to our intention with regard to Specials, ensuring that their volunteering role was fully recognised, looking at ways in which we can strengthen and improve that and at providing them with extra support. We will also ensure that through an extensive publicity campaign run by the Home Office that we bring more back into play.
We all accept that there are difficulties in the specialist nature of their volunteering role and we must unlock the key which ensures that those numbers are increased and greatly enhanced and that those people provide an additional element of street presence for maintaining public order and so forth. The amendments have a potential to create another regular police force. I am not sure whether that is the noble Lord's intention but such a force would inevitably be less well paid, employed by an outside organisation not under the direction and control of the chief officer. In that sense, there is no difference between accrediting a special and a police constable. Ironically, the latter—the police employee—would be easier. Moreover, as volunteers, Specials embody active citizenship. By removing their volunteer status, they will no longer be members of the community working selflessly for that community. The combined result then is that Specials will no longer be "special"—in all senses of the word.
The other significant effect of the amendments will be to give accredited employees who are not supervised by the police the same range of powers as a police constable, including those of arrest and stop and search. We are having an extensive national debate about the powers of stop and search and how they should be used. Again, this would create difficulties in that context.
This proposal is also in stark contrast to the noble Lord's stance on community support officers. Even though these support staff would be employed by the police authority and deployed by the chief officer, the noble Lord appears to believe that they should not have any powers at all.
The role of Specials is also very different from that envisaged for the accredited individuals. Specials do not deal specifically with anti-social behaviour or issues which do not necessarily require the full powers and training of a police officer in the first instance. These clauses are intended to provide a proportionate response to community safety. They enable the extension of only those powers which are appropriate for tackling community safety and reassurance and, where extended, these powers would be exercised by accredited persons as part of their paid work by virtue of Clauses 35 and 36.
862
Perhaps I may turn to Amendments Nos. 191 to 195. I should remind noble Lords that Clause 36 is aimed at ensuring that if we are to extend police powers in the accreditation of civilians, even in a limited form, and that such powers would be available only to appropriate employees of appropriate employers, it is vital that checks are carried out before accrediting a person under this clause.
For example, we must specify the grounds on which the chief officers must be satisfied before the accreditation is awarded. This part of the Bill ensures that the employer is a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of functions by the employee, and that the person is suitable to carry out the relevant functions, capable of carrying them out and adequately trained. To remove those requirements from the face of the Bill, as the amendments suggest, would be to remove certain necessary safeguards that guard against the inappropriate use of police powers.
In the debate in Committee the noble Lord expressed concern over the appropriateness of a non-police employer supervising police functions. He stated that this amendment was aimed at ensuring that the supervision of police functions remained in the hands of the police. Once again, this is in stark contrast to his earlier amendment, which sought to accredit non-police employees as Specials and thus have the full powers of a constable. In any case, as I have already pointed out, Clause 36 is not aimed at the supervisory function of the employer; that is covered in Clause 35.
We believe that subsection (4) must remain in the Bill as it stands. The public will expect that inquiries have been made into the suitability and training of anyone in their community providing an official presence and exercising even limited official powers. The provisions in this part of the Bill are enabling rather than prescriptive. Neither employers nor employees have to become a part of the accreditation schemes. It is their choice to do so if they so wish. However, we must ensure that adequate safeguards are in place so that appropriate individuals are able to provide co-ordinated and efficient support to the police.
I shall turn to Amendments Nos. 196 and 197. Here I suspect that the noble Lord seeks to make it possible for chief officers to charge for training. That may be driven by an appreciation of the far greater costs involved in training an accredited person as a Special. Perhaps the noble Lord can assist us with that.
Ironically, the amendments will also mean that organisations which promote active citizenship in their staff—again a matter which has achieved common support in your Lordships' House—may well be required to pay all the costs of any member of staff wishing to become a Special in an accredited scheme, including the costs involved in accreditation and training. The argument here is easy; that is not much of an incentive for joining up to the Specials when other forms of volunteering are of minimal cost to the employer.
I agree that Amendment No. 202 is a logical extension of the noble Lord's position. It would be silly to have an accredited Special lose his status as a Special

863
if his employment in a given accredited scheme was to end. However, I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree that this amendment is dependent on whether his earlier amendments for an accredited special constable scheme are accepted.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords once again that the accreditation of organisations such as neighbourhood wardens, street wardens and shopping centre security staff is a key aspect of the co-ordinated approach in the reassurance agenda, and thus is a key part of the Bill. On the one hand, volunteer Specials, although an essential and valuable part of the police service, are not the only solution to anti-social behaviour. Most have a normal job and, as such, are available only outside normal working hours such as evenings and weekends. By contrast, these organisations are staffed by those who have community safety and regeneration pretty much as their full-time job. They can provide a full-time community presence, in particular during school hours and school holidays. That is enhanced and complemented by the presence of Specials when they are available.
Of course, these accreditation schemes are not intended to replace Specials. It is important that that is widely appreciated and understood. The Government want to reverse the decline in Specials. Research suggests that improvements in the management, deployment, welfare and support given to Specials are essential to achieve that end. We are considering, with the relevant stakeholders, a number of options for achieving improvements in conditions of service and the management of special constables. We aim to ensure that Specials are used effectively so that they provide an increasingly visible presence in our communities.
I apologise for the length of my response, but I think that it was essential to go over very carefully the issues and to try to get at the core of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I hope that he will take careful cognisance of these points and then reflect on them. Ultimately I do not think that there is a great difference between what we are trying to achieve in ensuring a better and more effective uniformed presence on the streets, in the most appropriate form. I suggest to the noble Lord that he withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister would say that, wouldn't he?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for drawing the attention of the House to the Home Office circular on special constables, in particular that part which relates to people such as traffic wardens, community wardens, parks police and so forth. The reason why those groups are not eligible to be chosen as Specials is very simple: apparently they might feel tempted to use their office as a special constable for their personal gain. The temptation for people to use an office for personal gain is universal and does not apply to these categories any more than
864
it applies to anyone else, anywhere else, doing any other job. If we think that that is a reason why people should not become special constables then, by golly, that is a good argument for why we should not have an accredited scheme at all.
The Minister is right, to the extent that the amendments we have put forward form a package. They do not stand individually; they stand together. That is important because if these accredited people become accredited special constables, they will become a part of the police service. Then they would no longer be directly responsible to their employer for the part of their duties which involved police matters: they would be responsible to the chief officer of police.
To return to a point made by the Minister, the issue of whether one needs to approve their employer or not ceases to be relevant because once they are appointed as a result of the organisation having been approved, they are responsible to the chief constable or the chief officer of police rather than to their employer. We have tabled other amendments to ensure that the accredited community service officers should be responsible to the chief officer of police and not to their employers for that part of their duties related to the police function. We do not believe that it is right to make the third party employer responsible for people exercising police powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, adduced a number of other arguments. He made something of our amendments in regard to the cost of staff training, but the Bill provides that the cost of training staff under the accreditation scheme falls on the employer. Our amendment simply picks that up. Given that situation, I find it remarkable that the Minister had almost the effrontery to make an issue of it. We have talked a great deal about a chief officer's discretion—this is a matter of discretion, as it should be—and the chief officer would be most unlikely to demand that he should get back from the employer the cost of training.
We believe that it was worth while tabling the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for assuring me that I was wrong in doing so. I shall be very happy to see the cost of training these people wholly borne by the police, as it properly should be. If we are training and expecting people to exercise police powers— whether they are Specials or accredited community safety officers is neither here nor there—it should be at police cost.
We heard many traditional arguments from the Minister which reveal that his mindset is stuck in the ruts that used to go down roads in the olden days and ensured that the traffic kept going along one line and one line only. He is not thinking with any flexibility about how we could use the proposals in the Bill to bring about much stronger and more lasting changes for the benefit of policing and to revivify the Special Constabulary.
There have been many interesting arguments, but they are specious, inconsistent and thin. I have not heard anything to convince me that the suggestion we are making, even if it is not fleshed out in full detail in

865
the amendments, is the wrong one. But this is not the occasion to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174 to 177 not moved.]
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 178:
Page 34, line 13, leave out from "with" to end of line 16 and insert "any local authority (or parish or community council) falling within the police authority area"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group. I apologise for overlooking Amendment No. 176 but I shall refer to it in moving Amendment No. 178 and speaking to other amendments related to Clause 35. There are more than 20 amendments in this group in regard to community safety accreditation schemes.
Amendment No. 176 was tabled because we believe that local authorities need to be included as major partners in consultation. Amendment No. 178 seeks to include other relevant partners who make up the consultation process in areas and communities—a kind of "subsidiarity" argument. As to Amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 182, we would prefer to use "local authorities (or parish or community council)" instead of "employers". That applies also to Amendments Nos. 183 to 189. Amendment No. 184 and other amendments in the group seek to ensure that subcontractors will be sub-contractors of the local authority as the local authority will be the employer. Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 are simply tidying amendments.
I have spoken already to Amendment No. 191. If the local authority is the employer, then it must be deemed to be a fit and proper "person".
Amendment No. 198 is similar to Amendment No. 180, as is Amendment No. 200, which seeks to change "person" to "local authority". Amendment No. 201, again, is a tidying amendment. Amendment No. 203 explains what we mean by "local authority". Amendment Nos. 212 to 218, as I have indicated, seek to introduce the new name we have suggested—"Community Safety Warden"—and there are various similar amendments to which I have spoken previously. All these amendments relate to Clause 35. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the purpose of the amendments, essentially, is to limit membership of community safety accreditation schemes to employees of local authorities. I suspect that this is driven by a concern that accreditation—and hence the limited range of powers available—may not be suitable for employers of what the noble Lord might describe as irresponsible private sector organisations. I can understand that, but we take a different view. We believe that it is sensible to have greater flexibility.
Amendments Nos. 184, 188 and 215 seek to ensure that when the accredited employer is a sub-contractor of a local authority, the sub-contractor is also
866
accountable under the Bill. However, as the subcontractor is the immediate employer of the accredited employee, the argument is not necessary as his responsibilities are already covered by the Bill.
Amendment No. 212 seeks to make it compulsory for an accredited employee to be known as a "community safety warden". Again, the amendment is not necessary because a scheme can choose its own name for its members. The amendment would simply restrict a local discretion to choose other, existing or perhaps more relevant names. We are puzzled as to why the noble Lord would wish to constrain a scheme in that way.
Amendment No. 213 seeks to make it compulsory for a accredited local authority, parish or community council to be consulted before the removal of an accreditation by a chief officer. The net effect of all of this would be to exclude from the accreditation scheme a wide range of organisations which are already involved in community safety, regeneration and community-enhancing public safety. I am puzzled as to why the noble Lord would wish to do that, particularly as he champions enthusiastically a whole range of voluntary organisations in the public sector and may well, in some guise or other, be involved in community safety and regeneration schemes through community safety accreditation programmes. It would also slow down, and perhaps dangerously undermine, any withdrawals of accreditation which a chief officer may wish to make.
In appealing to the noble Lord's liberal inclinations and his broader view of how community accreditation might work, I ask him to think long and hard on how illiberal, constraining and authoritarian are these proposals and measures. I tease, I know, but we do require a broader view if we are to make good use of these powers in the flexible way that I understood, from earlier discussions, the noble Lord endorsed and supported.
I invite the noble Lord to go back to his basic philosophy, examine the thinking behind these amendments and ultimately reject them.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and his flattery. However, these amendments are brought forward to probe how far the Government are prepared to accept some of the proposals I mentioned earlier in regard to streamlining, rather than widening, the variation of people involved in this exercise.
I should give advance warning to the Minister that we intend to come back at Third Reading with an appropriate proposal to advance the arguments I made earlier about why they should be community safety wardens and the limited powers they should have, not the excessive powers contained in the Bill.
At this stage, I am grateful for what the Minister has said in appealing to my liberalism. I hope that I shall appeal to his socialism when we come to the Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 179 to 182 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Accreditation under community safety accreditation schemes]:
[Amendments No. 183 to 189 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 190:
Page 34, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 211, which is grouped with it, flow from the previous group of amendments which we have not discussed. For now, therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 191 to 203 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Powers exercisable by accredited persons]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 204:
Page 134, line 30, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to powers exercisable by accredited persons which we want to limit. The grouping also includes Amendments Nos. 206 to 210, which add some of the powers from Schedule 4, so that accredited officers can have powers to deal with the minor offences specified in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for explaining his amendments. We believe that it is important for accredited persons to have powers to enforce, which is why we have included in Schedule 5 a power to detain, and why, I regret to say, we cannot accept the amendment.
The power to detain is a necessary part of the powers of an accredited person if that person is to be effective in combating the examples of low-level disorder to which I referred earlier. An accredited person will be able to detain a person only where he believes that the person has committed a relevant offence; namely, one of the fixed penalty offences or an offence causing injury, alarm or distress to another person or causing the loss of or damage to another person's property; or has been acting in an anti-social manner and has then failed to provide a name and address. Without the power to detain, an accredited person will have no means of enforcing the requirement to provide a name and address.
As I said earlier, there is a need to strike a balance. It is important constantly to place on record the fact that the schedule does not confer on accredited persons the power of arrest. Accredited persons will not be able to use "reasonable force" to prevent a detained person from making off. Accredited persons who are given the power of detention will be fully trained in the issues surrounding this, including conflict resolution, as I indicated earlier.
We do not agree with Amendments Nos. 207 to 210. We believe that they are in danger of giving inappropriate powers to members of community safety accreditation schemes.
868
I shall not repeat the arguments that I advanced in Committee where I set out my view that we need to be clear about issues of accountability. But it is worth saying that community support officers and others designated under Clause 34 are clearly accountable in the same way as police officers.
Members of community safety accreditation schemes will be different. They will be accountable to their employers for their actions. Bearing in mind the relatively few powers that they would he able to exercise, it would require disproportionate levels of training if they were to be able to use all these powers effectively. I suggest that if noble Lords want their local chief officers to employ people who are not poi ice officers to exercise such powers they should convince their local chief officer to employ some community support officers.
One of our intentions behind the accreditation scheme is to extend very limited powers to individuals who are already active in their communities, particularly in terms of community safety and regeneration in many neighbourhoods in our large cities. That is important.
Requiring a constable to be present might act as a check or a balance to the exercise of these powers, but I am not convinced that this would necessarily be the best use of a police officer's time. I am sure that in some neighbourhoods and on some estates it would undermine the role of the neighbourhood or street warden, for example.
Of course, there is nothing to stop a constable from accompanying an accredited employee. The constable has full powers at all times. No work by an accredited employee will in any way diminish that.
This has been a limited response. Before closing my remarks, however, I should refer specifically to Amendment No. 206. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 allows an accredited person to require an individual not to consume alcohol in places designated by local authorities. That has been a hot topic of debate up and down the country for many years. I recall from my own local experience in the West Midlands that Coventry was very much to the fore in attempting to bring back some order to the streets as regards the consumption of alcohol.
Amendment No. 206 limits the power so that it can be exercised in relation to people under 18. Limiting the power in this way would undermine the purpose of the power. Our intention is to enable the accredited employee to pre-empt disorderly behaviour before it arises and, in so doing, support police officers in their efforts to reduce the incidence of such behaviour—not just among minors, but in relation to drinking by adults in parks and in other open places, shopping centres, and so on. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 deals with the confiscation of alcohol from minors. In the light of this brief response, I hope that noble Lords will not pursue their amendments.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 205:
Page 135, line 27, at end insert—
"Power to use reasonable force to detain person
(1) This paragraph applies to an accredited person if—

(a) he is an employee of a local authority;

(b) the Secretary of State, on the joint application of the local authority and the chief officer of police, has decided that this paragraph shall apply to accredited persons who are employees of the local authority; and

(c) the accreditation of the accredited person—

(i) specifies that this paragraph applies to him;

(ii) specifies that any or all of paragraphs 1 and 2 are also applied to him; and

(iii) sets out the matters in respect of which he has the power conferred by this paragraph.

(2) The matters that may be set out in an accreditation as the matters in respect of which a person has the power conferred by this paragraph shall be confined to—

(a) offences that are relevant fixed penalty offences for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to the accredited person;

(b) offences that are relevant offences for the purposes of the application of paragraph 2 to the accredited person; and

(c) behaviour that constitutes acting in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)).

(3) In any case in which a person to whom this paragraph applies has imposed a requirement on any other person under paragraph 2(1) or 3(1) in respect of anything appearing to him to be a matter set out in the accreditation, he may use reasonable force to prevent that other person from making off while he is either—

(a) subject to a requirement imposed in that case by the accredited person under sub-paragraph 2(2); or

(b) accompanying the accredited person to a police station in accordance with an election made in that case under subparagraph 2(3).

(4) In this paragraph—
"local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council or a London borough council; and

(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes originally tabled this amendment. Unfortunately, she is unavailable and I agreed to move it on her behalf.
We return to the need for accredited persons to be able to use "reasonable force" to enforce 30 minutes of detention. I believe that without this amendment Clause 36 is unworkable.
Let us take the example of an 11 year-old boy—the "little darling". He has been detected by an accredited person vandalising a car. The offence would come under the provision in paragraph 2(5)(b) of Schedule 5:
"to have caused … the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property".
870
Like all youngsters, the little darling knows his rights. The accredited person can use no force to detain him. How will the accredited person enforce the detention? Will not the accredited person be bound by a fairly detailed rulebook? Will he not be in a weaker position than the motorist who, in practice, could and would detain the little darling who had been damaging his car until the police arrived? Of course, if a motorist chose to give a lesson to the little darling, he would be committing an assault and would be liable to prosecution.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has modified her original Committee stage amendment. The amendment now provides that an accredited person must be employed by a local authority, and that the local authority and the chief officer must jointly apply to the Secretary of State to have such powers.
In Committee, the Minister had a fundamental objection that the accredited person is not under the direct and specific control of the chief constable. What happens if an accredited person detains me in error? He can do so for 30 minutes, which could cause me to miss a vital business meeting. I would comply, because it would be an offence not to do so and I do not want to have a criminal conviction on my record. That is not a consideration for the little darling, who would just run away. The little darling would not be apprehended, but my business could be seriously damaged by a person who is not under the direct control of the chief constable. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is reasonably known that the line of inquiry that underlies the amendment derives from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I hold no brief to speak for the Royal Borough, but it is desirable that the concept should be aired again, as my noble friend Lady Gardner aired it in Committee and as my noble friend Lord Attlee has done now.
The logic of my position on community support officers in London is that a London borough, especially under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, has to take an interest in the quality of life within its boundaries. I shall not go over the ground that my noble friend has gone over, but, as he rightly said, the amendment that was moved in Committee has been tightened up.
In response to amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Peyton in the group starting with Amendment No. 140, the Minister argued that the power should not be increased for such officers. I am moving, mutatis mutandis, to the ones dealt with under this amendment. The Minister's responses to our debates are highly persuasive and convincing, but I thought that in this case his response to my noble friend Lord Peyton was a little less convincing than he habitually is. That is why I support my noble friend Lord Attlee.
I understand that the Metropolitan Police is willing to work in collaboration with a London local authority in planning such a scheme, which suggests

871
sympathy on the part of the Met, perhaps under the Crime and Disorder Act, for the provisions. The problem is that if such a body set up by a local authority does not work and the Minister's faith that all will be well under the 30-minute rule does not stand up, the whole concept of the borough constabulary will be damaged in the process. There is a considerable amount to play for.
Of course, the proposal is directed at low-level crime. The borough constabulary will not be seeking to be confrontational. The Minister has shown considerable sympathy with the desire to suppress such low-level crime and the irritation that it provides to people in central London, just as in his former constituency. In the circumstances, I hope that it will be possible for him to be sympathetic to the general proposition that underlies the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about where the amendment derives from. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made the position clear in Committee. I do not want to repeat the points that I have already made about the differences between community support officers and accredited people, because I shall constantly be repeating myself otherwise, and I shall seek to be persuasive—although I obviously did not do very well yesterday—and constructive. Under the Police Act 1996 it is already open to local authorities, such as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to give a grant to the police authority and attach conditions to it—if the chief officer agrees; the issue cannot he forced. No extra powers are required for that. If the commissioner agrees, there is nothing to stop the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea giving the Metropolitan Police a grant to ring-fence a number of community support officers who, it could be agreed, would be deployed predominantly within that borough.
It is a two-way process. On the one hand we know that the Metropolitan Police wants to use the powers for reasons that vary across London, as we have heard. It is also open to local authorities to seek to purchase on behalf of their residents. That relates to the point made by the noble Baroness that it should not be just rich individuals who can make a phone call to be escorted to their front door; it should be open to all citizens. The process could be highly targeted. The power already exists under the Police Act 1996 for the local authority to give a grant. I realise that grants have to be paid for and the money has to be found. There is nothing for nothing. I also accept that the amendment has been refined somewhat since Committee stage. However, if local authorities want people who are not police officers to be employed to exercise substantially more powers than the accredited officers, it is up to them to convince the chief officers to employ community support officers. In that respect, it is also possible for the local authority to meet the cost of that and to put conditions on it if the chief officer agrees.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he explain what is to stop the little darling
872
from totally ignoring an accredited person? The accredited person will have no physical way of stopping the little darling running away.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in a way, the answer is "nothing". It comes down to the training and common sense of the accredited officer, just as it comes down to the training and common sense of the community support officer. We are not saying that the proposal is a panacea. I appreciate the way in which the noble Earl has put the case. On an individual basis it might work, but a tribe of the noble Earl's little darlings might be a different bag of chips altogether and it might not be possible to take action. However, the community support officers and accredited safety officers will provide more eyes and ears on the street and better intelligence, so a plan can be made to do something about persistent problems. There is no easy answer for isolated cases, but if the problem is persistent, the extra eyes and ears and the uniformed presence on the street make it possible to plan to do something about it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my concern remains that the little darlings will understand the law very well and will fully understand the limitations of the accredited person. However, I thank the Minister for his considered response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 211 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Supplementary provisions relating to designations and accreditation]:
[Amendments Nos. 212 to 218 not moved.]
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 219:
Leave out Clause 38.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 219, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 222, 223, 224 and 225. I also remind the House that I have an interest as I am the president of the Heavy Transport Association.
Clause 38 allows traffic wardens to stop individual vehicles as opposed to merely directing traffic as at present. The two main trade associations—the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association—have expressed concerns about the provision which centre on the scope for unnecessary interference in the transport industry. My view is that enforcement of road traffic law is vital for road safety. Moreover, by and large, the authorities know who the rogues are. I believe that those elements should be kept out of the industry and not givenmany chances. I am therefore extremely grateful for the progress being made on the impounding of illegally operated goods vehicles.
The Minister would say that it is desirable to use traffic wardens so that more checks can be conducted. However, I believe that it is desirable to restrict the number of checks by ensuring the availability of police officers.

873
There is another worry. The objective of stopping vehicles is to facilitate enforcement checks. Inevitably, however, such checks will—or should—focus on very unsavoury characters. As we all know, the police are very well trained and are robust characters. Conversely, I have some anxiety—but only some—that traffic wardens may avoid stopping the most difficult customers.
There is yet another concern. One of the customers at a multi-agency check could become difficult, perhaps because his vehicle is being impounded. I believe that the presence of a uniformed police officer would calm down such situations.
Finally, if we must have Clause 38—I shall not oppose it very strongly—it will have to be made an offence to impersonate a traffic warden. The 1996 Act makes it an offence to impersonate a police officer, and the Bill will make it an offence to impersonate a community support officer. However, what legislation makes it an offence to impersonate a traffic warden? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is an interesting grouplet of amendments. The noble Earl seems to have placed an each-way bet by the way in which he has approached them.
Currently, traffic wardens can stop traffic only if they are assisting a constable, believe that a traffic offence has been committed, or if they are engaged in directing traffic. Clause 38 is designed to remove that restriction and thus to extend the range of duties that traffic wardens can perform. The clause will ensure that it is no longer necessary to call on police officers to stop vehicles when that is the only police power required. We believe that that will help to reduce unnecessary burdens on the police, an objective to which the noble Earl and Conservative Front-Benchers have previously signed up.
The clause will, among other things, enable traffic wardens to escort abnormal loads. To do that—in addition to the power to direct, which they already have—they will require a power to stop other vehicles. The noble Earl is, I know, keen to facilitate arrangements for escorting abnormal loads; he has long harried me on that issue. He is also keen to ensure that such arrangements do not unnecessarily involve the police. We believe that Clause 38 is very helpful in that respect. The noble Earl himself has previously very much welcomed the clause for the same reason.
The clause is not the whole answer to the issue of abnormal loads, and we are continuing to examine that issue. Nevertheless, the clause will be helpful both for that purpose and for other purposes, such as traffic censuses. For that reason, and for others, we think that it is very important that it should remain in the Bill.
The noble Earl has raised another interesting little issue in this group of amendments: the whole business of impersonating traffic wardens. We have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendments, which seek essentially to put traffic wardens in the same position as designated and accredited persons. I
874
see the train of logic behind the proposal. However, impersonation of a traffic warden has not previously been thought to merit a specific offence. Moreover, we have received no representations from either the traffic wardens' representatives or the Association of Chief Police Officers that it should become one.
The Bill does not greatly extend traffic wardens' powers as they can already stop vehicles in some circumstances. Extending that power is the only change being introduced. Moreover, if impersonation facilitates the commission of an offence, it would be the substantive offence that is most significant. I think that that is probably the most important point.
Amendment No. 225 also contains an illogicality. Although it would not protect all traffic wardens from assaults, resistance or obstruction, it would protect those who had been designated community support officers even if the duty they were performing at the time was identical. Where a traffic warden is acting as a community support officer and using community support officer powers as opposed to traffic warden powers, he is already protected by the Bill as currently drafted. I think that that should offer the noble Earl some assurance.
Traffic wardens have their own legislation, and if new provisions are required we think that they should be introduced by reference to that. Before deciding that any change is desirable, we would like to consider the current position and consult as necessary particularly with interested parties such as traffic wardens' representatives. Immediate action now by means of the noble Earl's amendments would not be the best way forward. We should like to consider his proposals in the context of other proposals which would emerge from consultation.
Therefore, as public spirited and well-intentioned as some of these amendments are, we think that it would be best to address the issue as part of an overall package rather than in a fragmented way, as the amendments propose. In view of those remarks, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 219.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, perhaps I should apologise for the drafting of my amendment. However, I am a little surprised that the Government are making it an offence to impersonate an accredited person whose powers are very limited while not dealing with the apparent lack—which the Minister has recognised is a problem—of an offence of impersonating a traffic warden. A traffic warden will be able to go into the middle of a main road and raise his hand to stop a vehicle and the driver of that vehicle will have to stop. The industry is concerned that that could be the prelude to a hijacking. A goods vehicle driver could be carrying a high-value load when someone appearing to be a traffic warden steps out and says to stop. He would have to stop because the law says that he must,

875
but it could place him in a hijack situation. That is the industry's concern, and I suspect that the various trade associations will get quite excited about it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I had indicated sufficiently clearly to the noble Earl that I believe he has a point. Obviously we shall consider the issue. I was trying to make the point that the idiosyncrasy he has highlighted is apparent and that we shall have to examine it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister should not get me wrong; I am extremely grateful for his response. I am just a little surprised that the Government are significantly increasing traffic wardens' powers while not making it an offence to impersonate them. In view of his response, I shall certainly not press the issue today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Power to amend chapter 1]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 220:
Leave out Clause 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 39 is a very good Henry VIII clause. It states:
"The Secretary of State may by order modify the provisions of Schedule 4 by … amending or repealing any provision of that Schedule … adding powers or duties … specified in that Schedule as applicable … to a designated person".
Clause 39(2) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order modify the provisions of Schedule 5 so as to authorise the conferring or imposition, on an accredited person, of powers and duties in addition to those contained in Schedule 5".
There is an interesting class distinction there between community support officers, who may have their powers added to or deleted, and accredited persons, who can only have them added to. I find that a little bit fascinating. One goes on through the clause. There are some restrictions in subsection (5) with which I shall not bother the House. One finally finds a gracious concession at the end of this Henry VIII clause; namely, that,
"The Secretary of State shall not make an order containing … any provision authorised by this section unless a draft of that order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House".
I read that with a sigh of relief.
I had to try to work out in my mind whether Schedules 4 and 5 were drafted so that the Government could draft Clause 39. I cannot think of any other reason for drafting Schedules 4 and 5. Whether we approve Schedules 4 or 5 does not matter so long as Clause 39 is in the Bill because Clause 39 gives the Minister the power in effect to alter the decision of Parliament. That is an interesting situation in which to find ourselves, but it is not appropriate. If we are to pass the Bill, we should be clear as to its contents and accept that Parliament will have to supervise any orders that are made. However, the degree of supervision of an order is much less than we apply to a Bill. Orders of this nature would probably be made without a great deal of supervision as they would be described as non-controversial. I do not think that this
876
is an appropriate clause to find in the Bill. I am disappointed that it is there and I am amazed at the lack of confidence of Ministers as regards their ability to draft appropriately in the first place the two schedules that I am discussing. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said. We on these Benches support the amendment. The Henry VIII measure that we are discussing is more or less a case of the Home Secretary saying, "I can do anything that I like". He is more or less seeking absolute power. That is pernicious and something that we find difficult to accept. The legislation could have been framed in various ways which would have resulted in such a power not being required.
We have already discussed at some length the conferring of police powers on non-police officers and the concerns and various views about that. Clause 39 would enable the Home Secretary to extend the range of powers which could be conferred on designated or accredited persons simply by order. In our view that is absolutely unacceptable. The conferring of police powers, whether on the police or anyone else should be subject to the proper rigours of scrutiny and debate which is given to Bills and should not simply be something which can be changed by order, even if it is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. For that reason we strongly oppose Clause 39 being part of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not want to add a note of dissent at this stage in our proceedings, but it is extravagant to say that the clause allows the Home Secretary to do anything he likes. That is simply not the case; it is overstating the situation. There are significant safeguards in the clause; any change is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I shall return to that matter.
The Secretary of State cannot use the clause to confer powers of arrest or detention on civilians which are additional to those already provided for in Schedules 4 and 5. A civilian cannot be given additional powers to enter premises without the occupier's consent when unaccompanied by a constable. The Secretary of State cannot create new powers which are not already given to a constable or some other person, for example, a local authority employee such as a dog warden or an environmental health officer. Therefore, there are safeguards over and above the affirmative resolution procedure.
One of the first things I was told when I came to this House was that certain committees in the Palace of Westminster are listened to less than others. The committee that counts above all others is your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I am told that the norm is that any and every recommendation of that committee

877
is accepted by government. The committee's report (HL Paper 73) refers to what was previously Clause 38 and is now Clause 39. It states at paragraph 7:
"This clause confers a Henry VIII power to modify Schedules 4 and 5 and to modify any other enactment to facilitate the exercise of powers or duties created by an order under the clause. Affirmative procedure is provided for this power, and we consider that this is appropriate".
The committee has considered the matter. If it thought that the clause allowed the Home Secretary to do anything he liked, it would have said so and would have suggested making some amendments to the clause. However, it did not because it did not overreact in the extreme way that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, did. We have checks and balances in the clause which restrain the Home Secretary but give him reasonable powers that may be needed if it became apparent in the future that some police activities might be better carried out by civilians, which would allow highly trained police officers to return to street duties.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister needs to remember that, although the Select Committee on Delegated Powers is powerful and influential and we must all take its comments extremely seriously, in the end it is the House that decides these matters. The power of the House is greater than the power of any of its committees. That is as it should be. That said, the fact of the matter is that this is an open Henry VIII clause. The Select Committee may well have decided that it is satisfied, but that does not necessarily mean that I am satisfied. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who supports the amendment, is not satisfied with the clause either. This is not perhaps the occasion to pursue the matter as we shall need to consider the Minister's response. This is an important issue as there is an element of uncertainty as regards the whole question of the use of designated or accredited persons. It is that lack of certainty that causes us concern. However, for the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Code of practice relating to chief officers' powers under Chapter 1]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 221:
Page 37, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service;

(b) the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad;

(c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;

(e) the Director General of the National Crime Squad;

(f) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(g) such other persons as he thinks fit.

( ) The Secretary of State shall lay any code of practice issued by him under this section, and any revisions of any such code, before Parliament."
878
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have reached government amendments which show what an open, listening and transparent government we are in our response to the Committee stage. I shall be brief as I have a sackload of concessions for your Lordships offered at the behest of the Home Secretary who is delighted to oblige!
Government Amendments Nos. 221 and 226 return to the issue of consultation which has been a theme throughout many of our debates on the Bill. The amendments are concerned with codes of practice issued under Clauses 40 and 46.
The House will recall that Clause 40 obliged the Home Secretary to issue a code of practice relating to the discharge by chief officers of their powers under Chapter 1 of Part 4. Clause 46 imposes a similar requirement on the Home Secretary to issue a code of practice in respect of the carrying out by police authorities and independent custody visitors of their functions in relation to independent custody visiting. It is important that before any such codes are issued or amended, there is an opportunity for the police, police authorities and others with a legitimate interest to give their views. We have always made it clear that we would consult when drawing up such codes. These amendments enshrine that commitment. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a suggestion that I hope the Government will find helpful. The codes of practice must obviously take into account the provisions of our criminal law. Paragraph (g) of the amendment refers to the Secretary of State consulting,
"such other persons as he thinks fit".
In that regard, the Government should consult the Attorney-General, the Lord Chief Justice, the senior judge at the Old Bailey or someone with eminent experience of the criminal law. However, they need not necessarily write that into the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister will be happy to hear that I welcome him when he is in listening mode and is responding to points that were earlier made about the Bill. This is another welcome addition to the Bill and we are grateful to him.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made about the Attorney-General, as a law officer of the Crown. It would be most unusual if the Home Office were turning out documentation that was not cleared around Whitehall. The noble Lord did not ask for anything to be added to the Bill; he was simply highlighting the fact that the phrase,
"such other persons as he thinks fit",
should include the sort of people who he mentioned. I am sure that that will be taken on board.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Offences against designated and accredited persons etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 222 to 225 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Independent custody visitors for places of detention]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 226:
Page 40, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit.

( ) The Secretary of State shall lay any code of practice issued by him under this section, and any revisions of any such code, before Parliament."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Detention reviews for detained persons who are asleep]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 227:
Page 41, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (10) of that section—

(a) for "(6)" there shall be substituted "(6B)"; and

(b) for the words from "the substitution" to the end there shall be substituted "the modifications specified in subsection (10A)".

( ) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(10A) The modifications are—

(a) the substitution of a reference to the person whose detention is under review for any reference to the person arrested or to the person charged; and

(b) in subsection (51, the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (a)—

'(aa) asleep;'"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak with the spirit of brevity that will now engulf us as we trundle through endless government amendments, which were introduced in a fantastic spirit of generosity that was described by my noble friend Lord Rooker. This amendment is a technical amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to resolve an anomaly between Section 38 of PACE, which covers the duties of custody officer after charge, and Section 40 of PACE, which covers reviews of detention. It mirrors the amendments already made by Clause 47 in respect of the duties of the custody officer before charge.
I have with me a long and worthy explanation of the matter, which I could read out and try to encourage noble Lords to take careful note of, but I am afraid that I have given the long and the short of the matter. I hope that that explanation, and the fact that this is a highly technical amendment that seeks to benefit all, will please noble Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 228:
Page 48, line 2, leave out "the motor vehicle is or is believed" and insert "he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a point that was raised in an opposition amendment that was considered in Committee. We gave an undertaking to accept the point. The amendment's subject matter has been redrafted by parliamentary counsel. The amendment relates to police powers to enter premises for the purpose of seizing a vehicle that has been misused in a manner that will be caught by Clause 53. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, once again, I express my gratitude to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Power of Secretary of State to add to relevant authorities]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 229:
Page 51, line 12, after "In" insert "subsection (2) of".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment and Amendment No. 230 make minor drafting changes to the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interim Orders]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 230:
Page 53, line 39, leave out "order".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Authorised persons under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 231:
Page 54, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) Part 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalties) shall be amended as follows."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 allows for certain motoring offences to be dealt with by the issue of a "fixed penalty notice". That includes offences such as failure to comply with traffic signs, driving without a licence and not wearing a seatbelt. Where such an offence has been committed and witnessed by a police constable, a fixed penalty notice may be issued that allows the offender to discharge his liability for the offence provided that he pays the financial penalty that is stated on the notice.
"Conditional offers" can be issued under the fixed penalty regime where a constable has not witnessed a motoring offence but an enforcement camera has detected it. The British Transport Police at present cannot issue "conditional offers" under current legislation as they are not included within the phrase "chief officer of police", which is used in the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

881
The amendments will bring the British Transport Police within those provisions. That will allow them to deal more effectively with routine motoring offences, especially those committed at a railway level crossing. The BTP, together with the railway industry, are increasingly deploying enforcement cameras at railway level crossings to deter motorists from committing offences at those locations. Such offences can be extremely dangerous.
It is worth placing some statistics on the record. In 2000–01, the report from Her Majesty's Railways Inspectorate recorded 27 incidents of train accidents at level crossings and three fatalities where trains struck road vehicles. There were also 141 incidents of road vehicles damaging level crossing equipment. There are currently some 8,100 level crossings on the national rail network. Recent accidents have highlighted the potential dangers of trains colliding with road vehicles and it is important that we seek to reduce the number of traffic offences at level crossings.
The amendments will cover only England and Wales. We are, apparently, currently discussing with the Scottish Parliament the need for any similar changes to the legislation regarding conditional offers for motoring offences in Scotland and the inclusion of the British Transport Police. If changes are necessary, they will be brought forward in appropriate legislation when a suitable opportunity arises.
This helpful group of amendments deals with public safety. It is designed to ensure that we do not have horrible accidents at railway crossings; that when offences take place they are properly and appropriately punished; and that the BTP have the same range of powers as will be available to other Home Office police services. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 232 and 233:
Page 54, line 37, leave out "of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)"
Page 54, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) In section 75(1) (conditional offers in England and Wales), at the end there shall be inserted "or, if the constable is a member of the British Transport Police, by or on behalf of the chief constable of the British Transport Police".
( ) In section 76(2) (limitation on proceedings), in paragraph (a), for "the chief officer" there shall be substituted "the person by or on whose behalf the conditional offer was sent".
( ) In section 87 (guidance from the Secretary of State), after "areas" there shall be inserted "and to the chief constable of the British Transport Police".
( ) In section 89 (interpretation of Part 3), after the definition of "authorised person" there shall be inserted—
"'British Transport Police' means the force of constables appointed under the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix);"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Monson—I notice that he has just arrived.
882
If I wait for him to rise to his feet, he will move the amendment that stands in his name, and which I was about to move. Off you go!
Clause 67 [Nationality requirements applicable to police officers etc.]:
Lord Monsonmoved Amendment No. 234:
Page 59, line 34, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I must admit that I did not expect us to get through everything at such a pace today.
With this group of amendments we come to the controversial clause that would allow foreign nationals to join our police forces—a concession which, it appears, is granted by few if any other western industrial nations. No doubt the Minister will confirm that, or otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, finds Clause 67 so objectionable that he would rather it was removed in its entirety. I have some sympathy with that view but I felt that it might be better to seek a compromise.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked in Committee whether anyone would mind if their heart surgeon were of foreign nationality. Of course they would not, provided that he or she was a good surgeon and could communicate fluently with the rest of the operating theatre team. Hardly anyone would worry about the nationality of their greengrocer, television repair man, bank teller, doctor or university professor. Indeed, in certain disciplines it might be preferable if a university professor were of a different nationality. But the police are different. The police, uniquely, have authority over you, and you can be arrested and charged if you disobey them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, claimed in Committee that the function of the police was to help people. Theoretically that is true. In an ideal world, the police would spend most of their time helping old ladies across the street and explaining patiently to bemused tourists the precise way to Trafalgar Square. But unhappily we do not live in an ideal world and, accordingly, the police are obliged to spend much of their time being tough rather than tender.
I suppose that my experiences are fairly typical of someone of my age and background. Most of my encounters with the police have been favourable; some have been exceptionally so, involving the recovery of stolen goods of great sentimental value in one instance and, in another, where the police displayed enormous efficiency and kindness following a traumatic high-speed motor accident 13 months ago caused by a Hungarian HGV driver dozing off at the wheel.
However, over the past 55 years there have been a few less pleasant encounters, some of them my fault, some of them definitely not. Human nature being what it is, one unfortunately tends to remember the few disagreeable encounters much more vividly than the far more numerous happy ones. If that is the case for what might be described as a "university-educated"

883
person, how much more must it be so for a young male on an inner-city housing estate? Therefore, we must tread carefully here.
My amendments are divided into two pairs. The first would demand a residence qualification a little more rigorous than that sought in the amendment proposed by the Conservative Front Bench—at any rate, in its effect. An exception would be made for those born, and in most cases brought up, here so as to cover the example of those who may have emigrated to, say, Toronto or Melbourne in their early 20s and taken up Canadian or Australian citizenship but who now wish to return to this country. Another example would be police who had been recruited to serve in Zimbabwe and who had adopted the citizenship of that country but who were now being made unwelcome by Mr Mugabe.
The essential reasoning behind the amendments is that any non-British subject recruited to the police should, so far as possible, be steeped in our Anglo-Saxon common law tradition where everything is permitted unless it is specifically forbidden rather than the continental tradition where everything is forbidden unless it is specifically permitted.
My second pair of amendments would make it mandatory rather than optional for certain conditions—for example, fluency in the English language—to be imposed upon candidates. They would also stipulate that candidates should have arrived in this country legally and that, where they sought promotion, they should, by that time, have adopted British citizenship. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked in Committee, why do not foreign candidates for the police become naturalised? How much more force that argument has when they have been in this country long enough to become eligible for promotion. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 235 is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and properly so. One must assume that the reason that we have a clause in the Bill prescribing the nationality requirements applicable to police officers is that the Government feel that the existing law is no longer satisfactory. I can think of no other reason why it should be included. My concern is that this clause may well be equally unsatisfactory. Therefore, the first question that I want to ask the Minister is: what is specifically unsatisfactory about the present situation? Only when we know that shall we be in a position to judge whether this new clause is any more or, indeed, less satisfactory.
Without wishing to stoke any awkward emotions, we should think carefully about the wording in the clause before us. It states:
"Irrespective of his place of birth, a person of any nationality may be … a member of a police force"—
let us say in the United Kingdom in order to abbreviate everything before us. Those are the opening words of
884
the clause. There are some subsequent qualifications which finish, in subsection (4), with the words:
"Without prejudice to the generality of any power conferred apart from this section, the provision falling within subsection (3) that may be made by any such regulations, terms and conditions or arrangements as are mentioned in that subsection"—
put that into plain English if you can!—
"may include provision imposing any of the following requirements".
The following requirements are,
"requirements with respect to the competence in written and spoken English of candidates for appointment … requirements with respect to the immigration status of such candidates"—
that is entirely understandable—and,
"requirements with respect to nationality in the case of particular ranks, offices or positions".
Once one goes down that road, of course, one calls into question the opening phrase of the clause.
On the face of it, the wording of the clause does not appear to me to be satisfactory. I believe that it is too wide open and that some form of qualification is necessary. If one is on the electoral roll in this country, that indicates a real commitment to life in this country without implying anything as to place of birth or, indeed, in certain circumstances, nationality. That perhaps would imply a commitment to the democratic processes of this country and, therefore, a commitment to this country. That is the reasoning behind my amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I shall oppose the Question whether Clause 67 stand part of the Bill, as a precaution I want to support these amendments. I believe that, in particular, Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are of great importance. Subsection (4) of Clause 67 puts forward provisions which state the requirements that could be imposed—it does not say "shall"; it states "may" be imposed—for deciding whether a foreigner shall become a police officer.
For those very important conditions to be left optional seems to me utterly wrong. Perhaps I may place them on record. I turn, first, to the requirement,
"with respect to the competence in written and spoken English of candidates for appointment".
It is vital that a police officer should have a good command of written and spoken English. Secondly, a person's immigration status needs to be carefully considered. If it were found that some years ago he was a bogus asylum seeker he would not be a suitable person to become a police officer. The third point states:
"requirements with respect to nationality in the case of particular ranks offices or positions".
We must be careful about that. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was absolutely right in saying that the word "may" should be replaced by the word "shall". It is in the Government's interests that that should happen. In relation to the words "any or, I hope that all three of the conditions will be imposed and not

885
treated as optional. Therefore, I warmly support the amendments, but especially the two that I have mentioned.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I presumed that the purpose was to allow freer movement between European police forces. If a European policeman wished to move to this country he could easily join our police force without having to change his nationality. In that case I believe that the language requirement is extremely important or some terrible misunderstandings and even further anti-European feeling will arise. I am not sure that we should leap that far. At the moment, the legal systems in Europe are extremely different.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in responding to this group of anti-foreigner amendments it is worth putting on the record that in some ways an apology is required. This provision is no surprise. It did not come about by accident. Paragraph 6.16 of the White Paper, in just one sentence, made the position abundantly clear. To the best of my knowledge not a single representation has arrived at the Home Office, even since Committee stage, opposing what was in the White Paper on which we consulted.
I want to put on record the final paragraph of an extensive speaking note that I shall need because of the complete misunderstanding of the present situation:
"The police service supports the removal of the nationality restriction. In saying police service, I mean the police services of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, British Transport Police, Royal Parks Constabulary, the UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary and the Special Constabulary—all want to remove this unnecessary restriction".
Let me make the position clear. The professionals are not so ignorant that they do not know the good sense behind this—I mean that in no pejorative sense. It is clear from what has been said that noble Lords are not aware of the current situation regarding foreigners. I shall be brief as I realise that the House wants to make progress. It is important that we do not set a hare running. So far the BBC has misreported this Bill and we do not want a story about the employment of police officers who cannot speak English, do not swear allegiance to the Queen, know nothing about the United Kingdom and arrived on a boat yesterday. If I leave the matter unanswered we shall have that kind of reporting.
Police forces want to employ the best people as police officers—the most suitable people—based on competency and skill. Forces have found that the existing nationality rules hinder the recruitment of good people who have been living in the UK for many years but who do not qualify on account of their nationality. The current rules allow Irish citizens to become police officers, but exclude people from other member states of the European Union. The current rules allow people from the Commonwealth who are resident here to be police officers, but exclude other foreign nationals such as Norwegians, whose native language is not English, and Americans whose native
886
language is English and who are resident here. Removal of the nationality bar will widen the pool of potential recruits, helping the police service to improve its diversity and to reflect better our society. It will make the police service more inclusive.
The effect of Amendment No. 235 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would be to make nationals of EU member states who registered as electors eligible for police service, but it would continue to disbar other foreign nationals. It also has some other consequences. The amendment would disbar a proportion of those who are currently eligible. Irish and Commonwealth citizens would be barred from police service unless they had registered to vote; and British citizens who had not registered to vote would be disbarred, including currently serving police officers. Many young people, who regrettably are not registered to vote, would be disbarred.
That would cause serious recruitment difficulties for the police service, which I cannot believe is the intention of the noble Lord. There is no other occupation—the experience of noble Lords may come up with one—where one would be disbarred on account of the fact that one had not registered to vote. I am unaware of any other bar, but there may be one. In any case, the amendment, intended to allow nationals of other EU member states to join the police service without opening up the police service further, goes against the idea of a modern and diverse police service and is, frankly, objectionable on principle.
It cannot be right that we continue to allow citizens from one foreign country—Ireland—to join the police service, but bar all others. If Irish citizens can and do serve the British public well, as they have for generations and decades and will continue to do so, so can others if they have the right skills and abilities. Nor is it relevant that other countries restrict serving in their police service to their own nationals. What they do is not of concern to us; what we do is our concern. I cannot remember the funny word in the European Union which signifies that everything is devolved and that decisions are taken as locally as possible. We are not interested in the restrictions that other countries impose in relation to their services. We are interested in the United Kingdom.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would require those not born in the UK to be resident here for seven out of the last 10 years. That is quite arbitrary. It would disbar many EU citizens from joining the police service. Irish and Commonwealth citizens who are currently eligible would become ineligible unless they too had resided here for seven out of the past 10 years. Some may already be serving British police officers. British citizens born outside the United Kingdom could also be disbarred if they had not lived here for seven out of the last 10 years. Many foreign nationals living here would also be disbarred.
Instead of increasing the recruitment pool these amendments would reduce it. Instead of being more inclusive the police service would become more exclusive. On setting a residency test, I understand that one has to pick a figure if one wants to make a

887
principled case, but the figure appears to be fairly arbitrary. What matters is that the applicant is competent rather than how long he or she has lived here.
Setting a qualifying time limit in terms of residency is also difficult to monitor. It is difficult enough with those cases of people who are on the margin of acquiring UK nationality that come across my desk. Some of those may be spouses of British citizens who work abroad for, say, international construction companies. Such people want to be with their spouses, but because they are not in this country and they want British citizenship, it is difficult to accumulate the right number of days in the right number of years. Should people have to break up their families? It is a difficult dilemma that will be made more difficult by such an amendment.
A point that has to be made clear is that of unrestricted residence in the UK, which is normally attracted after a number of years of conditional residence here. It may be one year, two years, four years or more before one can qualify for an indefinite stay. The length of time is not material.
In addition, foreign nationals and European Union nationals—indeed all candidates—will need to satisfy our rigorous vetting requirements. Someone who has lived here for a short time, for example, may be unlikely to be able to be vetted and would not, therefore, qualify for appointment. That combination of safeguards will be put in place and will need to be satisfied by a candidate of any nationality to qualify for appointment.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, proposed further amendments to make it mandatory that we set requirements as to immigration status and competence in English and to require certain ranks and positions to be reserved. There is no need to make it mandatory. It is our clear intention to provide requirements in respect of competence in English and immigration status. By the way, we have no intention of changing the Immigration Rules to allow that to happen; it is the current situation.
Serving policemen and policewomen will not be recruited from abroad. I emphasise again that there is no intention to change the Immigration Rules to allow people who have no right to work and live here to be recruited from abroad. That means no change. That is not to say that there are not procedures like work permits which would allow that, though I am not aware of any police service wanting to use that process.
Foreign nationals will need to be resident in the UK with no restrictions attached to their stay in order to qualify. Essentially the intention is to allow those who are already living in the UK, or who have the right to work here such as European Union nationals, to join the police service if they have the right qualities and the right skills. All applicants, whether British or not, will have to meet certain criteria and standards before they can qualify for appointment. They will need to demonstrate the key competencies required for policing. In particular they will need to demonstrate that they can communicate effectively with the public.
888
As I emphasised in addressing the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, candidates' skills in oral and written English will be tested. If they do not demonstrate a satisfactory standard they will be rejected, even if they demonstrate all the other skills. That is exactly the current situation. It will apply equally to foreigners.
Foreign nationals will need to have an unrestricted stay in the UK and will need to satisfy the rigorous vetting procedures which apply to all applicants. If they cannot be properly vetted, they cannot he appointed. It is as simple as that. There will also need to be a provision to reserve posts which are particularly sensitive to national security. That is the current situation for people allowed into the UK for many other purposes.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am trying to be helpful. It sounds to me from what he says that the Government intend that the requirements in subsection (4) listed as (a), (b) and (c), will be applied. Therefore the word "may" is not appropriate and "shall" should be inserted.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on that and respect the point the noble Lord raises. I shall come back to it because I know that the noble Lord would like to debate it further.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that police officers exercise authority over others. I accept that. Those special powers and responsibilities are set out by Parliament; they are not unfettered. The underlying question is whether it is right that non-British nationals should exercise authority and power over British nationals. But they already do. That is the point. Irish and Commonwealth citizens who are police officers exercise such authority on a daily basis. We are not inventing the wheel.
We are no worse off for those of our fellow citizens being in the police service. So the exercise of these powers and authorities will be a matter of training and judgment and it does not matter where a person was born or what his or her nationality is. Public support will not depend on the nationality of the officers. If they have got through the process of becoming an attested police officer—in Clause 68 the form of declaration is being substituted—they will offer full protection to the public and full loyalty to serve the Crown and the country. It is not second rate.
The people we are discussing will be living in this country. No process is being set up to facilitate entry to being a police officer. They will have put their roots down here. They may not be British. As I pointed out in an earlier debate, there are good reasons why some people in this country cannot take British nationality; for example, their own nationality may not allow dual nationality. It may be that because of family circumstances, property rights and inheritances hack home, they cannot take British citizenship. For instance, India is a non-dual nationality country and Pakistan is dual nationality. Many Indian citizens in

889
this country would like to be British but for many reasons they cannot give up their Indian nationality. They have generations of families in this country with loyalty to the British state and to the Crown. We should not hold it against them that they are not able to give up their first nationality in order to take British citizenship. They are as loyal as anybody else.
For the reasons I have given we are wholly opposed to dropping the clause. I end as I started. All the police services—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the British Transport Police, the parks constabulary, the UK Atomic Energy Authority and the Special Constabulary—all want to remove that unnecessary restriction. I hope therefore that noble Lords will allow the clause to remain in the Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for reinforcing my general arguments so tellingly, and grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for giving such vigorous support to Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 in particular.
Curiously, the Minister described these as "anti-foreigner" amendments. They are nothing of the sort. If they are anti-foreigner, then almost every other country in the world is being anti-foreigner. From what he said, I deduce that we are almost unique in proposing the course of action the Government appear to be set on.
Take the question of guns. Most police in this country never carry guns-94 per cent or more. Suppose someone were to be shot by someone who joined the police from Chicago or Marseilles. They may be justified in the shooting and may have had no option. But I doubt that that is the way the press and the public would see it. I wonder too, reverting to the question of precedent, how many Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen are serving in the Irish Garda. I imagine very few.
My noble friend Lord Erroll referred to the necessity of recruits speaking English well, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave some assurance on that point. But it goes beyond that. It reverts to an appreciation of our common law traditions. It is a bad idea in principle that the police should not be steeped in the traditions of the country which they are policing. The Minister may be aware that when Franco came to power in Spain in 1939 he instituted a policy of sending Andalucian police to Galicia, Galician police to Catalunia, Castillian police to the Basque country and so forth. The idea was that the fewer roots the police had in the part of the country they were policing, the more ready they would be to club citizens over the head if they stepped out of line. That is the last thing the Government have in mind, I am sure. But I have read two excellent novels, one from a Left-wing and one from a Right-wing perspective, which envisage a state of affairs in 15 or 20 years' time in which European not police will be clubbing people over the
890
head in this country. The Minister may feel that that is fantasy but who can tell? Stranger things have happened.
We have time to reflect upon the Minister's response and put our heads together before the next stage to produce something which is even more of a compromise. For that reason I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 235 to 238 not moved.]
Lord Rentonmoved Amendment No. 239:
Leave out Clause 67.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have at least five reasons for tabling this amendment. First, it would be bad for our reputation as a nation if other countries could say that the British cannot find enough of their own people to maintain law and order. That would be most unfortunate.
Secondly, in various parts of the United Kingdom our native police find it hard enough to get co-operation and support from all the public. If some of the police were foreigners, support would be even less forthcoming—so crime would increase still further. Thirdly, even if foreign officers had enough knowledge of written and spoken English, most would still have foreign accents—which would reduce public support for them. It would be clear to the public that such officers were not native.
Fourthly, although foreign officers may have a considerable knowledge of written and spoken English—I hope that would be a requirement—they might not understand the local dialects and accents that arise in various parts of the United Kingdom, in the way that local, native British constables do and always have done.
My fifth and last reason is best explained by quoting my noble friend Lord Peyton in Committee. He said that,
"the Government's insistence that Clause 60 be included in the Bill conveys a rather sombre message: either that our own citizens lack a sense of duty or service, or that the terms offered to them for performing that service are so inadequate that they cannot afford it".—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 747.]
I know that flattery will get me nowhere but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for the clarity with which he puts the Government case and the understanding that he has shown always of our arguments for or against the Government's case. However, I implore the Minister to realise that his comments about support for the clause are not accepted everywhere. Since Committee stage, noble Lords on both sides of the House have told me that they were glad that I and others raised doubts. Several police officers to whom I have spoken and others outside also have doubts about the Government's intention. I earnestly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, along with his government colleagues, will undertake to leave out Clause 67 altogether or modify and improve it. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I will have no truck with the noble Lord's proposal, which has no support on these Benches. The reputation of the force is very much made up of the quality of the service that is given. I know of one police inspector in Oxfordshire who is French. I do not know how he came to be in the British police force—presumably he is naturalised. He is very efficient and well liked. I have never heard anybody criticise that officer for speaking English with a slightly broken accent—but better than many native-born Englishmen.
In places like Slough which have large populations from other countries the absence of native-born officers who can speak languages such as Urdu is a severe impediment to effective policing. I am sure that the public would co-operate. For example, many of the staff in the Tea Room are Italian and speak with a broken accent but that does not detract from the assistance that we receive from them or the esteem in which we hold them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I understood the Minister's argument in Committee and today, together with the Explanatory Notes, except for one point, on which the Minister was kind enough to write to me. I understand also paragraph 6.16 of the White Paper and the support for it from the police service of these islands. To be fair, that single sentence in the White Paper expresses a principle rather than explains the detail. The view of the police service presumably relates to the principle, not to the detail and procedure.
The Minister rejected Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 on the ground that it was not desirable for Clause 67(4) to be mandatory. I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that the regulations for entry are cited in subsection (3) and that subsection (4) is intended to reinforce it—perhaps for reassurance. The Minister cited the views of the BBC and the tabloids, their prejudices and, occasionally, their ignorance. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out why it is not desirable for subsection (4) to be mandatory. Were it to be so, that would to some extent spike the guns of the Government's critics.
I end on a more cheerful note. I remind your Lordships of the episode in one of Sir Peter Ustinov's set pieces. On being pulled over by the police on a highway in the United States for some apparent traffic offence, lie falls into an admirable act of being a visiting Italian. He speaks fluent Italian to the police officers—and receives a reply in fluent Italian. That is the kind of benefit that we are likely to get from Clause 67. I have no difficulty with it, except for subsection (4) not being made mandatory.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in his excellent speech the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised a consideration that had not occurred to me. How will it look to other nations if this country, almost uniquely, has to recruit its police officers from abroad? I say "almost uniquely" because I suppose that the Home Office has done its homework to try and identify other countries
892
that the Minister could pray in aid. I presume that there is none—or at any rate, no major countries. If the Minister could demonstrate that the recruitment of foreign police officers in other European and North American forces is the rule rather than the exception, that might make us think again. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect and bring forward a minor amendment at the next stage.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I obviously was not clear when I replied to the previous debate. This is not about recruiting police officers from abroad. The clause has nothing to do with recruiting police officers from abroad; it is about people with a clear immigration status who are resident in this country with a right to work. It has nothing to do with recruiting police officers from abroad. I have made that point again and again. Apparently, I did not make it clearly enough. This is not about going out to recruit people from abroad as police officers.
I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I will not take the matter away in order to think about removing the clause. I do not accept any of his five reasons. None is a reason of substance. It is not good enough to use arguments about accents, native police or to say that forces cannot find enough of "their own people". We are talking about recruiting people who live and work in this country not from abroad. The argument, "They don't understand local dialects" just does not carry water. As to the argument about sense of duty and service, I do not accept that the people concerned who are already resident in this country with the status of being free to work will not have a sense of duty because they are not British.
I have said that we are not changing the Immigration Rules to facilitate recruiting police from abroad. The normal rules remain. We are talking about quality people resident in this country who, by reason of their nationality—not all of them, because Commonwealth and Irish citizens are currently all right—are denied the opportunity to serve or train as police officers.
I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, says, that perhaps the White Paper could have contained more background information. I discovered that in Committee. I thought it a little thin. I gave some reasons then. In the previous debate I stuck fairly closely to the notes because I thought that a few explanations needed to be put on the record in order to take account of the complete absence of the matter in the White Paper.
I do not have good enough reasons to say why subsection (4) of Clause 67 should not be mandatory. There probably will be other qualifications for appointments which will be dealt with in regulations. It is clear that we shall need some regulations. It would probably be unhelpful to make the mandatory regulations include some items and not others. We must consult about this issue. We cannot just issue regulations from thin air. We certainly do not want to reserve posts by rank alone. We need some flexibility.

893
The matter will come back to this House. I have no doubt that it will be debated in the other place. There is always Third Reading. I do not invite amendments and I am not promising to bring forward any. I will probably seek—and I think that it would be legitimate so to do—to have a short paper prepared which takes account of the absence of the explanation in the White Paper and which puts together the notes that I have used as a basis today. By way of a background, that would facilitate the matter. If it knocks on the head the canard that we are sending out the bosses and the telegrams to recruit from abroad, it would be quite useful. That is not the purpose nor the intention of the clause. I apologise because obviously the White Paper was not up to scratch. I shall have a note prepared to take account of that gap.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will the answer to the question that I asked about subsection (4) be included in the note that he is going to publish?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I must give a better answer than the one I have given to the noble Lord, which was that I do not have one. We do not want a mandatory requirement to make the regulations because some forces covered by this provision—for example, the Royal Parks Police—may not need to reserve any posts for UK nationals. So there is an issue. In the way that the clause is drafted, simply changing "may" to "shall" would cause problems for a variety of police forces. But I shall make sure—the noble Lord having asked a very reasonable question—that I have a note prepared which covers the point, even if it is not directed specifically to the line and paragraph in the Bill. Certainly, the issue of regulations must be covered in any such note.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say that over 40 years ago when I became Under-Secretary at the Home Office I had to deal several times with police legislation. As a Back-Bencher in both Houses I have spoken on police legislation before. I have always thought that it would be splendid if, so far as possible, all the parties in both Houses could try to agree on police legislation. Therefore, the public would have greater confidence in the police.
It is for that reason that I still implore the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—and I admire his zest—to bear in mind what has been said in this debate. Obviously, I shall not call for a Division. But I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We still have the Third Reading debate. The Bill will then go to another place where detailed consideration will be given to it. I hope that before the Bill receives Royal Assent the Government will try to achieve greater accord between all concerned in both Houses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now
894
adjourned. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME
7.27 p.m.
The Countess of Marrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report to the Chief Medical Officer of an independent working group on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis dated January 2002.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, in view of the publication in the British Medical Journal of 13th April 2002 of its survey of so-called "non-diseases" and the prominence given by the press to chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis as a non-disease, this debate has come at a very appropriate moment. I declare an interest in that I am patron of several ME charities.
On 11th January 2002, the Chief Medical Officer is reported as saying that,
"CFS/ME should be classified as a chronic condition with long term effects on health alongside other illnesses such as multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease".
His choice of MS as an example is apt in view of the fact that this disease used to be known as "the idle man's disease". Like ME now, MS was dismissed as hysteria by some practitioners. The report contains the acknowledgement that,
"CFS/ME is a genuine illness and imposes a substantial burden on the health of the UK population".
I shall be characteristically blunt. Since 1969 ME has been formally classified by the World Health Organisation as a neurological disorder. The WHO has confirmed that it has no plans to reclassify it as a psychiatric condition in the next international classification of diseases revision which is due in 2003. However, since 1987 Dr—now Professor— Simon Wessely has been relentless in his proposition that ME does not exist. For example, in the journal of psychological medicine in 1990 he claimed that M E exists only because well-meaning doctors have not learned to deal effectively with what he called "suggestible patients".
I have mentioned the article about non-diseases in the British Medical Journal of 13th April. I refer the Minister to a letter in the same journal, headed:
"What do you think is a non-disease? Pros and cons of medicalisation".
It is signed by Simon Wessely, Professor. Only 570 out of more than 30,000 doctors voted on a list of some 200 so-called non-diseases drawn up by the BMJ. Only 72 doctors voted for CFS/ME, while 251 voted for ageing. Wessely has chosen to highlight CFS/ME in his letter and, of course, the press picked it up.
I feel truly sorry for the Chief Medical Officer. He is trying to do his best and is thwarted at every turn. It is extraordinary that this man and his group of

895
followers, colloquially known as the Wessely school, have been allowed to dominate all debate on ME for 15 years. They have unquestionably been responsible for a relentless and sustained attack on the credibility of an increasing number of severely ill patients, dismissing and trivialising their suffering.
As Nero fiddled while Rome burned, so the Wessely school fiddles the facts while people suffer and die. When Wessely's work is legitimately criticised by colleagues and his methodological flaws pointed out, he blames his peer reviewers for allowing his own errors to be published. Wessely is responsible for the accuracy, honesty, impartiality, quality and scientific integrity of the research which he has published.
There are many documented instances in which he is in direct conflict with other competent medical opinion. His tactics include manipulation, distortion, invention, misquotation, suppression, exploiting public ignorance and deliberately constructing his presentations to fit his audience. Rather than his having orchestrated a campaign against patients and their credibility, he claims it is patients who are orchestrating a campaign of vilification against him.
Professor Wessely seems to have taken it upon himself to reclassify ME as a mental disorder in the WHO Guide to Mental Health in Primary Care in his capacity as a member of the UK WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training for Mental Health. He has disingenuously amalgamated his own definition of chronic fatigue syndrome with ME by stating that ME may be referred to as CFS and is thus, he claims, a mental disorder.
The report concedes that there is huge confusion surrounding terminology. In reality it is simple. In 1992, the WHO included the term CFS as one by which ME is sometimes known, and indeed many international researchers now refer to ME as CFS. The patients whom they are studying resemble those with neurological illness. There is a long established acceptance that such patients are severely physically ill. However, since 1991, Wessely and his colleagues have been responsible for producing their own criteria for CFS, known as the Oxford criteria. They dropped all reference to physical signs. Physical symptoms suddenly became behavioural in origin as opposed to organic.
Simon Wessely and, in particular, Michael Sharpe, Anthony David, and Peter White—all psychiatrists—proceeded systematically to flood the UK literature with their own beliefs about the non-existence of ME. They commandeered medical journals and the media. They became self-designated experts in medically unexplained symptoms such as ME, Gulf War syndrome, and multiple chemical sensitivity. They have received disproportionate funding, amounting to over £5 million, for research into their own beliefs to the exclusion of virtually all research into organic causes.
Their influence pervades every aspect of ME sufferers' lives, including their ability to obtain social security and private medical insurance benefits, social services assistance and home tuition for children. Tragically, children with ME have suffered
896
disproportionately. As I have already explained, the prevailing perception of the illness is that it is bio-psychosocial, whatever that means. Children presenting ill-defined symptoms that do not improve quickly are regarded as having been harmed by their carer. Proceedings under the Children Act 1989 are instigated. Children are removed from loving families and made wards of court and severe gagging orders are placed on parents.
The Minister knows of my concerns in the field and I should be grateful if he would tell me what progress is being made with the inquiry by the Social Services Inspectorate into the cases that I have passed to his honourable friend, the Minister for Public Health.
My Lords, the influence of Wessely is clearly manifest in the report to the Chief Medical Officer. Not only is the terminology ambiguous and confusing, it specifically advises that vital investigations such as immunological and nuclear medicine scans are inappropriate and unnecessary. Those are the two areas which are delivering hard evidence of organic pathology and are the focus of intense investigations in the United States. How does such a report help patients? The answer is that it does not. I make no apology for having dealt with the Wessely problem at length.
It was the brief of the working group to,
"develop good clinical practice guidance on the healthcare management of CFS/ME for NHS professionals".
Its report advises healthcare professionals that,
"inaction due to ignorance or denial of the condition is not excusable".
In fact, the report's effect will be to compound inaction, ignorance and even denial: inaction in not investigating the patient's illness or not providing any treatment—management is not the same as treatment—ignorance by promoting inappropriate and possibly harmful interventions; and denial of the true nature of ME.
When it supposedly advises clinicians how to put its recommendations into action, the report's own authority is undermined by the fundamental disagreement about the recommended management benefits. Having highlighted the controversy and conflicting opinion about cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercises, the report's most serious flaw is that it offers no explanation or advice as to how health professionals decide whether a patient will benefit from or be harmed by the recommended management regime. Thus, by virtue of the conflicting opinions on risks and benefits set out in the report, the NHS exposes itself to the risk of treating patients unlawfully. Will the Minister please explain how that can be "good clinical practice" and why such flawed advice got through the scrutiny net?
The scientific evidence is that, at best, a total of between 22 and 28 people with CFS and no psychiatric illness have derived limited benefit from CBT—nine of them in just two trials. None of the trials studied those with ME who were severely affected or children. Professor Friedberg of State University, New York, says that, for those CFS individuals who do not have

897
psychologically mediated reductions in activity, such a directed approach as CBT would be inappropriate and counterproductive.
Is the Minister happy to rely on such manipulation of the scientific evidence as appears in the report? Does he endorse management recommendations for patients with ME who do not have psychiatric illness that have been extrapolated from findings of studies on patients with a psychiatric diagnosis? Is the Minister aware that the organisers of a workshop and conference to take place at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford on 18th April, entitled "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Research and Practice", state:
"The recent government guidelines have endorsed the value of CBT and graded exercise as the most useful patient management approach so far".
That is an outrageous example of distortion of the facts and, as the seriously affected and children were excluded from the report, it is dangerous and irresponsible. Does the Minister endorse the claim by Wessely and his colleagues that ME/CFS is a mental health disorder? Is it Department of Health policy to lump together chronic fatigue with ICD-classified chronic fatigue syndrome?
Many of those who are severely affected feel let down by the apparent capitulation of the two major ME charities, which appear to accept the bio-psychosocial model of ME/CFS. The ME Research Group for Education and Support, MERGE, one of the charities of which I am patron, has given a cautious welcome to the report. It states:
"While the Report may go some way towards improving recognition of the illness, MERGE considers that it has avoided serious consideration of the important issues surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ME/CFS; that it has given undue emphasis to management strategies of limited applicability; that practical recommendations for social care are lacking and that, consequently, an opportunity has been lost".
The charity was started in 2000 by Dr Vance Spence, who is senior research fellow in medicine at Dundee University, and Robert McRae, a banker. They are both ME sufferers who have had to retire early, but Dr Spence is able to do limited research. He has already established that there is significant disruption to the biology of blood vessels and also to particular circulating white blood cells in patients with ME. That is significant because the results establish a biological mechanism for ME symptoms and unequivocally refute the dominant psychosocial explanations.
In their response that accompanied the report, the Government have handed responsibility for research to the Medical Research Council. May we know who has been appointed to the independent scientific advisory group? May I also have an assurance from the Minister that psychiatrists will not dominate the group, as they have done hitherto, and that there will be a reasonable balance of funding for biological research?
7.40 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on initiating today's
898
debate. I listened to her with considerable interest. I recognise the great strength of her feelings on the matter and her particular interest in the area. I declare an interest as a patron of the Tymes Trust, which supports children and young people with ME. It has an advice line that is manned by trained people with personal experience of the illness. Training days are run for various professionals, and the trust operates a professionals referrals service that enables doctors, teachers and others to consult ME specialists.
I became interested in ME more than 20 years ago when a close family member contracted the illness after having glandular fever. In those days, we had no idea what ME was. Over 20 years ago, there was some excuse for that, but now there is little excuse, least of all for members of the medical profession. ME is a serious illness, with no known cure. It has taken many years for that to be properly recognised. The illness has a profound effect on individuals and on entire families. In this country, it affects up to 25,000 children and, it is estimated, between 100,000 and 300,000 adults. Fifty per cent of long-term sickness absence from schools is attributable to ME. The cost of the illness is estimated at £4 billion.
I want to look forward from the chief officer's report. I will not dwell on the past in the same way as the noble Baroness did. I agree that Professor Wesley has not played a particularly glorious part in the controversy over ME, or indeed in that over Gulf War syndrome. However, I take a more positive view of the chief officer's report than the noble Baroness.
In 1998, the Chief Medical Officer set up a working party to examine the treatment and management of the illness. The document was published this year by the Department of Health. Despite the controversy—in a sense, the final outcome and the resignations may have been a good thing—and the year-long delay, the report came as a relief to sufferers. The new recommendations offer a major opportunity for change in the way that young people, in particular, are treated, supported and educated. The report acknowledges the disabling nature of the illness and the severe limitations that it can impose. It recognises the need for proper, multi-disciplinary assessment at the outset, so that a flexible treatment plan can be created.
The report was described by Val Hockey, the chief executive of the ME Association, as a wake-up call for the entire medical profession. I commend the chairman of the working group, Professor Allen Hutchinson, and the CMO on the outcome. It is also a testimony to doughty campaigners such as the noble Baroness, Esther Rantzen and all the voluntary organisations associated with ME, particularly Action for ME and the ME Association. We can look back at reports such as the 1996 report from the Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists, Physicians and General Practitioners as rather quaint anachronisms. It is a sign of the times that the Health Minister, Yvette Cooper, in an interview in Tymes magazine, published by the Tymes Trust, can be open and frank about how

899
she suffered and recovered from ME in her early 20s. That was a terrific interview, and I told her so yesterday.
Many questions arise from the work of the CMOs working group. First, there is the issue of training for doctors. Some recent articles written by doctors in the wake of the report are absolutely disgraceful and ignorant. I feel strongly about some of those reactive reports, and I shall also come later to the related issue of false allegations, which are relevant in this context. Often, such allegations arise from professional ignorance or, in some cases, sheer bloody-mindedness. We also had officials engaging in covert surveillance of people with ME. There are social workers and education officials who do not understand the condition. All those others need training. The department must say what plans it has. We need good practice guidance for social workers and other professionals, not just for doctors.
In February, I asked the Minister about the aftermath of the report. In particular, I asked how the Government: planned to disseminate the findings and recommendations of the CMO's working group. The Minister replied that it would be put on the website and that there would he a report and summary for clinicians. He said that the Government might even consider NICE guidelines. We must be clearer than that.
The crux of the matter is that we cannot go on with a situation in which we have a report that, in many ways, acknowledges the condition and suggests how the treatment options should be taken forward without making certain that the report is taken seriously. Incidentally, I part company with the noble Baroness about the treatment options. They are options, and the report is not over-prescriptive about that. NICE guidance will be crucial, and I hope that, in the weeks between the date of my Written Question and today's debate, the department has considered whether such guidance will be commissioned. The department must proactively disseminate best practice.
I also asked what funding would be available for research. The Minister replied that the department had commissioned research into the diagnosis and treatment of CFS/ME and said that details were available on the national research register. He said that the department had asked the MRC to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research into CFS/ME. I welcome that, so far as it goes, but we need something concrete. We need a budget, and we need to know that the MRC intends to assemble a set of research proposals and put it out to tender, in a sense, to research bodies. That is extremely important. I would like the Minister to give us a progress report.
There are other issues. Will the Government change the incapacity benefit handbook for medical service doctors? It is written for doctors who provide advice to Benefits Agency adjudication officers in relation to incapacity benefits. I do not know the status of the handbook, and I do not know what it says now, but previous versions stated that there was no firm
900
evidence to suggest that 'VIE was a distinct entity from other forms of chronic fatigue syndrome. Nor was there firm evidence that CFS was a physical disease. I hope that the department will instigate a cross-governmental review to make sure that such statements, relating to benefits administered by other departments, will be changed.
The issue of expert patients is important. The report emphasises how important it is that patients who have suffered—or are suffering—from ME are consulted about management and treatment. It is important that there should be such ongoing involvement, and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on the subject.
In our debate last October, we heard about false allegations. I am sure that all of us have heard terrible examples of how parents of children with ME have been accused of abusing their children or allowing them to play truant. Parents have been diagnosed as having Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, and children have been put on the at-risk register. There have been secret case conferences and so on.
Last October we debated the issue of child abuse and discussed the guidance issued for consultation on children in whom illness is induced or fabricated by carers with parenting responsibilities. At that time, the guidance was in draft form and was out for consultation.
Can the Minister say what is the current status of that guidance? It is extremely relevant in the case of ME because so many parents of children with ME have had problems with the authorities in this respect. Will it recognise the issue of ME and possible false allegations? It is vital that it does. Enough injustice has been done over many years. Stigmas are created which take years to expunge, let alone recovering from the emotional upheaval involved.
I believe that the CMO's report is a huge first step in regaining a balance in the area. However, the department cannot stop at this point. A huge amount remains to be done and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in that respect.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may reassure him that I recognise that the report is for recommendation However, as I tried to illustrate with the conference to be held at the John Radcliffe Hospital, it is being misinterpreted already.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Countess. That is why it is so important to ensure that we get it into the professional bloodstream and that there is no question about the CMO's recommendations being taken seriously.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on initiating the debate today. It is an important subject and it raises many issues. The noble Countess concentrated on the different approaches to CFS/ME, in particular the

901
different schools of thought—the biomedical and the bio-psychosocial—where there are clearly different approaches and marked fault lines between them. Indeed, I am shocked by the way in which the debate appears to have been conducted in the past. One hopes and prays that peace might break out and that the medical world might come together to find agreed solutions for this distressing illness.
In preparing for the debate, I tried an Internet search for chronic fatigue syndrome and got 284,000 hits world-wide and more than 17,000 in the UK. I tried NHS Direct and got a more manageable 1,089 references. I also tried searching for myalgic encephalomyelitis, which produced fewer hits wherever I tried. But interestingly, when I tried NHS Direct it asked me whether I meant "imagined encephalomyelitis".
That is a significant piece of programming embedded within NHS Direct. Part of the problem has been that CFS or ME has not been regarded as a definite illness by a large number of healthcare professionals. That has led to many of the problems to which the noble Countess and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. The report is welcome for its clear recommendations that the NHS and healthcare professionals should treat CFS/ME as a chronic illness, with all that flows from that. While I cannot take part in a debate on the science of the causes or the way in which CFS/ME should be approached, we should recognise that the report has done a service in identifying it as a chronic illness and producing a number of recommendations. I want to talk about those today.
The working group correctly recognised that considerable further research was urgently needed into a whole range of issues including aetiology, therapeutic interventions, cost-effectiveness studies and many other areas. The Government's response was to endorse the need for more research and to note that the Medical Research Council has been asked to develop a strategy for biomedical and health services research. They stated that the MRC would appoint an independent scientific advisory group and the terms of reference and a timetable were to have been agreed by the end of February 2002.
Since then, there appears to have been a deafening silence. I could find no trace of an advisory group, terms of reference or a timetable. Certainly the MRC's website is completely silent on those aspects. Like other noble Lords who have spoken today, I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on the status of the programme and when the members of the working group will be reporting and what they will be covering. I remind the Minister that that work was described as "urgent" by the working group.
The working group made a number of recommendations concerning treatment and care. One of those was that healthcare professionals should have sufficient awareness, understanding and knowledge of CFS/ME. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to that. The department's response was that it recognised that knowledge and
902
skills needed to be improved. I join the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in asking the Minister to say specifically what actions will underpin this part of the Government's response. How will the knowledge and skills be improved and over what timescale?
The prevalence of CFS/ME was estimated in the report to be between 0.2 and 0.4 per cent. That means that most general practices will have several patients with the illness. Therefore, it is important that there is an acceleration of skills and knowledge. When do the Government believe that all general practices will be adequately equipped, based even on the current level of knowledge about the illness? Will it be this year, next year or when?
Hazel Blears, a health Minister, stated in a Written Answer in another place:
"A useful way forward at a local level could be for clinicians and patients to develop clinical learning networks that will allow them to develop expertise".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/02: col. 1008W.]
That approach signally fails to recognise that a step change is needed. It cannot possibly be left to small groups of clinicians and patients to do some group learning all over the country. That would be postcode treatment of the very worst kind.
The working group report dealt fairly extensively with the two therapeutic approaches about which most is known. We heard from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, of her doubts about one of those; that is, cognitive behavioural therapy. Putting those doubts aside for one moment, there are in practice few specialists. That means that those therapies are hard to obtain and I understand that waiting lists run to more than two years. The expertise base is even smaller for alternative therapies. Will the Minister say what the Government intend to do to increase the number of specialists and therapeutic options that are available?
The working group also said that sufficient tertiary level specialists should be available to advise and support primary and secondary care colleagues. Will the Minister say how many tertiary level specialists exist currently and whether they provide the basis of adequate support to primary and secondary care? And anticipating that that cannot be answered positively at this stage, will the Minister say what is to be done about this? The Government's response to the working group in this area was non-existent.
The working group stated that strategic health authorities should make provision for secondary and tertiary care based on an annual prevalence rate of approximately 4,000 cases per million. Based on our discussions at the Committee stage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill about strategic health authorities, I rather doubt that those authorities will be making any provision themselves. It will no doubt be left to PCTs. We on these Benches have expressed considerable doubts about the readiness of PCTs for commissioning generally and have no confidence in highly specialised commissioning for an illness which is not even widely acknowledged to be an illness. Will the Minister say how that is to be done and whether he believes that PCTs will be up to the task?

903
Regardless of the technical aspects of commissioning, there will be a real issue about money, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said. Conspicuous by its absence from the Government's response to the working party's report was any mention of money. It is apparent that extra funds will be required if the recommendations of the working group are to be implemented. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to an overall cost to the economy of £4 billion. The figures I have seen suggest a cost of around 11 billion. However, whether it is £1 billion, £4 billion or something in between, it is a very large sum of money. Thus it is clear that moneys invested in research and treatment for CFS/ME should he cost-effective as well being desirable on health grounds.
Underlining what has already been asked by the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, my final question for the Minister is this: how much will the Government invest in research, in education and training, in service provision, and over what time-scale? I hope that the Minister will not disappoint us because this is a very real health issue which will need positive action and funding from the Government if progress is to be made.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may refer to a point she made earlier in her remarks. The noble Baroness said that when she contacted NHS Direct about myalgic encephalomyelitis, the representative responded by asking, "Do you mean, imagined myalgic encephalomyelitis?" That sounds like a rather derogatory and insulting response.
However, the condition displays no actual clinical or pathological signs of encephalomyelitis which would always be present when someone has a true diagnosis of the condition. That is why the term "chronic fatigue syndrome" is much preferred. I do not suggest in any way that the condition is not an entity; that it does not exist. We do not yet know what causes it, and there may indeed be multiple causes.
8.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, first I echo the words of other noble Lords in thanking the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for initiating this debate. Her speech was indeed hard-hitting, but I pay tribute to the way in which she has continued to raise issues relating to CFS/ME in your Lordships' House. I congratulate the noble Countess on giving us an opportunity to discuss in some detail the report of the independent working group and the Government's response to it.
In doing so, I should first acknowledge the tremendous work undertaken by the working group. I do not think that anyone should be under the misapprehension that the working group was faced with anything other than a very difficult task. It is right for me to pay tribute to the chairman, Professor Allen Hutchinson, Dr Timothy Chambers, chair of the children's group, and the deputy chair, Professor
904
Anthony Pinching. All the members of the group, from whatever background they came, made a great effort to accommodate a wide range of views and opinions, as expressed in the final report. I know that the work took longer than had been expected but I am convinced that the time taken by the group was well worth while. Although I fully accept that the report has not provided all the answers that noble Lords would have desired, it has moved the debate on considerably.
In paying tribute to the working group, one has to recognise how distressing and debilitating this condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. Of course, even if the actual illness is not in itself problem enough, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, made abundantly clear—and as was made clear in the report—many patients find it very difficult to get the treatment and care they need to help them manage their illness and make a recovery. That is a double whammy, if you like. One's heart goes out to the many thousands of people who over the years have found that the health service has not been as supportive as it ought to have been.
That is why the independent working group gave such a high priority to harnessing the views of patients, parents, families and carers to underpin the guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of patient and public involvement. He knows that we are in the middle of a fascinating debate about how the Government intend to improve public and patient involvement. However, in particular in relation to CFS/ME, I should like to highlight the two sounding board events held by the independent working group to enable patients to participate in the development of the report. These events were designed to capture some patient voices and to ensure that major stakeholders could identify issues that are pertinent to people who live with CFS/ME.
I accept the challenge that, as we move on and encourage the NHS to develop appropriate services, the principle of patient and relative partnership will be absolutely crucial at the local level. Although the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has reservations about some aspects of our proposed developments with regard to patient and public involvement, we believe that the particular value of patients forums will be in enabling those people who are experiencing services at the sharp end to be able to make a major input into policy and service development.
Voluntary organisations also contributed to the working group by providing material and sponsored surveys which have informed the report throughout. The group aimed to capture views from individuals with special interests or expertise and from a wider constituency, then to structure the material to reflect the range of opinion.
It is worth acknowledging that, while many thousands of people have felt let down by the system, some patients have had a positive experience and have

905
worked with health and social care professionals to manage their own care. The report contains one or two positive quotes. One patient said that,
"a diagnosis of CFS was made and I was advised how to manage my energy".
Another patient said:
"My GP was brilliant. He said he did not know how to cure me, but we would work together to make me better".
That sends a positive message and demonstrates that the NHS can meet the challenge. While I certainly accept that both the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have identified potential shortcomings—there are issues with regard to the future training of nursing staff, GPs and social workers—we are at least building on some pockets of excellence and the good common sense displayed by some GPs in supporting their patients.
We want everyone with CFS/ME to get the treatment and care they need, when they need it and where they need it. Like the patients quoted in the report, we want people with CFS/ME to be listened to when it comes to decisions about what type of treatment and care will best meet their individual needs.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the noble Countess when she referred to articles written in the British Medical Journal. The noble Baroness was right to point out that those articles represent the views of a very small number of doctors in relation to the totality of the medical profession in this country. It is important to underscore that. On behalf of the Government, I should like to make it absolutely clear that we endorse the view of the working group that this is a chronic illness, that health and social care professionals should recognise it as such and that the Government welcome the publication of the report as a start to the process of improving awareness and understanding of CFS/ME. I am happy to reiterate that to the noble Countess. We stand by the report.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to hear the noble Lord say those words. I know too that thousands of ME sufferers around the country will also be grateful.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say that it was my own GP who understood OP poisoning and worked closely with me on that matter. He then pointed me in the direction of ME sufferers who were also not receiving appropriate services.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for that. She raises a rather wider question, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, in that very often when people go to their GPs and are diagnosed with an illness, the health service is not as good as it ought to be in referring people to self-help and support groups. One of my great hopes for the new arrangements, particularly through the work of patient advisory liaison services, is that they will ensure that we are much better at
906
referring people at the first practical moment to the wonderful range of self-help groups that we have in this country.
There is no doubt that the working group faced a difficult task. There is widespread uncertainty surrounding this condition. There is controversy, disbelief and disagreement about the best way to treat it. The kind of issues raised by the noble Countess have surrounded the debate over many years.
We have to recognise that real challenges face clinicians who have the responsibility for caring for people with CFS/ME. First, there are no agreed diagnostic criteria. Diagnosis is often made by eliminating other conditions through a series of tests. But there is agreement that overwhelming fatigue is one symptom that characterises CFS/ME. There is continuing debate about which other factors should be taken into account when making the diagnosis.
Secondly, we do not know the cause of CFS/ME, although there are many theories about it. Research has demonstrated endocrine, immune, musculoskeletal and neurological abnormalities and that physical, psychological and other factors are interrelated. No one yet has provided conclusive evidence to support either view and it seems possible that the syndrome represents a spectrum of illnesses.
Thirdly, there is no one form of treatment to suit every patient, but treatment to relieve the wide variety of symptoms which individuals can experience has to be a matter for individual doctors, to be taken in consultation with their patients.
Fourthly, we are aware that there is controversy about some of the approaches used for managing CFS/ME. What we have to do now is to ask all stakeholders to work together and establish what treatment, or combination of treatments, will help patients to get better. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, when she refers to the tone of some of the arguments within the medical profession. There is a challenge for the profession to do what it can to get the debate on to the right constructive lines. We have to remember the impact on patients rather than the niceties of professional argument.
One possible way forward would be to develop clinical learning networks that would allow clinicians and patients to develop expertise in this area. The potential to develop service networks between tertiary and secondary care is an area that we would ask strategic health authorities to explore.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, took us back to the debates that we have been having about the role of strategic health authorities. She will remember that I argued in Committee that the whole point about the size of strategic health authorities is that, by and large, they cover areas containing many care networks, and CFS/ME could well fit into that pattern.
As to the PCT commissioning route, I have confidence in PCT specialised commissioning because, as the noble Baroness said, according to the reports and estimates the number of patients involved will be huge. Surely that must mean it is in the best interests

907
of GPs to work together collectively to ensure that they have the right approach in terms of referrals and a systematic approach to providing services.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, given the current lack of understanding among the medical profession of this condition—even in identifying it as an illness—does the Minister still believe that PCTs can undertake effective commissioning of services to deal with CFS/ME?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it will be a challenge. No one can pretend that it will be easy. The working group report is the start of the process. I shall come on to the issues of research and the potential referral to NICE, which could provide guidance on development to PCTs.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to cognitive behaviour therapy and to what has been described as "pacing". The report shows that in certain circumstances particular treatments can be effective. It also shows that no one can be dogmatic or definitive. It is quite clear that a range of therapies are on offer. We need to—and must—ensure that this range of therapies is available and that patients do not feel themselves forced into the position of having to accept only one particular therapy. That seems to be the thrust of the working group's report.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, one of the problems with these therapies in the past—I hope that it will not happen in the future—is that social security benefit payments are dependent on agreement to do CBT and graded exercises. The treatment of children is dependent upon the parents agreeing to this, even when the child demonstrates that it is getting sicker.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand those concerns. The noble Countess will know that a copy of the report has been sent to the DWP, which will obviously give it consideration. My understanding is that the DWP recognises CFS, including ME, as potentially debilitating illnesses. The department's chief medical adviser constantly evaluates the latest developments in the understanding of those conditions. I hope that the independent working group report will help to inform the Department of Work and Pensions in the future.
I understand that the application of the assessment to people who have a medical condition that fluctuates or varies in its severity, such as ME, is already addressed in the training and guidance given to medical services doctors who provide advice to decision makers in the field of benefits at the DWP.
This debate raises the issue of research. It is clear from what I have said about the challenges facing clinicians that we agree with the working group that the evidence base is poor. The report states that in relation to pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy and other therapies the research base is poor. We endorse the need for more research on a wide range of aspects
908
of CFS/ME and we have asked the MRC to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research on CFS/ME.
I shall not be able to give specific answers today to all the questions that noble Lords have asked me. The position is that the MRC is currently in the process of appointing an independent scientific advisory group, which will include scientists with expertise in areas such as epidemiology, physiology, immunology, infections, clinical trials and psychological medicine.
I understand the noble Countess's point about not wanting psychiatrists to dominate, but noble Lords will understand that this is a matter for the MRC and that it would be wrong for me to intervene. However, I shall ensure that a copy of Hansard is sent to the MRC in order that it may consider the points raised in this debate.
The scientific advisory group established by the MRC will draw on the working party report and other recent expert reviews. The MRC will also consult with its consumer liaison group members as to the best means by which patient and charity perspectives can be taken into account.
As to resources, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked me about budgets. He will be aware that it is a long-standing and important principle of successive governments that they do not prescribe to the individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities. That is a matter best decided by researchers and research users. In view of the debate that we had during the passage of the NHS reform Bill, when the criticism was expressed that the Government seek to intervene too much in organisations such as these, I am sure that the noble Lord will endorse the broad principles that I have enunciated.
Turning to the subject of children, I acknowledge the work of the Times Trust, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his work in that area. Of course, children with CFS/ME have special needs. I agree that nearly all children who are severely affected with CFS/ME, and many who are moderately affected, will require special educational support Clearly, a critical element of the child's management is assessment and the provision for educational needs.
The Department for Education and Skills produced guidance in November 2001 entitled Access to education for children and young people with medical needs. The report makes specific mention of the needs of children with CFS/ME.
That brings me to the extremely difficult and contentious issue of child protection. We have debated the matter and I have had discussions with the noble Countess. I am aware of the concerns regarding child protection issues. I hope that the good practice guidance produced by the Children's Group, which appears in Annex 6 and Annex 7, will result in improved management and understanding of this condition. I am aware that on occasions families of child sufferers have been subject to protection concerns.

909
The annex makes it clear that, where medical opinion is divided, a further opinion can be obtained from an expert medical practitioner. That goes some way at least to meeting one of the concerns raised by the noble Countess.
She asked me about the particular cases that she raised with me. I can confirm that they are being followed up by the Social Services Inspectorate. My honourable friend Mrs Jacqui Smith, the Minister concerned, will be in a position to reply to the noble Countess shortly on the matter.
At this stage I ought to turn to the issue of professional education, which I agree is of vital importance. I have stated that, because GPs are likely to be facing many patients with this condition, it is clearly in their best interests to ensure that they are up to date. We need to do everything that we can to help them in that regard.
Noble Lords will know that responsibility for the contents, standards, management and delivery of medical education is shared between regulatory bodies. I believe that the Government would find it impractical—going back to our debates on the role of government—to prescribe the exact training that any individual doctor would receive. Equally, we have a responsibility to encourage those authorities to take account of the report of the working group, and we shall do so.
We also expect GPs to keep up their professional skills. The continuing professional development and continuing medical education programmes that we are instituting should help them to do so. I accept that we need to ensure that we give as much help as possible. We shall be seeking to do that in the future, not just for GPs but for other professionals as well.
I agree that in relation to social workers, for instance, we may need to refer the report to the General Social Care Council. It is opportune that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is in her place. Clearly, in regard to child protection procedures advice is now coming forward as a result of the special annex on children's services that in areas of medical controversy second medical opinions are available. That is an important matter.
The other important matter to consider—returning to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—is how we can make improvements in the provision of services. I believe that the publication of the report will help in itself. It will improve the way in which health professionals will feel about service support. It will make them feel more confident about how they should care for these patients.
The report is not a comprehensive clinical guide and has not been developed as such. That is why a referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to provide guidance on management and treatment is currently being considered. Thought also needs to be given to what is the most appropriate clinical tool for helping patients with this condition.
910
We will also ensure that the external reference groups which will develop the two national service frameworks for children's services and services for adults with long-term conditions will consider the report and its recommendations for improving treatment and care. Given the importance of national service frameworks in terms of setting a consistent pattern of service provision and the knock-on effect that that has in terms of our workforce planning, I believe that this is a way of getting fully established in the service a proper approach to commissioning—in terms of PCT commissioning, in picking up the role of the strategic health authority in performance management and in making sure that specialist services are indeed covered through the NHS; and in picking up such issues as the number of specialists who need to be appointed and the general training of GPs and social workers.
While that will inevitably take a little time, there is much to be said for the approach of the potential referral to NICE. I cannot say now what decision the Government have made. However, alongside a potential for referral, the two national service frameworks—long-term conditions and children's—will be able to pick up these issues more substantively.
I realise that I have exceeded my allotted time, but I believe it important to give as full a response as possible. In relation to the issue of resources mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I do not agree with her. I am surprised that she should even suggest such a thing. She was really suggesting central earmarking in relation to CFS/ME. That is not the route down which we need to go. This Government are committed to decentralisation. That is why we want 75 per cent of the entire NHS budget to get down to PCTs by 2004. We need to make sure that PCTs have the tools and the information then to make the right judgments about commissioning. In that area, I accept that we need to do more. The working group report has taken us a long way, but we need to do more. The national service frameworks will help. We need to improve education and training. But overall what has been an incredibly difficult subject has been helped enormously by the work of the working group. I am again indebted to the noble Countess for allowing us to discuss these issues.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, with regret, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.28 to 8.30 p.m.]

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 75 [Supplementary provisions about police membership of NCIS]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 240:
Page 67, line 37, after first "In" insert "subsection (1) of"

911
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are other government amendments grouped with this. They are all technical amendments to make it clear that the provisions relating to the retirement of members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the National Crime Squad in the interest of efficiency or effectiveness relate only to police officers of the rank of assistant chief constable and above. That is in line with the provision applying to Home Office forces. Similar provisions relating to the directors general, who currently both hold the rank of chief constable, are already contained in the Police Act 1997. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 241:
Page 67, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (2) of that section shall cease to have effect."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Supplementary provisions about police membership of NCS]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 242 and 243:
Page 68, line 15, after first "In insert" "subsection (1) of"
Page 68, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (2) of that section shall cease to have effect."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 77 [Police authorities to produce three-year strategy plans]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 244:
Page 68, leave out lines 35 to 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group contains government and opposition amendments. I shall try to cover them all in one go, although that does not mean that other noble Lords cannot make their points. If I need to come back and respond to those points, I shall do so.
We are determined that the standard of policing throughout England and Wales should be consistently high. The national policing plan is a key part of the process to achieve that. We are equally determined to support police authorities and chief police officers in their planning to achieve that goal. However, following the points made in Committee, we accept that placing a requirement on police authorities to ensure that their three-year plans are consistent with the national policing plan is pitching it a little too high. On reflection, we agree that a duty to have regard to the national plan will be sufficient. Government Amendments Nos. 244 and 247 make the appropriate alterations to Clause 77.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, have tabled amendments that make a similar point. Their Amendments Nos. 245, 255, 256, 257, 258 and 261 offer two alternatives. The first is the same as the approach that we propose, so I shall not go over that. The second is that in preparing the three-year plans, chief officers and police authorities should take into account the national policing plan. I am not sure that there is a significant difference.
912
While I do not wish to diminish the Liberal Democrat amendments in any way, I shall skate over the detail and come back to them if need be.
The other government amendments in the group are Amendments Nos. 252 and 280. They follow the well established pattern of writing on to the face of the Bill our intention to consult. They are a further effort to meet the points legitimately made in Committee on consulting before issuing codes of practice, regulations or, in this case, guidance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, agree that the government amendments more than meet the spirit of what they are seeking to achieve with many of their amendments. I accordingly invite them to support our amendments in preference to their own.
I have not touched on Amendments Nos. 248, 249 and 254, but I shall be happy to address them once the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has spoken to them, if he wishes to do so. Similarly, I shall address the other Liberal Democrat amendments once the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has spoken to them, so that vie can have a more ordered debate. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, when I looked at ate group of amendments, I felt that there were many minds with but a single thought. I am immensely grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the points raised in Committee. The Minister tabled his amendments so that they appeared first, even though ours went down chronologically first. He has captured the spirit of what we intended and that is all that is necessary. I am grateful to him for that and I do net think that I need to say anything more. Thank you very much.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I wish that I, too, could be so happy with the amendments. I beg your Lordships' indulgence as I go through a number of them. Amendments Nos. 246, 250, 251, 253, 254, 259 and 260 are tabled in our names.
On Amendment No. 246, we fully agree that the views of local people should be reflected in the three-year plan. The concerns and expectations of local communities should be critical in shaping that plan. Consultation with local communities is one of the key statutory duties of a police authority. The police authority is the bridge between the force and local people. The authority's independence from the force makes that consultation effective in the eyes of local people.
The Bill confuses the roles of the police authority and the chief officer. We do not believe that that is helpful and we urge the Government to think again about the drafting of the clause.
It may help the Minister if I say a brief word about the practicalities of producing such plans. I do so from many years' experience of having to produce them. It seems from our earlier debates that he believes our amendment would prevent timely or appropriate consultation. It is not a matter of the chief officer producing a draft and presenting it to the police

913
authority. It is good practice for such plans to be developed from the beginning as a joint undertaking between the authority and the force. I have spent many hours doing that and we are all keen to promote such good practice. As part of that process, consultation is ongoing throughout the year and the views of the local community feed into the planning process. Both the police authority and the force are involved in that consultation. The critical difference is that the police authority has a duty to ensure that local people's views are reflected in local policing. Our amendment simply reinforces that.
We raised the issue covered in Amendment No. 250 in Committee. We return to it in the hope of persuading the Government that they have gone too far. We are not persuaded of the need for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance, but we would be prepared to live with that if other changes, which we shall discuss later, were made to the clause. We welcome the Government's amendment, which would require consultation with the APA, ACPO and others on the contents of that guidance, but we believe that the proposal in subsection (6)(a) for statutory guidance setting out the form that three-year plans should take is a step too far.
Police authorities publish their plans in a way that meets the needs and expectations of local people. Indeed, police authorities consult widely with their communities about how they would like to receive such information, and develop their plans accordingly.
When Amendment No. 251 was discussed in Committee the Minister recognised the importance of guidance being issued in a timely fashion if the three-year plans were to be effective. The Government have certainly accepted the case for a deadline to be placed in the Bill in relation to publication of the national policing plan, and we are simply asking them to make a similar commitment in relation to publication of the statutory guidance. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the spirit of this amendment. We shall be happy to negotiate the exact date to be fixed in the legislation if he so wishes.
As for Amendments Nos. 253 and 254, we have previously made clear our strong objections to subsections (8) and (10) to (15), the effect of which is that police authorities will be required to submit their three-year plans to the Home Secretary to be checked. Our amendments would remove that requirement, although police authorities would still send a copy of their plan to the Home Secretary, as they do their annual plans now. When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister stressed that the clause does not give the Home Secretary a power of veto over the three-year plan.
We recognise that there is no veto in the legislation, and the Minister's assurances that that is not how the Home Secretary intends to operate are indeed very welcome. However, we believe that the Minister did not make a truly persuasive case for the Home Secretary to have the power to call in plans in draft form to be checked over, presumably by his officials, and to make comments to the authority if he or his
914
officials are not happy with the plan. Why does the Home Secretary need these powers? What evidence does he have that police authorities would not have regard to the national plan in developing their three-year plans? Why does he think that police authorities would not comply with the law? Subsection (3) places a statutory duty on authorities to have regard to the national plan.
I hope that the Minister can produce some grounds for going down this path. As he must appreciate, these provisions are offensive to police authorities. Police authorities do not see this as enhancing or innovating their role, as the Minister suggested in Committee; on the contrary, they see it as undermining their role in a way which suggests that they are not to be trusted. I urge the Minister to give further serious thought to whether these provisions are really necessary and are worth causing serious damage to the tripartite relationship. I am sure that we shall wish to return to these amendments in future.
I can take Amendments Nos. 259 and 260 very briefly. We have previously made clear our concerns about the requirement for police authorities to submit their three-year plans to the Home Secretary for scrutiny. Our amendments seek to remove subsections (14) and (15), under which the Home Secretary will make regulations prescribing how police authorities should submit their plans to him for scrutiny. We believe that such prescription is unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to take this away and reconsider. If not, we shall no doubt return to the subject again.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I know that it might come as a shock to the police authority squad in this place, but the Government are seeking to raise the profile of police authorities. We are seeking to do them a favour and raise their public profile. This part of the Bill shows how serious we are about that. The Secretary of State's overall responsibility means that it is appropriate that he should be able to issue guidance on the content as well as the form of the three-year plan. There is nothing exceptional in that.
Amendment No. 254 seeks to remove subsections (10) and (11) of the proposed new Section 6A. These provisions would enable the Home Secretary to comment—to put it no higher—on whether the three-year plan was consistent with the national plan. I fail to see the problem with that. As I said, it is not a veto for the Home Secretary; I put that on the record now. I also should have thought that there is some mileage in ensuring that the Home Secretary and the police authorities are working broadly to the same agenda, to drive down crime and the fear of crime and to raise the standards of performance across the country.
The Police Act 1996 already places a responsibility for arrangements to seek the views of the local community on the police authority in consultation with the chief officer. So these arrangements would apply equally to preparation of these three-year plans. Therefore, Amendment No. 246 adds literally nothing.

915
In other words, the local community should be involved anyway because that is what the 1996 Act requires.
I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, thinks that no one in the Home Office lives in the real world of the police authorities and that we do not understand their trials and tribulations. We are, however, doing our best to meet them half way. Guidance will be available on preparation of the plans in good time to enable police authorities to meet the timetable for their submission to the Home Secretary. The guidance itself will be subject to consultation in the usual way. Amendment No. 251 would commit the Home Secretary to a specific deadline in the Bill that is too far in advance of the three-year period covered by the plans to be useful.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my reassurance on the availability of guidance. I know that I will be hauled back to this place if it is not available, and I do not want that to happen when I have made a commitment on behalf of the Government. We intend to use our best endeavours to make that guidance available.
I also cannot support Amendments Nos. 253, 259 and 260. The Home Secretary is entitled to be able to require the three-year plans to be submitted to him and to make regulations for the procedure governing that submission. That is in keeping with his role in the tripartite relationship as he desperately endeavours to raise police authorities' profile and importance in the public mind.
We do not believe that these requirements undermine the tripartite relationship—far from it, that is not our intention at all. As I said, our intention is the exact opposite. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments in this group. I also hope that they will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that our proposals have met the spirit of the comments in Committee. I am also genuinely serious about ensuring that we provide our side of the procedure in good time to enable police authorities to fulfil their part.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I cannot call Amendment No. 245 as it has been pre-empted by Amendment No. 244.
[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 247:
Page 69, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) It shall be the duty, in issuing, preparing or modifying a three-year strategy plan or a draft of such a plan, of every police authority or chief officer of police to have regard to the National Policing Plan in force at that time."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 248 to 251 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 252:
Page 69, line 14, leave out "such" and insert "—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other"

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 253 to 261 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 262:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause—
"EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF POLICE AUTHORITIES ETC.
(1) In each the enactments specified in subsection (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after the words "by way of" there shall be inserted "reimbursement of expenses and"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (4), after the word "about" there shall be inserted "the reimbursement of expenses or about".

(2) The enactments are—

(a) paragraph 25A of Schedule 2 to the 1996 Act (allowances for members of police authorities established under section 3 of that Act); and

(b) paragraph 20A of Schedule 2A to that Act (allowances for members of Metropolitan Police Authority).

(3) In sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 20A of Schedule 2A to the 1996 Act (limitation on payments to members of London Assembly) after "payment" there shall be inserted "by way of an allowance".
(4) The following provisions (which are superseded by the amendments made by this section) shall cease to have effect—

(a) paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 to the 1996 Act; and

(b) paragraph 20 of Schedule 2A to that Act."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that these amendments will be welcomed. In fact, I can remember arguing for similar provisions when I was an employee in local government. So if they are not welcome, I shall be exceedingly upset.
These amendments reflect amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord 13radshaw and Lord Dholakia. They effectively deregulate schemes for the payment of expenses to members of police authorities. As noble Lords will appreciate, in the past those have been determined by the Secretary of State.
The amendments also make the payment of expenses to members of police authorities a matter primarily for police authorities themselves. That is a sensible act of deregulation. It will enable police authorities locally to determine how these matters are arranged. In the past that matter has always been subject to the Secretary of State's guidance although he has a reserve power.
The amendments add expenses to the changes wrought by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The position in the future will be identical for both expenses and allowances. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I could not possibly let this occasion pass without thanking the Government. Police authorities will welcome the measure. We are most grateful for it.

917
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Crime and disorder reduction partnerships]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 263:
Page 71, line 10, at end insert—
"(ba) every police authority any part of whose police area so lies;
(bb) every fire authority any part of whose area so lies;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, linkage with policing plans and the strategic approach to dealing with crime and the wider community safety agenda make it clear that police authorities should play a key role in the local crime and disorder partnership structure. Police authorities already play a part in the work of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, as existing responsible authorities are statutorily obliged to work in co-operation with them and vice versa. However, raising police authorities' status under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to that of responsible authorities should further improve delivery of the crime and disorder reduction agenda and help ensure greater consistency between crime and disorder reduction strategies and local policing plans. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, there is widespread support for this change, both from the Association of Police Authorities and, I suspect, from several quarters of this House.
Fire authorities can provide a substantial contribution to the work of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, not least in terms of arson and the associated crime and well-being issues arising from it. Both the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association (CACFOA) and the Arson Control Forum—consisting of commercial, insurance and fire service interests—are supportive of fire authorities having a statutory role within crime and disorder reduction partnerships. I am sure that the amendments will be broadly welcomed. They have been argued for energetically in the past. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, we have had some long debates and discussions and therefore I shall detain the House only for a moment. It would be wrong to let the amendment pass without thanking the Government for responding to our requests to make police authorities statutory partners in local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. I could go on to say that it has only taken the Government four years to realise that we were right and this should have been done in 1998, but I shall be gracious and not say that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, such thanks are beyond reproach.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 264 to 267:
Page 71, line 36, leave out "paragraph (b)" and insert "paragraphs (a) and (b)"
Page 71, line 37, leave out "so lies" and insert "lies within the area"
918
Page 72, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) After subsection (4) of that section, there shall be inserted—
"(5) In this section—
'fire authority' means—

(a) any fire authority constituted by a combination scheme under the Fire Services Act 1947 (c. 41);

(b) any metropolitan county fire and civil defence authority; or

(c) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; and

'police authority' means—

(a) any police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16); or

(b) the Metropolitan Police Authority.""

Page 72, line 48, at end insert—
"( ) In section 17(2) (authorities to which duty to consider crime and disorder implications applies), after "London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority," there shall be inserted "a fire authority constituted by a combination scheme under the Fire Services Act 1947 (c. 41),"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 268:
Page 73, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) In section 115(2) (authorities to which information may be disclosed for purposes connected with that Act), in paragraph (d)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (i), after "London borough council" there shall be inserted ", a parish council"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), for "or a county borough council" there shall be substituted ", a county borough council or a community council"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, until now there has been some ambiguity about whether various bodies can share personal information with parish and community councils. Amendment No. 268 in my name amends Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to permit any person, including a chief officer of police, to make disclosures to a parish or community council where it is expedient for the purposes of that Act. That should alleviate some of the difficulties encountered in fighting crime at the community level.
It would be remiss of me if I were not to recognise Milton Keynes' initiative in this regard. In that authority community wardens are employed by the parishes which until now have been unable to receive vital information from Thames Valley Police. With this amendment the police authority will be able to share personal information with them and so counter crime together in a co-ordinated and efficient manner.
The government amendment in the group covers both England and Wales. In referring to parish councils alone, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, limits itself to England. We have broadened the measure. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 269 which stands in my name. I tabled the amendment to address the situation in Milton Keynes. The noble Lord referred to Milton Keynes, for which I thank him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Clause 81 [Secretary of State's functions in relation to strategies]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 270:
Page 73, line 23, leave out "include" and insert "take account of"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 270 and 271 return to a familiar theme. Clause 81 deals with the powers of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales in relation to local crime reduction plans. New Section 6A(1)(a) states:
"The responsible authorities for local government areas to formulate any section 6 strategy of theirs for the reduction of crime and disorder so as to include".
New Section 6A(1)(b) states:
"The responsible authorities for local government areas in England to prepare any section 6 strategy of theirs for combatting the misuse of drugs so as to include".
The issue here is the old familiar one of whether the Secretary of State should dictate the content of the plans, as the Bill implies, or whether the responsible authorities should, in preparing a Section 6 strategy, have regard to, or take account of, particular provisions. The latter is the wording that we prefer. This is in a sense an argument about the meaning of words. However, we believe that those involved in crime reduction partnerships should be treated as responsible bodies. Consistent with the argument that we have advanced throughout our discussion on the Bill, we believe that the words "take account of" or,
"to take account within the"
would be preferable to the wording on the face of the Bill. I hope that in the spirit of agreement which the Minister has shown in the past, he might find it possible to accept this rather small point as well. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the spirit in which the amendment is moved. It is not the Secretary of State's intention to dictate. Our Secretary of State is not like that and I cannot imagine future Secretaries of State behaving in that way. I am sure that the noble Lord recognises that.
Of course we recognise that not every crime and reduction partnership area will have identical crime priorities. However, I think noble Lords will accept that some types of crime are of concern in almost every area. Anti-social behaviour is a prime example of that. A review of the crime and disorder reduction strategies published in 1999 showed that 42 per cent of partnerships set targets to deal with criminal damage and graffiti. Therefore, there was a degree of commonality. Similarly, there is widespread concern about young people and crime. I believe that we are all aware of that. Again, we find that in 1999 only 22 per cent of partnerships set targets to tackle youth crime in their area. However, that would probably feature as one of the more important issues.
We need to tackle those crimes which most concern the public and which are happening in our communities, in our streets and in our areas. There is no contradiction so far as we are concerned between addressing locally perceived needs and those that we
920
have identified as being important nationwide. It is not a matter of dealing with one or the other—we need a twin-track approach; we need to tackle both. In that situation, we need a system that reflects local priorities but which also takes account of national priorities and ensures that they are properly addressed.
Guidance will be issued accompanying the issuing of any order informing responsible authorities of any specific area or areas of crime they must address. That guidance will require that they must look at that area of crime and determine the nature and scale of the problem in their area. If they are satisfied, through their audit (which they have to undertake) and community consultation process (most of us would argue that it is essential), that the specified area of crime or disorder is not a priority for action in their area, the partnership would not be required to set targets in that area. However, the partnership would have to be able to justify omitting the specified area of crime or disorder from their strategy. That is essential: consultation and investigation—looking at the issues—will be an important part of enabling them to make the case.
This matter involves a balance between the local and the national. It is important that the material is there to justify the case for omitting a particular anti-social activity, criminal area or acts of disorder from their plans. There is flexibility. The noble Lord's point is very important but we believe that we have got the balance about right. That is always difficult but we believe that the line is drawn in the right place.
I hope that those reassuring words from this side of the Dispatch Box will enable the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister may be right, but I was fascinated by his argument. He began by demonstrating that crime reduction partnerships were behaving responsibly and were hitting the right targets. Then he said that despite that, the Home Office did not really have confidence in that respect and that they should have regard to what the Home Office was saying. He further went on to say that if they could prove that the Home Office was wrong in their particular area, they could disregard that. That leaves me in a slight state of confusion. However, the House will be glad to hear that I intend to study the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]
Clause 86 [Liability in respect of members of teams]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 272:
Page 80, line 27, leave out "In Scotland"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment and those grouped with it are technical amendments, on which I need not spend much time. They relate to subsection (7). They simply reflect the fact that the Secretary of State will not receive in Scotland funds from abroad by way of compensation but would

921
receive such funds from abroad to be reimbursed to the Scottish Ministers for payment to the police authority in Scotland or the joint police board in Scotland. The clause relates to the legal basis for civil liabilities arising from joint operations with joint investigation teams involving police officers from any part of the UK and law enforcement officers from abroad.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 273 and 274:
Page 80, line 28, after "authority" insert "in Scotland"
Page 80, line 29, after "board" insert "there"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Carlile of Berriewmoved Amendment No. 275:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
"PART6A
WALES
POWERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
(1) References to the Secretary of State in Part 2 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) and in Part 1 of this Act shall, in relation to the police areas in Wales, have effect as references to the National Assembly for Wales and references to England and Wales shall, where appropriate, have effect as references to England or Wales.
(2) Every power conferred upon the National Assembly for Wales by this Act shall be exercised in accordance with the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. I hope that the select band of noble Lords who are currently present will forgive a short Welsh interlude. I introduce it with the apologies of my noble friend, who is currently spreading hwyl around the People's Republic of China. I hope that I might spread a little chwarae teg into the Home Office.
The aim of the amendment is to transfer responsibility for policing to the National Assembly for Wales—to the Welsh Assembly Government, as it is now called. Our argument is that responsibility in full for public order and policing should cease to be a reserved matter. We argue that the Welsh Assembly Government have shown themselves to be a responsible organisation who are capable of handling very big issues and that policing should be one of the issues within their area of responsibility.
The National Assembly for Wales, as the House knows, has responsibility for many issues that are key to public order and the smooth running of Wales and Welsh society. I refer most notably in this context to housing, health and education.
We submit that it is consistent with the evolution of devolution and with the natural process of evolution that I believe everyone accepts that Welsh devolution can reasonably anticipate for progress to be made in reducing the number of reserved matters. We suggest that policing is one of those matters that should be within the responsibility of the 60 Members elected by the people of Wales to the Assembly.
922
We also argue that we can offer something of an enticement to the Home Office in suggesting that Welsh policing should become the responsibility of the Assembly. That enticement can be summed up in one word: "progress". The Government know how extremely difficult it is to fight turf wars on every possible front and from every angle while every police force in existence seeks to argue that it is part of the holy grail of policing that there should be a separate police force for Lwmshire or Llanlwmshire, or wherever it happens to be. The Home Office knows only too well—at times the Home Secretary seemed to express entirely understandable frustration about this—that moving ahead on changing police areas or obtaining much greater efforts against corruption in police forces and co-operation with regard to police forces is heavily dependent on change taking place. Change has been very slow.
I suggest that if the Welsh Assembly took responsibility for policing, as with other aspects of key policy, it has the capacity and courage to move forward and make progress. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, just as the courts have developed a stronger Welsh identity on an all-Wales basis and just as the Crown Prosecution Service—although these are still reserved matters—has developed a stronger Welsh identity on the basis of change and of looking at Wales as a credible critical mass for these public purposes, policing would be likely to receive the same treatment if it was moved from the Home Office to the Assembly.
There is absolutely no basis for suggesting that the Assembly would not co-operate with the policing strategy set by Her Majesty's Government. We know that police forces which are controlled within Scotland have co-operated entirely with Home Office strategy in so far as that can reasonably he expected. Indeed, I suggest that the progress of the Strathclyde police force as effectively a large regional police service is something of an analogy which might be used in Wales, whether the Assembly was to retain the present number of police forces with greater co-operative structures or reduce the number to one, two or three.
Therefore, in this amendment we suggest that there is a very strong argument for moving responsibility for policing to Wales. One of the greatest advantages of doing so would be that it would be far more transparent and accountable. One reason that the Assembly is becoming far more accepted within Wales, from, it must he admitted, a very slow start, is that the public in Wales are seeing daily accountability for matters which were never accountable under the pre-devolution system. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will remember how Welsh Questions in the other place used to be simply a set piece with little meaning. I am sure that he used to attend occasionally on a Monday afternoon just for the entertainment of Welsh Questions.
The issues which in my time in the other place used to be something of a joke at Welsh Questions and even in the Welsh Grand Committee are given the most serious consideration and much time in the Welsh Assembly. I believe that that should have happened in

923
relation to policing. That is why I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I hope that the Home Office will be more than the megalith which it is sometimes seen to be. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is now a very effective keystone in that megalith. But I hope that from time to time the occupants of the odd room may be shed to some distant part of the planet, or at least the United Kingdom, and that we shall see a little movement towards the devolution of policing. Indeed, I hope that we shall see similar Home Office responsibilities devolved to the people of Wales and to the elected government within Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as the noble Lord spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I was reminded that the wording of this amendment is identical to that tabled in Committee. Of course, as we are swapping stories from the other place, that would not be allowed in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, turned up late one night and agreed to reflect on what I said. Obviously it cannot have been very important because the wording of the amendment is exactly the same.
I cannot use a point that I intended to raise because the noble Lord did not give me a door to open. However, I have a wonderful historical note. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, benefited us that night with an historical run-round of Wales. He got one of his dates wrong and I was going to tease him about it. He confused the date 1453 with 1543. We had a very interesting seminar that evening on the history of England and Wales. I shall not go down that road this evening, and I do not want to introduce too much of a partisan point. However, I remind the noble Lord of it because it is important. People in Wales listen to our debates when we deal with points of concern to Wales.
A devolution settlement has been established in Wales. It was part of the mandate that we sought and won in 1997. It was endorsed in a referendum and enshrined in statute. As I reminded the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, it has operated only since 1999. Therefore, we have a mandate for our achievements on devolution. I do not believe that so far the noble Lord's party has sought a mandate—certainly it does not have one—for what would be a very radical revision of the recently established system of government in Wales if the amendments were to be accepted.
I accept that the noble Lord did not rely too much on that point, although the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, did. However, the point cannot be made strongly enough that the example of policing in Scotland is one that supports the retention of the status quo in respect of policing in Wales. Scotland has arrangements for policing which are separate from those in England and Wales. Indeed, Scotland has always had a criminal justice system which is separate from that of England and Wales. The noble Lord's amendments would mean that, whereas the Scots have a single criminal justice system of which policing is a part, Wales would not. Thus there would be a complete dislocation.
924
I repeat what I said in Committee: the amendment begins to make sense only if the noble Lord who is moving it also moves amendments which address the court services, the Prison Service and the probation service because the executive function in respect of policing is predicated upon a single criminal justice system. I do not say that to be dismissive. It is not a red herring. It is absolutely crucial. I also rely on the position in Scotland.
There may be different priorities in Wales. I wish devolution and the work of the Welsh Assembly every success. As the Assembly does not have responsibility for primary legislation, it is able to deal with secondary legislation in a more professional way than the House of Commons. I freely accept that there is a real problem in dealing with secondary legislation through the Westminster Parliament. In the Welsh Assembly it is dealt with in a superior way. It has the time and the facility to do so. It is a young assembly and it is bound to push the boundaries. The noble Lord talked about devolution and I say that we have a devolution settlement, although I accept that those at the otter end will always want to push into the grey areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, wanted to drive his original plan through without taking account of the issues relating to the court service and the probation service. On those grounds alone it would not make sense. I do not suggest that the matter should he pursued, but if it is pursued—it is open to parliamentarians to do so—I would beg noble Lords to do it in a coherent package. Each time I have to demolish the case, because there is no case for divorcing the policing of Wales from the criminal justice system which is what would happen if the amendment were adopted. For that reason alone, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am disappointed in the Minister's reply, although I am not surprised by it. I am pleased to have been able to place this matter on the agenda again. I am sure that in years to come we shall return to it until Wales has a court system of its own, as it had up to the 19th century. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 276:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
"PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
( ) The Police Pensions Act 1976 (c. 35) shall be repealed with effect from 31st March 2005.
( ) By 31st March 2003, the Secretary of State shall bring forward proposals for debate in both Houses of Parliament for the introduction, by 31st March 2005, of new pension arrangements for police officers, including arrangements to ensure the full and on-going costs of the new arrangements are met from a pension fund established from the Consolidated Fund."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this amendment. In Committee I raised the issue of police pensions and I make no apology for returning to the matter because it is probably one of the most

925
pressing issues facing police authorities at the moment. It is likely to be one of the major obstacles to raising the standards of performance across the board.
I also make no apology for repeating the fact that 13 per cent of our local budget now goes on pensions, and by 2005, £1.6 million will be spent on pensions, an increase of 13 per cent on current figures. That money is not spent on front-line policing.
I know that this is a difficult issue and I know that it requires careful consideration, but I also understand that there are no cheap solutions. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, recognised our concerns about the increasing pensions burden and said that the Government were due to consider options for modernising the police pensions system.
Your Lordships may wonder why I was not reassured by that and why I am persisting with the amendments. I was not reassured because four years ago the Government undertook an extensive consultation exercise on the issue and much effort was put into it by APA, ACPO and others to find a sensible way forward. Since then the Government have constantly and repeatedly told us that they will come forward with proposals for reform "shortly"—a word that I hear so often in this House. Ministers and civil servants repeatedly use the word. We have heard that refrain for four years, repeated in Committee, but still we have nothing. To what timescale are the Government working, and how long will it be before we know their proposals?
I cannot stress strongly enough that resolution of the issue is a matter of desperate urgency. Amendment No. 276 seeks to prevent further procrastination and delay and to force the Government to act by a certain date. I do not say when that date will be, but if we are to deliver better policing in our communities—we are at one with the Government on that aim—we have to he able to spend our resources on policing and not on pensions.
Amendment No. 282 seeks to do something slightly different. It would require the Government to set out in the police grant report, which must be approved each year by Parliament, how much pensions are costing and what impact that has on operational policing. The amendment does not ask for hypothecation of grant spent on pensions, as the Minister suggested in Committee. That is not what the amendment seeks to do. We want the Government to be required to state publicly in the annual police grant report the extent to which the pensions timebomb is restricting the ability of police authorities to do their job.
In 2002/03, for example, the Government's headline figure for the increase in police funding was 6.1 per cent, but once funding for all the national initiatives had been top-sliced the average increase in funding for police authorities was just 2.8 per cent, with my own authority receiving 2.3 per cent. Yet from that police authorities will have to fund the growth in police pensions as well as inflation, which the Government agreed at 3.5 per cent. The sums do not add up and Parliament ought to be aware of that.
926
This is an issue where the Government could make some statement to enhance our understanding in Parliament of the £9.5 billion which is spent on policing. So I am hoping today, not with much expectation, to at least be given some sign of some date in the future when we can look forward to a resolution of this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have some sympathy with these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 282. The impact of the police pension scheme on the police grant and police expenditure generally is quite dramatic. It will be in everybody's interest for this matter to be highlighted when the police grant is determined.
In relation to Amendment No. 276, however virtuous the idea proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the wording of the amendment cannot be appropriate. It refers to new pension arrangements for police officers,
"including arrangements to ensure the full and on-going costs of the new arrangements are met from a pension fund established from the Consolidated Fund".
The full and on-going costs seem to me to be the total costs and that would not be appropriate. Indeed, I know it is not what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, intends because he does not wish police officers to continue as they already do. The amendment is therefore technically wrong even if the principle is correct. This issue will continue to be a problem until it is ultimately resolved. I have sympathy with what is being suggested, particularly in the second amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suppose I should have a good deal of sympathy for this amendment because I can remember 10 years ago trotting off to the Home Office as a humble official to sit behind my politicians at the time, pumping the information to them to argue the case. It was not a case which was wildly dissimilar to that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, today.
There is no doubt that the scheme is in need of modernisation. That is not in dispute. The current scheme does not best meet the needs of the service. Under the existing scheme officers can retire with an immediate maximum pension and lump sum after 30 years' service. As a result the police service loses a number of very experienced police officers in their late 40s or early 50s who would still have much to contribute.
We need to modernise police pensions to make them more flexible and more affordable for new entrants. The current scheme is based on a system of fast accrual after 20 years' service. That does not reflect modern working patterns where more people are taking career breaks, working part-time and moving into and out of jobs.
We aim to complete our work on examining the options for a new scheme as quickly as possible. Amendment No. 276 offers one approach, as I said in Committee. But it would come with a massive price tag. It would cost approximately £35 billion to set up

927
a funded scheme. Consider the impact of that on the police budget. Consider what we could do in terms of pumping more money into front-line services—I am not arguing one against the other; that is not our case today. But it is a huge amount of money to divert from more immediate needs.
In our previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, did not advocate an immediate wholesale change to a funded scheme because of the cost. Instead he favoured a gradual change which would involve a new funded scheme that would supersede the current arrangements as members of the current scheme progressed through their retirement. We have given that option careful consideration. Though no final decisions have been made, I have to say that that too would have a hefty price tag, albeit spread over time rather than at a cost of £35 billion in one fell swoop.
Setting up a funded scheme just for new entrants would place an extra and increasing pension burden on police authorities' finances for many years to come. There would be immediate and growing contributions into the nevi fund but no benefits in return until the fund began to finance most pension payments. That point would not be reached for well over 30 years. The immediate effect of setting up a new fund would be increased pressure on police authorities' budgets, for two reasons. First, employee contributions from new entrants could not, as now, be used to offset the cost of existing pensions but would be diverted into the new fund. Secondly, authorities would also have to pay into the fund employer contributions for the new entrants.
A funded scheme is not a panacea and would not necessarily make the scheme affordable. As I pointed out in Committee, although a funded scheme is necessary for a private sector occupational pension scheme, a public sector scheme such as the police pension scheme can have its benefits guaranteed by statute.
Although we are still considering the detailed options, we believe a better way forward would be a twin-track approach. First, introduce a better and fairer system of financing police pensions. Secondly, introduce a more affordable and flexible scheme for future entrants. We aim to fulfil the requirements of police authorities and chief officers for a system that has more certainty for pensions obligations on police forces. We hope to announce our conclusions on that issue in the near future. Note the change of wording—not "shortly" but "the near future".
As to Amendment No. 282, under present arrangements police grant is indivisible. It is calculated from a variety of elements—the majority of which are related to policing activity, with only a comparatively small part for pensions. The total grant for each police authority is unhypothecated. We do not attempt to ensure that authorities break even on each component but, generally speaking, the overall result is fair.
Provision is made in the police funding settlement for the overall cost of pensions but the allocation between police authorities does not always match the costs that they incur from year to year. For many
928
forces, that is not a problem. For some, it is. We review pensions projections periodically—we are about to do so this year—to ensure that police grant calculations for each authority are reasonably up to date. Even so, there will always be years when costs are not fully supported by grant, which is why authorities may put money aside in good years for reserve, to cover exceptional costs in years when pressures are greater.
It is suggested that pensions funding should be separated from operational policing in the interests of transparency. I do not dismiss that valid argument but it can have disadvantages. If we were to split off a piece of grant for pensions, it would be logical to break the whole provision into its several components. That would not be beneficial to anyone and would limit the scope for police authorities and chief officers to be flexible in moving around their resources, according to different pressures on police budgets.
As I emphasised in regard to the pensions amendment and our debates in Committee, we intend to bring forward proposals as soon as possible. This is a serious, complex and long-term issue. There are no easy solutions. Actuaries have been trying to work something out for at least as long as I have been in public service and involved in policing matters. We have to take time to ensure a scheme that is workable and provides stability. We have developed the argument since Committee stage and hope to bring something forward in the near future, rather than shortly.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. We shall return to the subject from time to time. Amendment No. 282 was meant to separate pensions from the policing function and it is a pity that it has not proceeded. Then at least the public would know what they are paying for and how much goes into pensions—even if the part they are paying for is split into separate headings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 277:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
"REPEAL OF RIOT (DAMAGES) ACT 1886
The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (c. 38) shall be repealed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we seek the repeal of the Riot (Damages Act) 1886. We withdrew a similar amendment in Committee, following assurances that there would be an urgent review of the matter. To recap, the Act provides that where a police authority declares under the terms of the Public Order Act 1986 that a riot has taken place, police authorities become liable to pay for any damages to buildings and their contents arising through riots.
As everyone knows, a few weeks ago the Act came into the public eye when a claim was made against the Bedfordshire police—we were involved in the action, not necessarily the claim—for £100 million arising

929
from disturbances at Yarl's Wood. The provisions of the Act apply even when there has been no negligence on the part of the police.
I mentioned in Committee that last November Dr Ruth Henig, the chairman of the APA, wrote to John Denham calling for an urgent review of the Act and its repeal in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, acknowledged that the Government should have had the courtesy to respond to that letter. I am surprised that to date no reply has been received. That does not give me any confidence that the Government are taking the issue seriously.
The Minister announced that an urgent review of the Act was being carried out. However, I know that so far the APA has not been consulted in the review. That is a little surprising considering the impact of the Act on police authority budgets.
I am sure that when the review is completed we shall discover that there is no justification for the Riot Damages Act or that police authorities should meet payments for damages. At the end of the day, the impact is on operational policing, with funds being diverted away from frontline policing towards meeting costs which in other circumstances would be met by insurance companies. The Minister made some fairly unparliamentary comments about some of those people. I hope that the House will agree that we should grasp this opportunity for reform and repeal this outdated piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with regard to the letter from Ruth Henig mentioned by the noble Lord, I have seen the reply that John Denham wrote yesterday. Whether it was sent yesterday or today, I freely admit that it does not actually say anything. One of the reasons for the delay in the substantive response to her letter is that we considered it better to wait until after the review which, I regret to say, is not yet complete. We will of course consult both the APA and the ACPO when we have some formal proposals to put to them. It was not intended as a discourtesy to the chairman of the Association of Police Authorities.
I have nothing further to add to what I said in Committee. I do not think that there is much purpose in repeating that. Indeed, given the more acrimonious comments that have made even more recently, it is even more important that I probably say nothing about the Yarl's Wood situation, other than what the Home Secretary and I have already said, either in the parliamentary answers or through the media. It would be dangerous to start extrapolating on that now.
I make absolutely clear that we are aware that the police service is unhappy with the current arrangements. We accept that there are two outstanding claims at the moment; one relating to the disturbances last year and of course Yarl's Wood.
There is an urgent review going on regarding the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. Straightforward repeal is fraught with difficulty. It is not simply a matter of coming to this House and saying that we wish to repeal an Act and that is the end of the matter. Of course, no
930
one who calls on us to get rid of the Act actually comes up with a solution. I accept that it is the job of government to come up with a solution. However, we recognise that there is normally no case for public compensation for criminal damage. Riots are, however, a special case. Compensation provides a safety net for businesses and households in the inner city areas most prone to riot. As I said earlier on, I had experience in 1985 in my own constituency of damage to both domestic and commercial property at the Handsworth riots in the Lozells area of my constituency and that of Small Heath.
As I say, removing the protective net provided by the Riot (Damages) Act, without any alternative means of assisting people, could prove counterproductive in that it could discourage responsible businesses and householders from staying in areas where they are needed. That said, we are actively pursuing the matter. It is my view, and that of other Ministers in the Home Office, that we want to get this settled as quickly as possible. Clearly, we do not want to do anything that interrupts outstanding negotiations and claims, because they are being conducted under the status quo, but as soon as we have more proposals we will hot-tail it down to Parliament, the Association of Police Authorities and ACPO for consultation on the matter.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We have every sympathy with the small person who suffers damage. We have little sympathy with the large-scale insurance claims that result and fall to be met by police authorities, which are presumably receiving claims in proxy for the Government for something for which they are often not responsible. Having said that, and hoping that the Government come forward with proposals shortly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 278:
Page 142, line I, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
( ) In subsection (7B) of section 67 of that Act (limited effect of modification of code of practice), in paragraph (c) for "order" there shall be substituted "code".
( ) After subsection (9) of that section there shall be inserted—
"(9A) Persons on whom powers are conferred by—

(a) any designation under section 34 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 00) (designated employees of a police authority or Service Authority), or

(b) any accreditation under section 36 of that Act (accreditation under community safety accreditation schemes),

shall have regard to any relevant provision of a code of practice to which this section applies in the exercise or performance of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on them by that designation or accreditation."
( ) In subsection (10) of that section (failure to comply with codes not to render a person liable to civil or criminal proceedings), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted ", or

931
(c) of a person designated or accredited under section 34 or 36 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 00) to have regard to any relevant provision of such a code in the exercise or performance of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by that designation or accreditation,"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 283. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that accredited persons, in addition to designated persons, have regard to any relevant provisions of codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in the exercise or performance of the powers and duties conferred or imposed on them by that designation or accreditation.
Amendment No. 278 works by creating a new subsection (9A) of Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to do that. Amendment No. 283 is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 278 regarding Section 67(10) of that Act. Amendment No. 283 simply has the effect of repealing the word "or"—it is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Harris of Richmondmoved Amendment No. 279:
Page 143, line 8, at end insert—
"In section 6 of the 1996 Act (general functions of police authorities), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"( ) A police authority for any police area shall have power to call for information or reports from Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, the Audit Commission or any crime and disorder reduction partnership within the authority's area.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 281. We have returned to the amendments because we were disappointed that the Government did not feel able to respond more positively and at least offer to give the matter some thought. The amendment is not intended to give police authorities extensive powers to demand reports from all and sundry, nor to force people to cooperate. The intention behind the amendment is very different to that which has been placed on it by the Government. That may be due to deficiencies in the drafting, but we are more than happy to discuss with the Minister how we may secure an amendment that would be acceptable to the Government.
The aim of the amendment is in line with the wider aims of the Government's reform programme. It is designed to enable police authorities to be proactive about improving their oversight and management of the force by calling on professional assistance and advice—whether from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary or auditors—and working with those bodies to drive up police performance. Police authorities want to raise their game, just as the reform programme seeks to raise the game of the rest of the police service.
We are nearly there. I turn to Amendment No. 281. The Minister may be sick to death of hearing about police authorities and may feel that they have caused him a lot of work during the passage of this Bill. However, he told us in Committee that he was an
932
optimist, so perhaps he will look at the issue in another way. Perhaps he will welcome the fact that police authorities and the Association of Police Authorities are actively engaging in the reform programme and are keen to help shape it in a way that will work.
The purpose of the amendment is to untie the hands of police authorities so that they can employ the right staff and resources to ensure that local people get efficient and effective police services. Police authorities are extremely frugal bodies. The Minister need have no concern that the amendment will detract in any way from money spent on operational policing. The debates that we have had on pensions are evidence of the commitment of police authorities to that.
In Committee, we said that this was a minor amendment aimed at helping police authorities to do their job better. The Minister suggested that the Association of Police Authorities have discussions with his department, and some preliminary discussions have taken place. I hope that if we are unable to resolve the issue today the Minister will agree that further discussions should take place before Third Reading.
The Minister has said many times in our debates that he wants to support police authorities and forces. I hope that that is exactly what he will do by making these small changes. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have learnt to love the police authorities, but, sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind. I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 279 refers to the crime and disorder reduction partnerships. The noble Baroness knows that we tabled amendments, which were agreed, that will make the polite authorities responsible for ensuring crime and disorder strategies under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. There is no statutory reference to crime and disorder reduction partnerships, but the new role as responsible bodies should ensure that the partnerships have access to information.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is responsible to the Secretary of State. It is important not to blur that distinction. It is not, for example, responsible to chief constables or commissioners of police. As noble Lords have said, that does not hinder the flow of information to forces. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton in Committee.
Amendment No. 281 is, I think, exactly the same. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton said that we understood the argument behind the amendment. It is important that police authorities are appropriately resourced to perform their functions of setting a budget and appointing senior officers and in relation to the local policing plan and best value. However, as we have explained, the provision that requires civil staff to be under the direction of the chief officer of police is necessary to ensure the efficient and effective policing of an area.
The necessary corollary of that is that the chief officer should be involved in decisions that may lessen the star resources at his disposal. If there is a disagreement, it is

933
open to the police authority to take the matter to the Secretary of State for resolution if it feels that it has a reasonable case. We are aware of no such referrals to the Home Secretary. We said that in Committee, and I have the same words in front of me now. It is not as though a head of steam is building up. I am not inviting referrals, but they can be made, if needed.
I have no doubt that we have not heard the end of the matter, and I suspect that it will be pursued in the other place. As for this place, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am disappointed again that the Minister does not feel that he can accept two small amendments.
One amendment relates to the general functions of police authorities and support for what they do. When the police authority that I chaired for a number of years wanted to employ an extra clerk or sub-clerk, we went through hoops with the police force, especially—to my regret—with the Police Federation, who said that the police authority took money out of its pocket to look after itself. We had long arguments. It is disappointing when an amendment is meant to say to police authorities that we understand that they need support in what they are trying to do. After all, the Government gave them statutory duties.
I urge the Government to consider the matter again. Even if they cannot accept both amendments, they should consider accepting one of them. Police authorities should be sensible and frugal. It is important that they have sufficient proper professional people to help them do their jobs effectively. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter and, regrettably, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 280:
Page 143, line 15, at end insert—
"(4B) Before giving any guidance under subsection (4A), the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities:

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 281 and 282 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 283 to 286:
Page 146, line 17, at end insert—

"The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)

In section 67(10), the word "or" after paragraph (a)."

Page 146, line 34, at end insert—
"In Schedule 2, paragraph 25. In Schedule 2A, paragraph 20."
Page 146, line 40, at end insert—
"Section 9A(2)."
Page 146, line 44, at end insert—
"Section 55A(2)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 91 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 287 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 288:
Page 83, line 29, leave out "Sections 86 and" and insert "Sections 85 to"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment to Clause 91(5). It has the effect of specifying that the effect of those subsections of Clause 85—that is, liability for wrongful acts of constables and so forth—which amend the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, will come into force on whatever day is appointed by Scottish Ministers. It is no more or less than that and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 289:
Page 84, line 8, at end insert ", and
(c) Part 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalties),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  London Courts: Witness Support Service
  London Courts: Witness Support Service
  Rifles and Shotguns
  Rifles and Shotguns
  Young Offenders on Bail
  Young Offenders on Bail
  Courthouse Closures
  Courthouse Closures
  Terrorism: Causes
  Terrorism: Causes
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  Iraq: Exports
  Iraq: Exports
  Defence Medical Agencies
  Defence Medical Agencies
  Afghanistan: Unexploded Ammunition
  Afghanistan: Unexploded Ammunition
  Ecolabelling
  Ecolabelling
  GM Contamination of Hybrid Oil Seed Rape
  GM Contamination of Hybrid Oil Seed Rape
  Financial Reporting Standard 17
  Financial Reporting Standard 17
  Older People in Residential Care
  Older People in Residential Care
  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mixed-sex Wards
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia