Sitting of 25 April 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HSBC INVESTMENT BANKING BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 2 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Learning and Skills Council
    Chris Grayling: If she will make a statement on the future funding of sixth forms by the Learning and Skills Council. [50345]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Since 1 April 2002 local education authorities have been funded by the Learning and Skills Council for provision in their school sixth forms. The funding allocations for 2002–03 were announced on 7 March.
    Chris Grayling: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that many school sixth forms are already complaining that they have lost funding as a result of the changes. In a matter of three weeks we have had pronouncements from the LSC that it plans to withdraw funding for a number of smaller sixth forms over the next few years. What do the Government have against school sixth forms?
    Mr. Lewis: Because of the new LSC formula that is being applied to school sixth forms they are getting significantly more funding than ever before. That funding is being phased in over two years to take account of the concerns that LEAs have expressed. Let us be clear that there must be initially a poor inspection and secondly a poor reinspection before we consider the closure of a school sixth form.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: There are no schools with sixth form provision in my constituency; the only provision available there is on the Bolton sixth form
    448
    college south campus. The difference in funding between school sixth forms and sixth form colleges is approaching £1,000, so young people in my constituency are seriously disadvantaged. Can my hon. Friend assure my potential sixth formers that their funding will increase in the very near future?
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Government are committed to convergence upwards in funding, and we will announce our proposals immediately following the conclusions of the spending review.
    Mr. Phil Willis: When the Learning and Skills Act 2000 went through the House we were promised that there would be convergence upwards, as the Minister has said, and that there would be a rationalisation of funding streams, particularly those for further education colleges. This year the convergence has been downwards; the funding is £900 less for FE colleges and £500 less for schools, and the average figure is £2,600. There are now 71 different funding streams into FE colleges. When will the Minister deliver?
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should not get so excited. I am surprised that he is not in touch with the fact that the number of funding streams has been reduced to nine, to take account of the concerns expressed by the FE sector. We have made it clear that we are committed to and accept the case for convergence. The level and nature of that convergence must be worked out in the context of available resources.
    Alan Simpson: Will the Minister consult LEAs about the effects of LSC funding on school intakes? I am told that in Nottingham a number of schools are having difficulties in attracting and retaining pupils, who are migrating to county areas where they have access to schools with sixth forms, rather than remaining in city schools where funding is more restricted. Will the Minister consult LEAs to find out whether that is a significant problem in the context of funding streams?
    Mr. Lewis: The LSC has a duty to consult LEAs about those areas of concern. If my hon. Friend provides me with information about difficulties of that nature, we will speak to the relevant local learning and skills council.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister talks about increased funding for schools, yet the truth was confirmed by the Minister for School Standards in a written answer to me last night: schools will be £150 million worse off as a result of the Chancellor's tax on jobs. Is not the truth that the Government take back with one hand what they have given with the other, and schools are worse off as a result?
    Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that nobody in the country believes; everybody accepts that massive additional investment is going into our primary and secondary schools. As for the Budget and the spending review, the Chancellor has made it clear that education will continue to be the Government's first priority.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that as a consequence of the £1,000 funding

    449
    differential between college and school students, teaching staff in colleges suffer from a severe salary differential between themselves and those in school sixth forms? Teachers in the two excellent colleges in my constituency, Bury college and Holy Cross sixth form college, receive up to £5,000 a year less than teachers doing essentially the same job in sixth forms in neighbouring constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is unacceptable, and will he—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman always speaks for far too long when called for a question.
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right to make the point that there is a difference. It is important to define the nature of that difference and create a framework that will lead to a fair funding distribution. Our objectives include more reform and investment in further education establishments in future.

    Child Protection
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: What mechanisms are in place to ensure that schools have a policy on child protection. [50346]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): The right hon. Lady will be familiar with the Department's circular 10/95 on protecting children from abuse, which advises that all staff should be aware of procedures on suspected abuse cases. The circular is backed up by the requirement that Ofsted inspectors must review provisions on pupils' welfare, including arrangements for child protection.
    Mrs. Shephard: In the case of six-year-old Lauren Wright in my constituency, of which I know Ministers are aware, both the head and the assistant teacher at her 30-pupil school failed to report her unexplained 4-stone weight loss and bruising as the guidelines required. In the light of that, do Ministers agree that there is a need for guidelines to be made statutory—in other words, that they should be more than guidelines—and for a legal requirement for all schools to have a policy on child protection?
    Mr. Timms: I have seen the distressing dossier on the case of Lauren Wright submitted by the right hon. Lady and the all-party group of Norfolk MPs to the Climbie inquiry. Clearly there were serious failings by the school and others, but whether the problem is local or goes wider is less clear. Next month we shall publish a consultation document on revising circular 10/95. I repeat the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a letter to the right hon. Lady—that in response to the matter that she has raised, we are reflecting carefully on whether to introduce changes in the Education Bill to strengthen the basis for child protection arrangements in schools. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to write to her when those deliberations are complete.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Of course, all of us in the House want the highest level of child protection, but we must be careful to get the balance right. Some of us fear that schools are moving towards over-zealousness on child protection and many other issues, which could
    450
    stop school trips, and stop children getting out of school into the environment. I understand that there is currently a consultation on whether every parent should be vetted by police before being allowed to accompany children on a school trip. We have to get the balance right; we need to protect children, but schools must remain open to the idea of school trips and other ways of using the environment for learning.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right about the need for balance. We are contemplating the quite narrow suggestion that there should be a statutory requirement for schools to have a policy and a procedure on dealing with cases of suspected abuse. Ofsted reports that two thirds of schools already have good child protection procedures; the worry is about the small minority in which that is not yet the case.
    Norman Lamb: I agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). The Minister has just referred to the fact that many schools have clear child protection guidelines in place. Does he agree that it is important that there should be clear sanctions and Government guidelines? Failure to observe guidelines in schools led to the events in the Lauren Wright case.
    Mr. Timms: At the moment the guidance is not statutory, so sanctions are not in place. In the case in question the governing body has accepted that it was at fault, as there was no designated teacher to address the issue. It is accepted that that was a serious error on its part. If we were to introduce a statutory duty such as that proposed, it would change the nature of the requirements for schools.
    Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the two watchwords concerning people going into our schools are "protection" and "quality", in terms of who is teaching the pupils, who has access to them and what is being taught? It is vital that we get the procedures right to ensure that there is rigorous inspection of people who go into schools, to whom vulnerable children may be exposed. The quality and the standard of the education that they provide are also important.
    One of the concerns arising from the evidence given by Mr. Tomlinson to the Select Committee is the lack of regulation of supply teacher agencies. Very little regard is paid to who is entering such agencies and what the standards are. If a school rings up an agency after being sent a teacher one day and says, "Don't send that person again, because the standard is not satisfactory," that teacher may well be sent to another school the next day—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the concerns that have been expressed about supply teacher agencies. In the light of those concerns, we will table amendments to the Education Bill to strengthen the arrangements for reporting misconduct where it arises. The proposals will ensure that agencies and other employers have a statutory duty to report cases of

    451
    misconduct by their employees. That will help, and the quality mark that we propose for teacher supply agencies will also be an important step forward.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: The case was obviously very tragic, but Lauren Wright was killed not by teachers, social workers or paediatricians, but by a wicked stepmother, who also happened to be a welfare assistant at the school. Does the Minister agree that if a statutory policy had been in place, it would have helped very much in this case?
    Mr. Timms: Yes. As I understand it, while Lauren was attending the school her weight fell from six stone to two stone and she was often seen covered in bruises, yet neither of the teachers expressed concerns or referred the matter to social services. The stepmother's employment at the school may well have been a factor.

    Further Education
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on the Government's plans for the further education sector. [503471]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): The further education sector is central to delivering the Government's lifelong learning objectives. There is already much excellence in the sector and we want to build on that best practice to achieve high-quality learning for all. We are already discussing with those who work in further education how we can improve standards, and we will announce our proposals, supported by the outcome of the spending review, later this year.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that when we were visited on Tuesday by lecturers and other staff from colleges attended by 700,000 16 to 19-year-olds, there was a genuine sense of betrayal about the fact that although the Government promised a convergence of funding, pay and status with other post-16 education, exactly the opposite has happened? How can she justify the fact that college lecturers at most points of the salary scale are paid £6,000 a year less for giving teaching identical to that provided by teachers in schools?
    Estelle Morris: I acknowledge that much of the investment that we made in mainstream school salaries for teachers in our first term led to a widening of the difference between the amount that could be paid for teaching in further education and schools. I have always acknowledged that. We were very straight in 1997 about where our priorities lay—and to some extent, things can only be done one at a time. We invested heavily in early-years education and in primary and secondary schools. I entirely accept from the many people who lobbied us on Tuesday that there is an issue about differential salaries. The Government made it clear before the 2001 election that we would seek to redress that balance during this Parliament, as our education reform agenda moved on into the further and higher education sectors.
    Having acknowledged that issue—although I think that those in further education accept that it was right to prioritise early-years and primary education—I must add
    452
    that nobody should run away with a belief that there has been no investment in FE. There had been a steady year-on-year cut under the Conservative Government, and there has been a 20 per cent. increase in real-terms funding in further education since 1997. We certainly hope to build on that in the years to come.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the previous Education Question Time I referred to the threatened demise—according to some newspapers—of the North Derbyshire tertiary college, and called on the Government to ensure that it would be kept open? A rescue plan has been put forward today by the college's governors and others. I am pretty certain that that will be linked with the Markham employment growth zone, an exciting development involving about 8,000 jobs, and the training capacity at Clowne would be excellent. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Government will look into this and make sure that the college is kept open? We have had all the pit closures we can stomach in our area; we have got to save this college.
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend has been assiduous and vocal in bringing the North Derbyshire tertiary college to our attention. My starting point is the same as his: those who live in his area are entitled to top-rate further education and training opportunities for employment, for personal fulfilment and for all those other things that we know education is for. He is absolutely right about that.
    I know that he will also agree that we want the best quality we can possibly get, and there is no reason why people who live in Bolsover should get lower quality because they happen to have a further education college that is not as good as it should be at this time. We want provision, but it must be excellent provision. I know that that is our shared starting point. A lot of discussions are taking place at the moment. The plan that my hon. Friend mentioned is one of many, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning will be visiting the college to talk to everyone who wants to put any points to her. No change is not an option, because my hon. Friend and I both want better quality provision for the people in that area.
    Alistair Burt: Just what is it that makes today's Government so different, and so appealing to further education that for the first time, principals, staff unions and students all combined in this week's lobby of Parliament? Is it related to the dismay over the lack of trust displayed by the Government as core funding continues to decline, or to the blank astonishment illustrated by the sharp intake of breath that greeted the claim by the Minister for Lifelong Learning to those who were lobbying that they had received extra money, although none of them was able to identify it? Or is it Ministers' misleading comments last month on quality, which, according to the Association of Colleges, aroused
    "deep concerns and absolute anger"?
    Will the Secretary of State confide to the House the secret of her Government's success in uniting further education?
    Estelle Morris: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how this Government are different from the last Government: we invest in education; we make capital investments; FE lecturers have the opportunity to train for

    453
    qualifications; there are centres for vocational excellence that did not exist before; we have targets and are delivering on them; and more people have learning opportunities. That is the difference between us and the Conservative Government.
    Those in the FE sector are impatient for change, but so are we. As I said to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), we made it clear in 1997 that our priorities were early-years, primary and secondary education. We delivered in those sectors, and we delivered well. We made it clear in our 2001 manifesto that our priority—as well as schools—would be further and higher education. Believe me, we will deliver—and deliver well—on that, too.

    School Buildings
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What assistance is offered to local education authorities to replace and improve old school buildings for secondary education; and if she will make a statement. [50348]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): We have provided more than £7.5 billion in the last five years for school buildings. In the next two years we are making a further £6.5 billion available. Most of this money is allocated by formula to local education authorities and they allocate it to schools according to locally determined priorities. We do not separately allocate capital for primary and secondary schools.
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend will be aware of the bid by the Wakefield local education authority for help and resources for refurbishing its secondary schools, including Horbury school and Ossett school. Normanton, a former mining community and railway centre, is acknowledged to be a deprived area, and we are in desperate need of new buildings at the Freeston high school to replace the 70-year-old buildings in which children are being taught at present. Does my hon. Friend agree that if future generations in Normanton are to achieve the necessary standards, skills and success, we need those new buildings? Will he visit my constituency to see for himself the need for refurbishment of its secondary schools?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend will be aware that central Government have provided £40 million extra in the past five years for capital expenditure in the LEA area, and we have already allocated a further £22 million over the next two years. I am aware of the £38 million private finance initiative hid, and I know that two of the three secondary schools that would have benefited most are in his constituency.
    Wakefield LEA will have another chance to bid again later this year and my Department, which has offered detailed feedback to the authority on its previous bid, is happy to work with it to develop a future application. My hon. Friend's constituency shares many characteristics with my own, so I would be happy to take up his invitation to see the state of the schools for myself, following his expression of concern about them.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Education Ministers are well aware of the problems that we have in Macclesfield in connection with secondary education and the possible amalgamation of two schools. Is the Minister
    454
    aware that the Learning and Skills Council has made a most exciting proposal to establish an education learning zone in Macclesfield, which could solve all the problems about the money that might be required to improve and modernise Ryles Park school. Is he prepared to meet me to discuss that exciting project, which would solve a lot of education problems in Macclesfield?
    John Healey: I would be only too pleased to meet the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). However, if he will forgive me, I shall first have a good look at the plans put together by the LSC to see whether they are as exciting and visionary as he suggests. I look forward to discussing them with him.
    John Mann: Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to use the money for new schools not just to improve the building stock, but to raise aspirations and expectations among children in areas such as the coalfields, where there has historically been underachievement in schools? That would provide not just new buildings, but a catalyst for improving and raising the aspirations of the kids as well as teachers' and communities' expectations of them.
    John Healey: My hon. Friend, too, has a constituency that shares many characteristics with my own, and he is absolutely right to remind us not just of the significant increases in capital investment in schools under this Government, but the reason for them, which is that better buildings and better equipment produce better schools. That encourages better learning and improved aspirations among the kids who attend them, which are essential for students and staff as part of our bid to raise attainment, especially in disadvantaged areas where staying-on rates and kids' achievements have for too long been too low.
    Mr. David Heath: The Government are to be congratulated on introducing asset management plans for schools, but given the huge backlog of buildings that need renovation, the so-called temporary classrooms and the need for new science laboratories in many secondary schools, does the Minister share my concern that often, the capital resources available to local education authorities will not match the needs identified in the asset management plans? Does he agree that expectations have been created that can only lead to disappointment? How can we produce more capital assets for the LEAs so that we can get the schools built?
    John Healey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of asset management plans, which we introduced in 1999, along with the first ever full survey of all schools in every LEA area—although I am not surprised to hear another hid for extra funding made from the Liberal Benches. I remind him that central Government investment has increased sharply since 1997. In the final year under the Tories it was £700 million. Last year it was three times that. Next year it will be five times that. Clearly there is a limit to what central Government can provide, even through such a generous settlement, which is why the PFI has an important part to play in supplementing it.

    University Entrants
    Tony Cunningham: What steps she is taking to encourage university applications from pupils from lower socio-economic groups. [50350]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): My Department's excellence challenge will encourage applications for higher education among young people in many of the country's most disadvantaged areas by raising their attainment and their aspirations. In addition, through its postcode premium, the Higher Education Funding Council for England supports universities in meeting the additional cost of recruiting and retaining students from those groups.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that reply. For about 11 years, I taught in Netherhall comprehensive school in my constituency. It was attended by many talented young people who deserved to go to university but did not, because their parents, grandparents and friends had never been. There is a lack of expectation and aspiration. Will my hon. Friend share her thoughts on how we can improve and increase the expectations and aspirations of those children, who deserve the opportunity to go to university?
    Margaret Hodge: I share that view and that desire to raise aspirations and prior attainment levels among children, especially from the lower socio-economic groups, so that there is equality of opportunity for our young people. Raising aspirations is a long and slow process. It is shocking that almost half of young people from the lower socio-economic groups never hear about university as an option for them during their school years. We need to tackle that problem by working with those children from a young age, with their teachers and career advisers and with their families. Many of our programmes are intended to do that.
    Mr. Damian Green: Does the hon. Lady accept the fact that her attempts to achieve the laudable aim of widening access have so far been monumentally ham-fisted? She said that in some cases, universities should not award places on the basis of A-level results. What would she say to an applicant who had worked hard and obtained good grades but was denied a university place because the Minister's political interference meant that the university gave it to someone with worse results?
    Margaret Hodge: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the difference between this Government and the Conservative Government is that for generation after generation the Conservatives denied good quality education to the many and focused opportunity only on the elite, whereas we are determined to change that. I would then tell him that we want the very best brains to have the opportunity to go to our best universities. The issue that I raised was that many of our universities need to think about how they recruit and assess potential in selecting their students.
    I would draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention three studies carried out by three universities—Bristol, Cardiff and the department of economics at Warwick—all of which say the same thing, which is that applicants accepted from comprehensive schools do better than those
    456
    from independent schools with the same A-level points score. If three studies show that, universities need to become more sophisticated and ensure that they pull out the best potential when they select their students.
    Mr. Green: Clearly the Minister has nothing to say to the applicant whom she has unfairly excluded. She said that the Government were manipulating the money for universities so that applicants from certain postcodes were favoured. Surely the basis for university admissions should be what young people can learn, not where they come from. Just as it was wrong 50 years ago for crusty dons to prefer good chaps from their old school, it is wrong now for Ministers to impose political tests for university admissions. Does the hon. Lady not accept that the way to widen access is to improve the schools, not to bully the universities?
    Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that universities control their own admissions. The additional resources that we give to universities for taking in students whose parents are unlikely to have attended university reflects the additional teaching and support that those students may need to get the best out of their university experience. It is our desire to ensure that we stop focusing on the elite, and provide opportunity for the many. That is what governs that funding. For the hon. Gentleman to pretend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has done well in that reply. I call Mr. Harry Barnes.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Young people from lower socio-economic groups who miss out at school can be picked up by the adult education system at a later stage. Some do not take advantage of that opportunity because they are late developers, but others do not because their home life has not provided the necessary knowledge, understanding and encouragement, although they can become amenable to such influences at a later stage. What is being done to improve access for adult students who may not have prior qualifications?
    Margaret Hodge: I agree entirely with those who say that we should open opportunities not just to young children, but to those who perhaps did not have a proper chance at the beginning of their education. One purpose of the reform agenda for the further education sector is to ensure that the quality of education offered will provide the sort of progression to which my hon. Friend refers. The introduction of foundation degrees—many of which will include work-based experience, leading to the higher education qualification—is another initiative in that direction.
    Mr. George Osborne: In the 1960s, 70 per cent. of students at Oxford and Cambridge universities came from a state school background. These days, the figure is much lower; indeed, it has declined over that entire generation. In the Minister's opinion, what is the reason for that, and is there a connection with the ending of grammar school education throughout most of the country?
    Margaret Hodge: The current record of Oxford and Cambridge—which is measured not by us but by the

    457
    Higher Education Funding Council for England—shows that they are not yet meeting the HEFCE benchmark for entrance from state schools. In my view, the reason for that is being addressed in part by the universities themselves. Although we must raise aspirations and the prior attainment level, universities must reach out to other colleges. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the arrangement made by Pembroke college with a particular student demonstrates that there is probably a long way to go in ensuring that universities themselves have fair admissions systems.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I turn my hon. Friend's attention to Anglia Polytechnic university, the other university in my constituency, and the huge problem that many of its students experience in finding reasonably priced accommodation? That is a common difficulty in constituencies such as mine, which have very high housing costs. Has my hon. Friend carried out an assessment of the cost of accommodation for students in such constituencies, and does she consider that such costs might deter some students from poorer backgrounds?
    Margaret Hodge: Most of the analysis that we have undertaken suggests that the level of loan is sufficient to cover students' basic accommodation and living costs. However, we are anxious to ensure that the costs associated with attending university do not become a deterrent to students' deciding to move on to higher education. The purpose of the student funding review is to address issues such as those raised by my hon. Friend.

    Teacher Work Load
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What recent meetings she has had with the teachers' unions to discuss the level of paperwork issued by her Department to teachers. [50351]
    Derek Twigg: What steps she is taking to tackle excess teacher work load. [50355]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): The school workforce working party, which includes all teacher and head teacher associations and several other key education partners, continues to meet regularly. One key issue for that group is teacher work load. The school teacher's review body is expected to report on work load shortly.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for that rather bland reply. Does she recall her recent written answers to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, which revealed that, in the past 12 months, documents with no fewer than 1,601 pages have been sent to secondary school teachers, and that documents with no fewer than an astonishing 2,839 pages have been sent to primary school teachers? Does the Secretary of State stand by her statement to the House of 10 January, when she said that
    "sending teachers less paper will neither raise standards nor satisfy them of our ability to give them the support that they need to do the job"?—[Official Report, 10 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 6611.]
    458
    Does she realise that, until she changes her attitude on these matters, teachers will not want to remain in a profession that requires them to deal with a blizzard of unnecessary paper instead of teaching students?
    Estelle Morris: It is far from being the case that teachers do not want to stay in the profession. Yesterday, I was delighted to announce a further increase in the numbers of teachers in teaching. There has been an increase of more than 20 per cent. in the number of applications, and we have more teachers than we have had for 20 years.
    The trouble with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and his Front-Bench colleague the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) is that they ask questions and receive written answers, but they are only interested in how many pages have been sent out. They never ask about what was on the pages, how useful it was or what use teachers made of it. Just for clarity, I shall itemise two documents in the pages to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. There were 370 pages in the numeracy key stage 3 document that was sent out. I have not met a maths teacher working with children in the early years of secondary education who does not think that what we are doing in respect of such teachers' continuous professional development is of good quality, and that it will lead to higher standards.
    Another document was 115 pages long. It dealt with schoolteachers' conditions and pay: is the hon. Member for New Forest, East suggesting that we should not send that out? As long as he appears only to count the pages, rather than looking at what they contain, I do not think that he will make progress on this matter.
    Derek Twigg: Last year, the key stage 2 results for schools in Halton and the rest of the country showed the biggest improvement on record. Recently, I visited Ditton primary school in my constituency, to open a new building for which local people had been waiting for 20 years. No such new building would ever have happened under the Tories, and people were delighted with it. It has great new facilities, and the environment for teachers and staff is excellent. However, teachers told me that they were worried about the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy with which they had to deal. The school has excellent results. Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any chance that schools with proven track records in terms of delivering the required results could be granted some sort of exemption or flexibility in that respect?
    Estelle Morris: First, I am delighted with the progress that has been made, in terms both of academic attainment and of building work, at the school to which my hon. Friend refers. I hope that he will take my thanks and congratulations to all those who have worked so hard to achieve that.
    My hon. Friend is right. I do not know the details of the school in question, but schools that perform well are now subject to far less frequent visits by Ofsted inspectors. We need to make more progress in that respect. Our approach is that we need a strong framework for accountability, which allows us to guarantee to parents that we are on top of underperformance. Increasingly, however, we are able to give more flexibility and

    459
    autonomy to schools that are performing well. That is at the core of the Education Bill and is the next stage in education reform.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: The Secretary of State will be aware that Bognor Regis community college in my constituency has been on a four-day week for the first half of the current term owing to teacher shortages. I hope that the matter has been resolved for the remainder of the term, but is not that school's experience an indication of the seriousness of the teacher shortage, which is caused by an excess of paperwork, poor discipline in schools, and poor teacher pay?
    Estelle Morris: In my answer to the previous question I explained that teacher pay has gone up and that lecturers in further education have noticed the difference, so the hon. Gentleman cannot claim that the problem comes down to teacher pay.
    I am delighted to hear that the school in Bognor Regis to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be back to full-time education next week. Of course I share his concern: no hon. Member would want his or her children to be in a school offering only short-time education because of teacher shortages. I do not underestimate or diminish the nature of the problem for some schools. I have always said that we are not complacent. I intend no comment on the school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but some schools facing especially challenging problems find it far more difficult to recruit and retain teachers. We have been working closely with the head teacher and the local authority to do what we can to help. I hope that our contribution has been appreciated and useful.
    I am not complacent, and acknowledge that real problems exist for some schools. Overall, however, in terms of vacancies—even in London, where traditionally they have been the most difficult to fill—yesterday's figures showed that the huge investment that we have put in over the past few years is beginning to bear fruit. We will continue to monitor and to offer whatever help we can to those at Bognor Regis community college. I hope that from Monday onwards, things go really well there and continue to improve.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend has partly anticipated my question in her welcome remarks about Ofsted's light touch. Will she confirm that she intends Ofsted to have a much lighter touch when it comes to the majority of schools and for its visits to be much less frequent'? In that way, we can show teachers that we trust them to deliver our education service on our behalf.
    Estelle Morris: We must remember that, on average, Ofsted visits a school once every six years. It is not as though its inspectors are in school, every day of the week, every week of the year. I do not think that that is unreasonable. Ofsted offers us the ability to guarantee to parents that we will spot underachievement and take action to remedy it. Ofsted also identifies good practice and success which we can share and celebrate. We must seek to move this forward and reduce the amount of paperwork that Ofsted asks for. I know that David Bell, the successor to Mike Tomlinson—who is in his last week in post and to whom I wish to pay tribute for the work
    460
    that he has done—will continue to work for that. My guarantee to parents is that external inspection and accountability will stay in place. Equally, when teachers improve and perform well, we should seek to give them more freedom and autonomy.

    School Counselling Services
    Sue Doughty: What measures are in place to improve counselling services available to young people in schools. [50352]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): For older pupils, the Connexions service will, by 2003, be available across the whole of England. We have also established a network of 3,000 learning mentors to help children and young people in challenging circumstances overcome any problem that affects their learning.
    Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his reply. I had the privilege last week of addressing a social inclusion conference for youth in my constituency. It was clear that giving as much help as we can to young people, their teachers and their families will provide a real benefit in avoiding problems that may stack up later on. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is responsible for much of the current provision. Will the Minister do everything that he can to ensure that every child in every school has access to the counselling services that will help them, their teachers and families?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. In my view, tackling emotional and psychological difficulties is integral to raising educational standards and performance. I pay tribute to the work of the NSPCC, which is doing some tremendously innovative work in this area. I recently met pupils and staff of the Aldersley high school and the Kings secondary school in Wolverhampton, which are benefiting directly from those NSPCC projects.
    As the hon. Lady will know, there are now learning mentors in schools and we have 2,000 Connexions personal advisers in post. In the Budget we announced the establishment of new multidisciplinary support teams to work with clusters of primary and secondary schools. That is all to ensure that individual young people have intensive support where they have multiple and complex difficulties that get in the way of their learning and succeeding at school. The reasons why young people do not do as well as they could are sometimes very complex, and we need that intensive adult support to ensure that all young people fulfil their potential.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Despite the appalling spelling of "Connexions", I pay tribute to its work and that of the NSPCC, particularly in Wolverhampton. It has a long record of connecting with local authorities, especially my own, which has worked long and hard with a series of joint arrangements and often joint purse arrangements. Will the Minister ensure that he facilitates such working by making sure that all

    461
    local authorities have sufficient resources outside the ring-fenced arrangements to develop imaginative and innovative partnerships with the NSPCC and others?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend, who always points out that more innovation takes place in Wolverhampton than anywhere else—with the exception of football recently. The challenge for us all is to combine the professional contribution of counsellors, Connexions advisers and learning mentors to ensure that together they add value to the contribution made by teachers to ensure that every child has the chance to pursue their dreams and fulfil their potential.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Rape Prosecutions
    Vera Baird: What steps the Government are taking to implement the recommendations of the report by the inspectorate of constabulary and the inspectorate for the Crown Prosecution Service published on 8 April. [50380]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): My hon. and learned Friend refers to the CPS and police inspectorates' report on the investigation and prosecution of rape. I wholly agree with her concern that we must ensure that women can have confidence that the criminal justice system will take rape allegations seriously and prosecute them effectively, and that offenders and potential offenders must know that they cannot get away with it. The CPS will take action on the report's recommendations, including extending the areas of good practice commended in the report; establishing a national network of specialist rape prosecutors, based in each of the 42 CPS areas; and reviewing the CPS guidance for prosecuting rape. My hon. and learned Friend will know that the offence is difficult to prosecute, but we must do better and I am sure that we can.
    Vera Baird: I am very grateful indeed for that reply and for the indications that my right hon. and learned Friend well understands the difficulties involved in such prosecutions. Given that at each stage the decision as to whether to further a rape prosecution is inevitably influenced by the possible outcome at trial, and granted that, even in cases that get to trial, there is an extremely low conviction rate, will my right hon. and learned Friend use her best endeavours in every step that she takes to involve the judiciary, whose attitude to rape complainants needs urgent updating?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend raises a point about the attitude of the judiciary. I have two things to say about that. First, the Lord Chancellor is well aware of the important role of the Judicial Studies Board in that regard, and of the need constantly to update the work of involving judges in discussion of this important matter.
    462
    Secondly, it is important, as I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree, that we have more women judges. We need to train all judges, but it is unlikely that women victims alleging rape will have confidence in a criminal justice system in which nearly all the banisters and nearly all the judges in the higher courts are men. We need action on that, too.
    Mr. John Burnett: I pay tribute to the report and to the work of Her Majesty's inspectorates of both the Crown Prosecution Service and the constabulary. I note that the Solicitor-General says that she will act on the report. She will need the assistance of other Departments of State to do so and I hope that she will give us an assurance about that.
    Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that the Government do not intend to introduce different rules governing disclosure of defendants' previous convictions in sexual offence cases from those that govern other cases?
    The Solicitor-General: I thank the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the CPS and police inspectorates which worked jointly on the report. I join him in congratulating them on their work.
    In respect of the involvement of other Departments, the hon. Gentleman is right. The whole criminal justice system—police, prosecutors and courts—needs to work together to ensure that those criminal offences are properly dealt with. At the suggestion of the Attorney-General, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and our own Department will work together on those issues and will issue a full report in July as to how we can take them forward across the criminal justice system.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about disclosure of previous convictions. He will know that the Law Commission drew up a well-considered report on disclosure of previous misconduct; that includes looking at all the evidence of the effect of disclosure of previous criminal convictions in sex cases. He will also know that that was considered by Lord Justice Auld in his report on the criminal justice system. The question of the admissibility of evidence will be covered in the response to the Auld report in our White Paper, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question as to whether the Government's response will be to treat admissibility as different in sexual offence cases. He will of course be aware that separate rules govern admissibility in respect of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which is also an issue.
    Julie Morgan: I am very pleased to hear that the Government will act on the recommendations of the report.
    In a recent survey undertaken by the women's safety unit in Cardiff, which works with the victims of domestic violence, 30 per cent. of women disclosed forced sexual activity that they had never reported, mainly because of the belief that rape in marriage does not exist. What does my right hon. and learned Friend think can be done to make women more aware of their rights in that situation?
    The Solicitor-General: One of the important things that we can do is to back up the efforts of organisations such as that led by my hon. Friend in Cardiff. That will involve police, prosecutors and the voluntary sector

    463
    working together to ensure that women who have been subjected to rape by strangers or within marriage know that the criminal justice system will support them and will work with the voluntary sector. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is often a link between under-reporting and the fact that women think that the man will get away with it because the criminal justice system will not take their complaint seriously. Sadly, there is clear evidence that that is so. We have to build up that confidence at all level.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the Solicitor-General be good enough to tell me exactly how the 18 recommendations in the report will be implemented, and whether we will be given a full report? The recommendations are clearly set out, but the mechanics of achieving them will require a lot of administrative work.
    In the light of this highly critical report, will the Solicitor-General tell me how we can give rape victims the confidence to approach the police? The report says:
    "The training available to police personnel does not conform to a common minimum standard."
    It also notes that there was
    "late decision-making—
    by the Crown Prosecution Service—
    "which, in some instances, led to cases proceeding to the Crown Court on the wrong charges."
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to some of the serious criticisms in the report, which we shall deal with as follows. The Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and our Department will work together. A working party will be formed to deal with cross-criminal justice issues, and it will report back to the House in July.
    The Crown Prosecution Service is working on the issues that relate directly to it, and it will continue to do so. I undertake to keep the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) informed at all stages. We have to build confidence and to do better than we are doing at the moment.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Ken Purchase: What support the Crown Prosecution Service gives to victims of domestic violence who are fearful of recrimination. [50381]
    The Solicitor-General: To protect victims of domestic violence who fear recrimination, and to ensure effective prosecution of domestic violence, the Crown Prosecution Service has reviewed its guidance on prosecuting domestic violence. Last November, new guidance was published that requires the CPS to work closely with the police and voluntary organisations to protect and support the victim.
    Mr. Purchase: Is the Solicitor-General visited in her weekly surgeries, as I am, by many victims of domestic violence who say that they simply do not get the support to which they feel they are entitled, and that they are timid about making further complaints because the protection process has broken down? I am exceedingly pleased to learn that the CPS is taking the matter more seriously, but
    464
    more social policy input is required into the decisions taken in the course of that work to ensure that women, who are most often the victims of domestic violence, have their needs properly understood.
    The Solicitor-General: I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. It is also important that women know that the courts take such offences seriously. To ensure that sentencing properly reflects the seriousness of domestic violence, I have referred to the Court of Appeal a case in which, in my view, the judge passed an unduly lenient sentence in a domestic violence case. That will be heard on 16 May, and will give the Court of Appeal the opportunity to consider sentences for domestic violence.

    Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
    Hugh Bayley: How many man-hours have been spent by the Crown Prosecution Service on preparing prosecutions under the legislation on bribery and corruption in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [50382]
    The Solicitor-General: The provisions of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 amending existing anti-corruption legislation only came into force on 14 February 2002 and apply only to offences committed after that date. No cases have yet been referred to the CPS or the Serious Fraud Office by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and as a result no time has been spent preparing for prosecution.
    Hugh Bayley: Bribery is wrong and is bad for business. It is exceptionally bad for poor people in poor countries who find that money from trade and aid which would otherwise help them is no longer available. However, experience in the United States, which has had legislation against international bribery for many years, since it was introduced by the Jimmy Carter Government, showed that until there had been convictions, American business men did not recognise that going along with so-called local business practices would result in major fines for them or their companies, or in jail sentences. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that evidence will be sought, and that when it has been obtained, the CPS will vigorously pursue convictions?
    The Solicitor-General: I can give the House and my hon. Friend that assurance. The SFO, the CPS, Customs and all the other prosecuting authorities take these issues very seriously. The Government consider it vital for this country to play its part in investigating and prosecuting all international crime. The week before last, I attended a conference of fraud prosecutors who stressed the importance of prosecutors in this country working together with those in the rest of the world to tackle fraud and corruption worldwide. I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this matter. He might like to meet some of the prosecutors and see how they are proceeding with their work on an international basis, and I extend that invitation to him.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be:
MONDAY 29 APRIL—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah."] I hope that sentiment continues.
TUESDAY 30 APRIl—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 1 MAY—Consideration of a Resolution on National Insurance Contributions.
THURSDAY 2 MAY—There will be a debate on Wales in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 6 MAY—The House will not be sitting, as it is a bank holiday.
TUESDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Police Reform Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 9 MAY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that subject to the progress of business, it is envisaged that the House will rise for the Whitsun recess on Friday 24 May and return on Monday 10 June. [Interruption.] I am sure that Members will be keen to return to business sooner than they had anticipated.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 8 May, there will be a debate relating to railways in European Standing Committee A, and on Thursday 9 May, there will be a debate relating to the execution of orders freezing assets or evidence in European Standing Committee B.
[Wednesday 8 May 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 5721/02, 5744/02, 5723/02, 5724/02, 5726/02 and 5727/02; Railways. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xxii, (2001–02).
[Thursday 9 May 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 6980/02; The execution of orders freezing assets or evidence. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xxiii (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. Can he clear up a bit of a mystery? Last Thursday, he told us, at column 699, that on 1 May there would be the Second Reading of a Bill to give effect to the swingeing increases in national insurance proposed by the Chancellor. Today, he said rather mysteriously that next Wednesday there will be a resolution on national insurance increases. We must get to the bottom of this.
466
Presumably, it is yet another Government cock-up, but we would like to know the nature of the error. Who made it? Why is he having to carry the can? Can we please now be told the exact relationship between the previous Bill, the present resolution and the implied time delay? Whose fault is it? When will we be told the full story? The national insurance increases are of enormous importance to businesses, individuals and everyone else. To start to deal with the matter in this way is depressing and disappointing to say the least.
There is something called the European Convention going on at the moment, which has the potential, regrettably, to have a profound impact on the nature of the European Union and our role in it. There are three Members of the House taking part in that convention, not the least of whom is the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain). When will the Minister for Europe give the House an opportunity to ask him what he is doing on our behalf, what commitments he is making, what the convention is up to and where it is heading? I am told that two of our representatives at the convention will appear before the House of Lords some time next week. It seems that the House of Lords can quiz members of the convention, while that opportunity has been denied to this House. When will we have a chance to find out what is taking place on our behalf in the European Convention so that we can have a say and give our marching orders to our representatives?
Will the Leader of the House confirm whether he spoke to The Sun yesterday? The Sun claims that he did—I have the newspaper in front of me. It says that something is going to be done to protect the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. We know that he needs protection, and that he is incapable of dealing with what we call the open question as successive Prime Ministers have done for decades. It appears that the Prime Minister's plight is so desperate that he needs the Leader of the House's help to shut down the open question and to make sure that all questions are planted and scripted. We know that many of them are already, but it looks as if that will become routine. Why does The Sun quote the Leader of the House as saying of Prime Minister's questions:
"The public love it as theatre, but it would be in everyone's interests if people could set specific questions"?
Did he say that to The Sun? If not, where did it get the story? Can he assure me categorically that the Prime Minister will not be provided with extraordinary protection from the rigours of Prime Minister's questions, and that we can continue to put the Prime Minister through his inadequate paces every Wednesday?
During Question Time yesterday, the Prime Minister made the following remarkable assertion on the subject of rising street crime:
"As a result of the additional measures being taken, we are confident that by the end of September we will have brought that problem under control".—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 326.]
The Leader of the House will accept that we cannot allow that assertion to hang in the air unchallenged and unquestioned. Can we have an early opportunity for the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary, when he is not using robust language, to come to the House and tell us what has changed that means that street crime, instead of rising—as it is, sadly and dramatically—will fall dramatically over the next five months? What is the

467
reason? Is it legislation, more police officers or more effective measures, and, if so, of what kind? Alternatively will the Prime Minister be out and about personally feeling the collar of muggers and making sure that they do not commit the crimes that they have been committing? We need an opportunity to quiz the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary about what they have in mind.
Finally, I want to raise the question of planning gain tariff, on which I have no doubt that the Leader of the House is an expert, as he is on so many things. A Green Paper on huge and dramatic increases in the planning system has been published. I am told that the Government have received about 15,000 responses, which indicates a high level of interest and alarm. It would appear that framework legislation will be introduced in the next Session, within which will be provision for statutory instruments to be used to vary the suggested planning gain tariffs. Will the Leader of the House give us a commitment that, if that happens, this new stealth tax and the enormous effect that it may have on every constituency will not be hidden away Upstairs in a statutory instrument Committee but debated on the Floor so that all right hon. and hon. Members have an opportunity to explore fully its potential impact on their constituencies and their way of life? It is a simple commitment to make. I accept that I am looking a little ahead, but I know that, with his legendary commitment to the parliamentary process, he will be only too happy to give such an undertaking.
Mr. Cook: First, on the business relating to the national insurance contributions, the right hon. Gentleman asks who will carry the can. I will carry the can if anything is wrong because that is my role as Leader of the House. I am happy to assent to that proposition, but I do not see that there is any can to be carried. It is certainly not for the inconvenience of the House that we will debate national insurance contributions on that date, which I announced a week ago. A Bill will certainly be introduced. In the event that the House carries the resolution, the Bill will be published the next day. The House authorities have informed us that it is necessary to have a founding Ways and Means resolution. It was not possible for us to consult the House authorities in advance of the Budget.
Mr. Forth: Oh!
Mr. Cook: I think that hon. Members would be miffed if we discussed with the House authorities the contents of the Budget before we shared them with the House.
I agree about the importance of the measure. It is enormously important to the national health service because it will enable us to continue our programme of record investment in the health service so that it becomes a world-class service.
As for the European Convention, there are two separate issues of accountability. The first is the accountability of the Minister for Europe, who sits on the convention as a member of the Government. He is, of course, regularly held to account by the House. Indeed, he answered Foreign Office questions only recently.
The second and separate matter of accountability relates to the two people who are there not as representatives of the Government, but as representatives of Parliament.
468
That is a novel situation. I fully share the right hon. Gentleman's sentiment that they should report to the House and be held to account by hon. Members. I am exploring with one of those Members how we can best go about that and what mechanisms we could provide. The convention is important, and I fully share the right hon. Gentleman's view that there should be novel mechanisms for those two representatives of the House to report on what they do in our name.
I am not aware of having spoken to The Sun. I detect from the extract that the right hon. Gentleman quoted faint echoes of what I said to the Procedure Committee yesterday. I am happy to say that that is on the record and he can check the full report. My impression from memory, without having the opportunity to check the record, is that The Sun has conflated two separate paragraphs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stands in no need of protection. Indeed, were I to offer friendly advice to the right hon. Gentleman, it would be that it is on the Conservative side of the Dispatch Box that protection is required.
I have frequently said both in and outside the House that we do not help ourselves when we appear to be interested in scoring party political points rather than in pursuing the public interest. Although it is the case that the public admire the theatre and high drama of party confrontations, it is important to convey that we are carrying out serious business. I have always taken the view that it is much better for Members who ask a question to be open and honest about the subject on which it is based.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of street crime. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to put it on the record that the chance of being a victim of crime in Britain is at its lowest for 20 years. That reflects the fact that when he and his colleagues were in office, crime doubled in Britain. The commitment that the Prime Minister referred to yesterday was first given in February this year, although the right hon. Gentleman appears not to have noticed it at the time.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He was too busy reading The Sun.
Mr. Cook: Indeed. Too much time spent reading The Sun may distract one from noticing what is being said by the Government.
The commitment given in February was that we will stabilise street crime in London within a six-month period, by September, and will thereafter proceed to reverse the increase. [Interruption.] That is precisely what was said in the February commitment. If we are to be successful in getting on top of crime, stabilising it, reversing street crime and achieving the same cuts in street crime that we have achieved in other offences, we need to ensure both that we continue the record increase in police numbers which the Government have achieved, and that we support police numbers with the community safety officers that we have introduced.
It is bogus of the Opposition to express concern about street crime when only the other day in the House of Lords their Conservative colleagues defeated the proposed detention powers for community safety officers, who have been given a real role to play.

469
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot pretend to affront on behalf of victim and at the same time stop the measures that are necessary to catch those carrying out street crime and street violence.
I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that if any tax is introduced on the back of planning gain, that would require legislation, and the matter would have to come before the House.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: As a new Member who has not yet been conditioned by too many years of planet Westminster, it is patently clear to me and most members of the public that the present system of Prime Minister's questions does nothing to improve Government accountability or allow scrutiny of what a Prime Minister is doing.
May I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—if he needs any urging—to ignore the advice of the shadow Leader of the House on Prime Minister's questions, and to talk to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about ways of improving how Prime Minister's Question Time operates? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider ways of improving Prime Minister's Question Time to achieve genuine accountability and scrutiny of what the Government are doing?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not raised any proposal with me or, as far as I am aware, with anybody else for any change to the procedure at Prime Minister's Question Time. It is for the House to consider how we proceed.
I am impressed by the seriousness and thoroughness with which the Procedure Committee is addressing the matter. The Committee has adequate representatives from the official Opposition and from the other party that is represented in the Chamber this afternoon. I hope that they will consider seriously ways in which we can improve the way that Prime Minister's Question Time contributes to our task of scrutiny.
For me, as I set out in my memorandum on modernisation, a key task must be to reduce the ridiculously long period of notice for oral questions.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am full of admiration for the adroit way in which the Leader of the House juggles business. However, will he look again at the provisional business for Tuesday 7 May, because it would seem that Second Reading of the Police Reform Bill will clash with consideration in Committee of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill? The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that these are both extremely important Bills that require most careful and diligent scrutiny by Members on both sides of the House. It seems that probably the same Ministers will be involved.
Will the Leader of the House give urgent attention to the possibility of a debate as soon as possible after the local council elections on the encouragement of participation in the political process to reduce current apathy and disconnection—a phrase that he uses?
470
May I ask him especially to read an article in the Financial Times of 24 April? It is headlined "An electronic electorate". The article states:
"Ministers want to modernise polling. But it may take more to revive voters' flagging interest."
This well-researched article concludes:
"This will not bring turnout above 50 per cent. The answer is making voting attractive by making votes count."
I think that that phrase will he familiar to the right hon. Gentleman.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that no gimmicks—not even new technology—will give equal weight and value to equal votes, and that we need to look again at a voting system that gives fair representation to all views? Does he note that Le Pen has had his success in France without a proportional system but with a first-past-the-post system, albeit with two stages? Has he seen early-day motion 1184, and the amendment?
[That this House expresses its concern at the National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen securing a place in the final stages of the French presidential election; rejects the racism, intolerance and isolationism for which he stands; believes that apathy and declining turnout rather than a significant increase in the National Front vote share enabled Monsieur Le Pen to win second place; and calls on all democrats across Europe to stand together and resist these extreme influences on the political process, by offering imaginative policies based on the values of solidarity, compassion and enterprise which inspire and engage the public, and consign Monsieur Le Pen and his ilk to the margins of European politics.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what has happened in France is precisely the result of an inadequate voting system, which the Opposition want to impose upon both Houses of this Parliament?
Mr. Cook: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I do not accept that we cannot proceed with the Second Reading of a Bill from one Department while that Department has another Bill Upstairs in Committee. It is one sign of the health, energy and commitment of the Home Office that it has many Bills before the House, and we cannot confine ourselves to proceeding with only one Home Office Bill at any one time.
On the local elections, I wholly share the hon. Gentleman's sentiment that we should make sure that we do everything possible to encourage the electorate to turn out and to take part, whatever way the electorate may choose to vote on the day. There are too many people in France who regret that they missed that opportunity when they had a chance to take it, and who now complain about it.
If we are to have a fair electoral system and a fair result, it is important that we should be honest with the electorate. As the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the local elections, may I say that I was disappointed to read in this morning's papers the report of the Liberal Democrat campaign literature, which invites Liberal Democrat candidates to
"be wicked and act shamelessly"?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What's new?
Mr. Cook: What is new is that we have it in writing. The advice continues:
"Don't be afraid to exaggerate. For example, responses to surveys…are always 'massive'…Oppose all service cuts…why court the unpopularity that goes with…responsibility".
[HON. MEMBERS: "More!"] The House has other business to proceed to. The document is entitled "Effective Opposition". I say to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that so long as his party follows that advice, it will remain in opposition, without responsibility.
Mr. Terry Rooney: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on ITV Digital? The focus has rightly been on the situation of Football League clubs, but of much greater importance is the position of dozens if not hundreds of companies that have been left high and dry, with debts owed by ITV Digital, after contracts were signed on the understanding that Carlton and Granada would guarantee that company. My constituency faces the loss of 600 jobs because of the activities of ITV Digital, and the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the severity of the situation to which my hon. Friend refers and the extent to which it has a direct impact on many constituency interests of hon. Members. I assure him and the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is following the issue closely. I touched base with her this morning in the margins of Cabinet, and she will certainly want to keep the House informed of the progress of discussions. The only caveat that I would enter is that we cannot proceed on the basis of the public purse accepting responsibility for the rather exaggerated expectations of ITV Digital. Consistent with that caution, though, we will do anything that we can to be helpful.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Although I have no quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman for deleting a day from the Whitsun recess, am I right in assuming that he had to do that because of the mess that he has made over the national insurance Bill? If I am wrong, could we instead have a debate on 10 June on Liberal election tactics, which he could perhaps open?
Mr. Cook: I would not want to rule out a debate on that topic, and I shall bear it in mind, among the competing pressures. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong on that point. We took the decision on the recess in advance of the latest announcement. The Whitsun recess will be two full weeks. It is a generous recess; indeed, it is much longer than usual, and I do not think that hon. Members have any ground for complaint.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have just learned of the result of the Damilola Taylor case, and like many people in this country will, I regard it as yet another judicial farce that has let down many people. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the role that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service played in that farce, and give hon. Members an opportunity to comment on it?
Mr. Cook: Like my hon. Friend, I learned of the announcement from the teletext just before I left my
472
office. It would therefore be foolish of me to express any view on it, and it would also be improper to do so. We have a clear segregation between politicians and Government, and the courts. Whatever we may think privately, it is important that in the House we respect the judgment of the courts.
Sir George Young: Last week, the Government published their response to the Select Committee on Public Administration's report on the House of Lords, entitled "The Second Chamber—Continuing the Reform". There is a suspicion on both sides of the House that continuing the reform is not actually the Government's policy at all. To allay those fears, can the Leader of the House promise that we will have a debate before the summer recess on the Government's response, so that their policy on the second Chamber can be fully tested?
Mr. Cook: I am dismayed to hear that there are such fears, so I am glad to take the opportunity that the right hon. Gentleman offers me to repeat our commitment that we wish to take this forward before the summer recess, and I hope to be able to speak to the House on that matter before then.
David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the first question to the Prime Minister on 8 May is, in fact, a closed question from one of our hon. Friends? However, does the Leader of the House accept that without open questions it would not have been possible for the events in France to be raised yesterday? That is as good an illustration as any that a contemporary issue can be raised without notice being given. It is farcical that we have to give a fortnight's notice. The sooner that ends, the better. However, even if we give less notice, it would be a retrogressive step if we took away from Members the opportunity to raise a contemporary issue without having given notice beforehand. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that matter carefully.
Mr. Cook: I have great sympathy with all the points that my hon. Friend made. I do not recall saying yesterday that open questions would be suppressed in any way, although I did plead for a better balance with Members who wish to raise a specific issue being open and clear about what they wish to raise.
I totally endorse what my hon. Friend says about the importance of topicality. I was struck by the fact that not a single question on the middle east was taken at the recent Foreign Office questions. Of course Members found another opportunity to raise their concerns about the crisis in the middle east, but there is something wrong with a tabling system by which Members of the House of Commons, in holding the Foreign Secretary to scrutiny, cannot raise the biggest single foreign policy issue.
Hugh Robertson: A number of my constituents are deeply concerned about the activities of gypsy families on the eastern end of the weald. A key to resolving the problem is the efficient operation of the planning system. At a recent meeting with the local borough council—I should add that it is not Conservative—it was alleged that a change in the

473
Government's approach to the planning inspectorate has directly caused the problem. A letter that the head of planning has written to me this morning states:
"I can only presume that advice which the Inspectorate is now receiving from Government is leading to the very lenient approach…local residents are being severely disadvantaged".
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House to explain why that approach is now being adopted?
Mr. Cook: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman's local authority did not copy the letter that he received this morning to me, so I obviously cannot comment on it. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, but my willingness to do so does not imply agreement with the view that has been expressed to him. I remain a little sceptical on the basis of the facts as stated.
Mr. Bill Tynan: The House and my right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing incidence of hepatitis C. The Department of Health set up a working group—chaired by Howard Thomas—which reported back before Christmas. I understand that the report is lying on a civil servant's desk at present. Will my right hon. Friend investigate when that report will come before the House and will he make time to debate it?
Mr. Cook: I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about the incidence of hepatitis C—a very serious condition, which is of concern to health workers as well as patients. It is very important that we take the issue seriously. I cannot say when it is anticipated that the report to which he refers may be published, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Turning to the Prime Minister's pledge to stabilise street crime in London by the end of September and bearing it in mind that his past delivery on public services has not always been very successful, will the Leader of the House give us an absolute assurance today that the House will be recalled if street crime in London has not been stabilised at the end of September, so that the Prime Minister can come to the Dispatch Box to explain again why he has failed to deliver?
Mr. Cook: I am always open to invitations to recall Parliament during the Tory party conference, and we shall reflect on that request as the conference coincides with the turn of the month. [Interruption.] I see that some Opposition Members may support me in that endeavour.
The hon. Gentleman is particularly unfair to the Government with his claim that we have failed to deliver on our commitments, given that in recent months we have spectacularly delivered on our commitments to reduce both waiting lists and waiting times, and we shall continue to make progress on that.
Mr. David Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 17 per cent. of British workers still
474
receive no bank holiday pay? Will he arrange for a debate on employment law and employment rights, in which we can highlight some of those bad practices?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue of real concern to a number of our constituents. I have always been proud that this Government implemented the working time directive, which for the first time gave 2 million working people the right to paid holidays. We shall always consider the best way to advance working conditions, consistent with our commitment to an enterprise and successfully competitive economy. I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend has said and draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Could the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary or the Northern Ireland Secretary come before the House in the near future to clarify the situation that is developing in the battle against international terrorism? The homespun element is very much active. We have heard comments clarifying only from the IRA's point of view what has happened in Washington. Yet it is significant that, since 1998, senior members of the IRA, after signing the Belfast agreement, have been involved in international terrorism and continue to murder Roman Catholics in Tyrone and to target and threaten people in this House.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's last point is a weighty and important one: more members of the Catholic community have perished at the hands of nationalist terrorism than by any other means. We fully share his concern about the activity of the IRA in Colombia and elsewhere, and we are concerned about the findings in the report of the committee in Washington. However, that does not have a direct bearing on the present process towards peace within Northern Ireland or the existence of a ceasefire within Northern Ireland and on the mainland, which is warmly supported by the great majority of residents in both places.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of his discussions on the memorandums which he recently published, in particular the roll-over of Bills from one parliamentary Session to another and the rescheduling of business to start earlier in the day?
Mr. Greg Knight: She wants an early night.
Mr. Cook: I think that my hon. Friend's question is less about when we might finish at the end of the day than when we might start. It is well known that my view is that if the House wishes to restore itself as the place in which the agenda of public debate for the day is set, we must meet earlier in the day.
Mr. Forth: Why?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman asks why. It is self-evident that if we do not start until the early afternoon and do not carry out our main business until the late afternoon, we have missed the morning opportunity to set the agenda for the day. It is in the interests of all Members of Parliament, whatever side we sit on, that Parliament

475
should be seen as the place where the agenda for public debate is set, not simply a place of response. On the timetable, we are carrying out good and, I am happy to say, consensual progress in our discussions in the Modernisation Committee and I hope that we shall be in a position to report before the House rises for the summer recess.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate in Government time on the Budget's specific implications for local government? I am advised that the national insurance contributions will cost East Sussex county council £1.8 million—£1.1 million for education alone—and Wealden district council £100,000. Those both equate to a 1 per cent. increase in council tax, so people are hit not only once by the national insurance changes, but a second time by a hike in council tax.
Mr. Cook: The Government are happy to debate at any time their record on support for local authority expenditure and draw attention to the 20 per cent. increase that we have maintained for five years compared with the almost nil increase of the last five years of the Conservative Government. We are also very happy indeed to discuss relative council tax rates, because the average council tax by area per dwelling for next year will be £738 for Labour authorities, £824 for Liberal Democrat authorities and a whopping £833 for Conservative authorities. In those circumstances, a period of silence from the Opposition would be welcome.
Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned the middle east earlier. He will be aware that the European Parliament recently agreed a resolution calling for an arms embargo on Israel and Palestine and the suspension of the EU-Israel euro-Mediterranean agreement if Israel continues to refuse to comply with recent United Nations resolutions. Will my right hon. Friend introduce a substantive motion in the House to enable hon. Members to express a view on those and other important matters raised in the European Parliament's comprehensive resolution?
Mr. Cook: Any decision on an embargo of the EU-Israel Association Council falls to the European Union's General Affairs Council, not the European Parliament. In fairness to the Government and the House, I remind my hon. Friend that only the other day we provided a full day for debate on the middle east crisis, which is an issue of the gravest concern to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to be in close contact with people in the region and the international community to make sure that we do all that we can to secure an end to the violence and a return to the negotiating table and, in addition, to ensure that the international community, particularly the UN Commission on Human Rights, has an opportunity to examine the accusations of a breach of human rights during the occupation.
John Barrett: With more than 240 people, including 30 or 40 possible terrorists, still trapped in the Church of the Nativity, will the Leader of the House
476
say whether the House can do anything to show that we are not sitting back while that horrific tragedy continues to unfold?
Mr. Cook: The Government and the EU are already doing all that they can to find a resolution to that appalling crisis and the severe conditions that now exist in an important church that is valued by everyone in the Christian community around the world. Javier Solana, the EU High Representative, has been engaged in the area trying to find a way forward and a basis on which the siege can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is fully engaged in those efforts and gives what support he can through diplomatic contact. At the end of the day, we cannot make progress unless the Israeli Government themselves are willing to enter into a spirit of trying to find a way forward and a solution that enables us to relieve the appalling suffering now being experienced by people who represent the Christian community and are in the grotto of the Church of the Nativity.
Mr. Marsha Singh: Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at the continuing communal violence in Gujarat? While we feel for anybody caught in that violence, whether Hindu or Muslim, we must ask why Indian security forces stood back and allowed Muslims to be massacred. There is a question mark over India's treatment of its minorities, so would my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the issue?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the serious concern throughout communities in Britain, including the community represented by my hon. Friend, about events in Gujarat. We share that concern and have expressed it to the Indian Government. I hesitate, however, to follow my hon. Friend in his generalisation; the Muslim community in India is one of the largest in the world, and on the whole India has maintained an honourable tradition of equal rights within an open democracy. It is important that it can continue to do so, which means in part that it must co-operate fully in making sure that we learn the lessons of what may have happened in Gujarat.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman appeared before the Procedure Committee yesterday as part of its inquiry into parliamentary questions and gave valuable and excellent evidence. I suspect that it could well be as a result of that evidence that some publicity has appeared in The Sun newspaper today. Indeed, the comment was made that Prime Minister's questions created theatre, but the overall impression was very negative. The Leader of the House will appreciate that his memorandum on modernisation has an impact on Committees, Select and Standing, that are part of this House. Would he therefore be prepared to meet the Liaison Committee to discuss its concerns about the impact of his proposals on changing sitting times of the House? He can then be fully apprised of the concerns that are currently felt.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that I was speaking to a Committee of the House and not to The Sun newspaper yesterday. On the modernisation paper, I would be very happy to meet the Liaison Committee if I am invited to do so to discuss

477
this or any other matter. Indeed, I can see merit in our having such a discussion before we debate the forthcoming proposals on Select Committees.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the restructuring plans that the ferry companies announced this week, which could undermine the Government's integrated transport policy? Will he consider finding time for a debate on P&O's announcements, which could threaten seafarers' jobs, slow down the movement of freight off the roads and on to rail, and cause all sorts of traffic congestion in Dover?
Mr. Cook: I totally understand the importance of that issue to my hon. Friend's constituency and constituents. I would not wish to comment on the proposals of a commercial organisation that is making its own judgment, but I am happy to take this opportunity to restate the Government's political priority, which is to ensure that we provide maximum opportunity for freight to travel by rail rather than road. Of course, we want to work with the private sector to secure that objective.
Miss Anne McIntosh: On that very point, will the Leader of the House now invite the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to debate the lack of freight movement through the channel tunnel, as the 72 trains a week that he promised would be passing through the tunnel by 15 April are not yet doing so? Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that, as of yesterday, illegal immigrants are jumping off moving trains, which puts their own lives at risk and makes it impossible for the police to apprehend them in this country? Will he take the opportunity to debate that issue with regard to reinstating the bilateral agreement with France and getting a commitment from the French Government to improve security in France, as well as a commitment from the British Government that they will take the French Government to court for breach of free movement provisions under the treaty of Rome?
Mr. Cook: In the event of a legal move of the sort to which the hon. Lady refers, it would in the first instance be a matter for the Commission rather than necessarily for ourselves, although we remain in discussion with it on the issue. In terms of clandestine entry into Britain, we have made good progress in reducing the number of people who arrive clandestinely and, indeed, of those who arrive without proper paperwork. Those matters are in our control, but provision for freight movement on the other side of the channel is not. We have considerable and continuing dialogue on the matter with the French authorities. We have a joint commission that will meet again shortly and we continue to put every possible pressure on the French authorities to ensure that security is improved to enable freight movements to achieve the capacity of the tunnel. After all, that is in the interests of the French economy and the British economy. Those matters are not, however, within our direct responsibility.
John Cryer: In common with many Members of Parliament from London and the south-east, I represent a borough that has a severe housing shortage.
478
The obvious consequence is the fuelling of house price inflation, coupled with the fact that many council properties—especially houses—have been sold off as a result of the right-to-buy scheme. Like many hon. Members, I see the consequences in my advice surgery week after week. I have also been extensively lobbied by public sector workers, as have many MPs from Greater London. Can we have a debate or at least a statement on housing policy?
Mr. Cook: I understand the problems to which my hon. Friend refers. In particular, we all fully understand their importance to the provision of decent public services throughout the south-east, which requires housing whose cost is within the income of people working in the public service. I assure him that the matter is very actively under consideration in the Government. I am sure that my colleagues will report to Parliament whenever it is appropriate to do so.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Leader of the House have a word with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about an error that the Prime Minister appeared to make at Prime Minister's questions yesterday, when he told the House that police numbers were now at record levels? He neglected to say anything about special constables, who are also police officers, and who are leaving in alarming numbers. In the Essex force, for instance, there were more than 1,000 specials when this Government came to power; sadly, there are now only about 400. They play a vital role in reinforcing the regular police, particularly at weekends, and we cannot afford to do without them. Would not one way to improve Prime Minister's questions be to ensure that the Prime Minister gets his figures right?
Mr. Cook: Let me say to the House that the Prime Minister got his figures absolutely right when he said yesterday that the police establishment was at record numbers. That is true, and the number of those in training is also at a record level. Had the Conservatives paid the same attention to increasing the police establishment when they were in office, instead of presiding over a decline in the number of police officers, we might not have the problems that we now have on our streets.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sunderland association football club gives a great deal of assistance to charity? It is not just that it keeps giving points away to other teams; its manager. Peter Reid, is involved with a charity event run by Emmanuel college, Gateshead, which raises money to send mercy ships to Africa. The team's striker, Niall Quinn, is involved in a testimonial game on 14 May, the proceeds of which will go to charities in the north-east of England and in Dublin. Might it not be a good idea for us to have an easy load that day, to allow those of us with tickets to go to the game and to encourage people to buy non-attendance tickets, which are available for this charitable purpose?
Mr. Cook: I shall, of course, take careful note of my hon. Friend's request when I plan the business for 14 May, although I shall have other factors to consider when I make those decisions. In the meantime, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Sunderland

479
club and its members on the work that they do for charity. I recognise that many local football clubs provide an important focus for community identity and community pride.
Angela Watkinson: Will the Leader of the House assure us that, after the local elections next week, there will be a thorough assessment of the security and confidentiality of the experimental postal voting system that is to be used in the London borough of Havering and elsewhere? Will he arrange for a debate on the Floor of the House to allow my colleagues and me to raise the real concerns of our constituents on this matter? Those concerns are deterring them from voting, which is the opposite of the intention of that experiment.
Mr. Cook: I would certainly welcome a longer opportunity for the hon. Lady to explain why her constituents are being deterred from voting by the wider use of postal voting, which is the basis of the pilot scheme in her borough. I can assure her that the Government will be looking very closely at the results of those experiments. The pilots and experiments have been set up precisely so that we can consider the lessons to be learned from them and evaluate what happens on those occasions. As Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on e-democracy, I hope to spend polling day in the London borough of Newham, studying the borough's use of the internet to see whether it has facilitated voting and contributed to more people voting than might otherwise have been the case. I very much welcome the innovative way in which it is taking the facility, in advance of polling day, to old folk's homes and hospitals, to enable people there to vote using the internet in a way that they would not have been able to do on polling day.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1171?
[That this House congratulates the staff of further education and sixth form colleges on their outstanding service to over four million students; welcomes the increased capital and revenue funding now available to the sector; notes, however, that colleges' core funding remains at 90 per cent. of 1995–96 levels and that the funding gap between schools and sixth form colleges for the same three A-level package remains at £1,000 per pupil; further notes the current recruitment crisis caused by low pay throughout the sector; welcomes the campaign led by the Association of Colleges, NATFHE and NUS, and supported by all the sector's recognised trade unions including UNISON, TGWU, GMB, ATL and ACM, for increased financial support for further education students, an improvement in the core funding allocated to colleges and a recognition of the recruitment crisis caused by growing salary differentials between schools and colleges; and calls on the Government to provide a fair allocation to the further education sector in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.]
It deals with the funding of the further education sector—an issue that attracted considerable attention at education questions earlier this morning—and focuses on the differentials between funding for colleges and sixth forms in schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unique in the public services to have such a large differential in salaries and per capita funding between two
480
areas doing essentially the same job? Will he find time for an early debate on the subject? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is, I detect, supported by a number of others in the Chamber. He is aware that the Government are committed to trying to ensure not only that there is adequate funding for further and higher education, but that we make progress towards greater equality within that funding. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to his early-day motion, and I am sure that he will find opportunities to press his concern through one of the many ways open to him in the House.
Mr. Gregory Barker: The Leader of the House is aware that I have previously raised in this place the plight of cancer sufferers in my constituency, particularly women with breast cancer who face an unprecedented wait for radiotherapy following surgery. The most recent case is that of a lady in Battle. She was operated on after Christmas, but has been told that she must wait until June to begin radiotherapy treatment.
Unfortunately, that is by no means an isolated case. This morning, I met the president of the Royal College of Radiotherapists, who told me that, despite the crisis prevailing right across the country,
"there is no long term plan for the provision of radiotherapy treatment which clearly anticipates the level of radiographers and radiotherapy equipment, relative to forecast demand."
May we have a debate that clearly addresses the issue, so that the Government have an opportunity to reply and tackle the crisis head on?
Mr. Cook: My impression is that the House has not been short of opportunities to explore health issues and health provision, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. The hon. Gentleman raises a precise issue, but I plainly cannot comment on his constituent's case. However, I am happy to communicate the particulars to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and to secure a reply.
On the general issue, I remind the House that the Government have increased cancer treatment funding and the number of cancer specialists. We shall continue to do so, and the results that we are securing show increased cancer survival rates. We want to build on that. That does not mean that every single case has improved, but it does mean that we must ensure that support services such as radiography are properly funded and properly developed. I would not want the hon. Gentleman's one case to obscure the general picture, which is more investment and more results for the cancer service.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Although I had wanted to thank Mr. Speaker while he was in the Chair for providing lunch for my daughter as part of "bring your daughter to work" day, I am pleased that he has gone to meet the girls. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will convey my thanks to Mr. Speaker for hosting that event.
Young people will benefit eventually from the knowledge-based economy, which is at the heart of the Government's programme, but does the Leader of

481
the House share my distress at today's Science and Technology Committee report, which points out that research and development in many science subjects will fall substantially next year because of the research assessment exercise? Will he bring the Minister responsible for science to the House soon for a long-overdue debate on science policy, so that we can redress deficiencies such as the 22 per cent. decrease in nursing research over the next year?
Mr. Cook: I very much hope that my hon. Friend's daughter does not fall into the error of thinking that going to work means being taken to lunch. That may result in sad disappointment in later life.
My hon. Friend raises a question relating to the Select Committee. I heard the Chairman on the radio this morning, and he made some interesting points. We shall, of course, reply to the Select Committee in the usual way and I am sure that the Science Minister will be crafting a robust response. I can only say to my hon. Friend that it is important that we get the balance right between the research output of our higher education centres and their commitment to ensuring that they give proper attention and proper energy to the education of the next generation of students.
Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the strategic, environmental and commercial issues surrounding the proposal to site a new airport in the Thames estuary, which is particularly important to my constituents? Although such an airport would impact on a number of communities, it would impact particularly on 40,000 of my constituents who live on Canvey island. They would be delighted if we debated the proposal's impact on the environment and local infrastructure networks, as that would ensure that their interests are covered.
Mr. Cook: I understand that there is not such a proposal, but the issue is under consideration. I cannot
482
believe that we would make any strategic decision about aviation or airports in the south-east or elsewhere without full discussion and exploration by the House. Any decision must be a balance between the need of the nation to ensure that we have proper aviation facilities and services, and the important environmental and social considerations to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Leader of the House will recall that last week I raised the question of the £32 million contract for smallpox vaccine awarded to PowderJect and the large donation to the Labour party by Paul Drayson, its chief executive officer. We have now heard that PowderJect will subcontract that work to a Danish company, Bavarian Nordic. PowderJect is only acting as the middleman, so the Government could have gone straight to that Danish company and saved the taxpayer a lot of money. Can we have a debate, so that the Government can answer the allegation that they are for sale to the highest bidder? When the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he not go on about the Tories, because people are not interested in what the last Tory Government did in the previous century?
Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman is right about that.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friends have stolen my punchline. I fully concur with the hon. Gentleman that the public are not interested in the Conservative party.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said to him last week. PowderJect submitted the best, most cost-effective and most attractive of five tenders. It has long been the practice in the public sector that the company that secures the offer of work can then consider the best way to provide it. It may be that on this occasion, as on others, it has involved other companies and other plants in the production. The Danish company to which he referred did not get the contract because, as far as I am aware, it did not bid for it.

International Development
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]
1.27 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I welcome a debate that gives us a chance to review progress on international development and the United Kingdom's contribution to it. Since 1997, we have increased the time that the House of Commons spends discussing international development issues, both in Question Time and in the very effective Select Committee on International Development. I am keen to have annual debates, so that each year we can consider how the world is doing, what contribution we are making and where things are improving. We are moving towards that. There is definitely a growing interest in international development among hon. Members from all parties, and that is important and welcome.
No one can but argue that the issue of international development and poverty and inequality in the world is the biggest moral issue facing humanity, given that Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have enormous wealth and opportunity for education and health care. We can always call for improvement, but compared with the lives of our great grandparents, we live in enormous comfort and people are able to fulfil their ambitions, exercise their freedom and develop their talents.
One in five of all human beings who share this planet with us—1.2 billion people—still live in abject poverty. They have purchasing power equivalent to less than $1 a day, and that is not a measure of what a dollar would buy in a poor country, but in the United States of America. It is a minute amount of money Half of humanity live on less than $2 day.
We are living in an era of rapidly increasing global integration. People see more of one another than ever before because of the quality of communications that are now available. World population is urbanising rapidly. For the first time in human history more than half of humanity live in urban areas, and the projections are that over the next 15 years it will reach 65 per cent. Teeming slums of masses of poor people see television pictures of how the rest of us live. That is a recipe for conflict and tension. It should shame the rest of the world, given our knowledge, capital and capacity to promote development.
I have no doubt that this is the biggest moral issue that we face, but it is also enormously important for the future safety and sustainability of the planet. Such levels of poverty are often linked to failed and imploding states, the spread of conflict, and the spread of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, which is spreading across the world, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, and much more pernicious and dangerous forms of malaria. Indeed, the area of the world in which malaria is endemic is increasing. There are also the pressures associated with refugee movements and people leaving their homelands. There are more refugees in the world than at any point in history, and most of them are hosted by poor countries. Moreover, great strains are being placed on the environment, such as growing desertification and over-fishing.
484
As I have said, this is the biggest moral issue that we face, but if we do not make quicker progress, the prospect of bitter divisions, more conflict, more instability, more environmental degradation and the spread of disease will threaten future generations, wherever they live. In Afghanistan, we witnessed the consequences of a failed state and the ability of pernicious movements to hide themselves there, endangering and threatening the future of the world, as well as the people of Afghanistan.
If we are not careful in doing better by Africa, we will have virtually a failed continent on our hands. That would cause enormous suffering to the people of Africa, but it would also endanger the future safety and security of Europe. Africa is our near abroad; the distance from the south of Spain to the north of Africa is less than 20 miles. If Africa remains in its current condition, the human suffering will be appalling, and the future of our two continents will also be put in great danger.
Mr. John Randall: I pay tribute to the work that the Secretary of State's Department is doing. On broken states, she will doubtless be aware that there are more than 700,000 registered refugees and displaced persons in Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro. What can we do within our own continent to try to ameliorate that situation?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right, and programmes are in place in all former communist countries to help them make the transition to a democratic market economy. Of course, such countries have to adjust their systems of government. We are trying to bring stability to the Balkans by helping the countries concerned to build up their systems of government, so that they can grow their economies, care better for their people, and get refugees resettled. We are committed to all those tasks, and we are working as effectively as we can to achieve that objective.
The question arises of the suffering of those who originate from Serbia and Montenegro, but the pressure of refugee movements from eastern Europe to western Europe has played into the hands of those who have tried to incite far right, racist politics in western Europe by putting the blame on the many refugees who have settled there. Doing what is right and doing what is in our self-interest are not in conflict they are entirely complementary.
On present trends, Africa is getting poorer, and much greater efforts must be made to help—a point to which I shall return shortly. In the past five years, we have worked hard to improve the effectiveness of the international development system, which is full of conferences and grand declarations. If even a minor proportion of the declarations made and agreements reached at various conferences had been implemented, the world would be in better shape. We have tried to hone the international system, so that its objectives can be focused on much more clearly, and to secure collaboration with the World Bank, regional development banks and the UN system. That is preferable to the funding by various organisations of lots of separate initiatives and projects, which uses up much of the administrative capacity of the organisations themselves, and of the Governments whom they seek to support.
We have made considerable progress. Our first White Paper made it a target to get the international system agreed so that we could all work together to implement

485
the international development targets. At the millennium assembly—which was attended by more Prime Ministers and heads of state than had ever before assembled for a single event—the world agreed to seek to secure the millennium development targets, as the international development targets were renamed.
One of those targets is to halve, by 2015, the number of people in the world measured as living in extreme poverty in 1990. Meeting that target means that 1 billion people will have to make the journey out of extreme poverty. Other targets include getting all the children in the world into quality primary education, and reducing infant, child and maternal mortality. The latter requires improved health care systems and that people have access to clean water and better nourishment.
Last weekend, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I attended the spring meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We have ensured that both organisations are focused on seeking to deliver those targets in countries around the world. They are also focused on measuring the reform programmes that they recommend to developing countries against progress towards the targets that have been set. Where once there were mixed messages and differing objectives, the measure of economic reform is now the systematic reduction of poverty and the provision of better services for people.
That is a very important consensus, and it is a new departure for the world. Historically, there have been lots of clashes between the World Bank and the UN system. Nowadays, there is much more collaboration and effective working together.
At Doha, we achieved agreement on the very important proposal that there should be a new round of trade negotiations to deliver better trading opportunities to developing countries. If we can deliver on that agenda, the result will be much fairer world trading rules.
Fairer trading rules will give developing countries a much better chance to grow their economies. Of Africa's total exports, 70 per cent. consists of unprocessed commodities. The payment that countries receive for such commodities is very low. Most of the added value for commodities such as cashew nuts, tea, coffee and chocolate is added on in Europe. As soon as African countries start to try to process some of those commodities they hit all sorts of tariff walls and escalations. On chocolate, for example, those tariffs and charges add up to 100 per cent. of the original cost.
The present trade rules almost amount to a conspiracy to keep Africa underdeveloped. Better trading opportunities will give African countries a better chance to grow their economies and create jobs. At Doha, we agreed a framework to deliver those better opportunities, but the task of ensuring that they are delivered will be considerable, and will require much attention.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I wholeheartedly agree with what the Secretary of State is saying, but how does she intend to get developing countries better represented in the World Trade Organisation? Time and
486
time again, those countries are failed by their lack of representation, and their lack of capacity and expertise in these matters.
Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right. We need improvements, but some of the criticism of the WTO at the time of Seattle was terribly misinformed. The WTO was born out of the most recent Uruguay round of trade negotiations. With its inception, the world moved forward to adopting a trade system based on rules and membership. Before that happened, the big trading blocs negotiated with each other in such trade negotiations, and the developing countries tended not to have a strong voice. Although it was of course right to bring down the protectionist barriers erected in the 1930s, the result was that developing countries were squeezed out of the negotiations.
Since the WTO was established, more than 140 countries—including China—have decided to join. Developing countries, therefore, make up the majority of the WTO's membership. That creates the possibility of them getting together and negotiating as a group, and thereby getting more fairness into international trade rules. That is how we got to Doha, but the problem remains that some of the poorest countries do not even have an ambassador in Geneva. We and other countries are working with the Swiss to set up a secretariat for those countries—an organisation with pooled resources that will enable them to be properly represented.
In addition, the UK has taken a leading role in the establishment of what might be considered a type of law centre, giving developing countries access to advice from trade lawyers. Such lawyers tend to be enormously expensive, but we now have a joint facility giving the poorest countries proper legal advice, and that helps them to exercise their rights under WTO rules.
My Department also has a considerable programme of working with UNCTAD—the UN conference on trade and development—and others to strengthen developing countries' negotiating and trade analysis capacity so that they are more able to be clear about their self-interest and negotiate their self-interest in all trade negotiations. Trade has become enormously complex, yet it is crucial for the chance to grow economies. So we are making a lot of progress in that field.
I was very impressed in Doha by the performance of the developing countries. The countries of Africa moved together. As Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Caribbean have shared as well as different interests, they need to pool their interests and negotiate together to secure more from the OECD economies. That will involve us in reforming the common agricultural policy, which we would welcome, but is also important in the interests of developing countries.
Ms Julia Drown: I wonder whether capacity is also relevant to debt relief. The early-day motion with the most signatures calls for more and faster debt relief. Is it the case that some of the poorest countries do not have the capacity to argue their side, which may be holding them back from getting more debt relief? I am thinking particularly of commodity prices—the analysis has not been strong enough to get the message through so far.
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the debt relief process started, many countries did not

487
even know what they owed. There were bundles of bills in their central banks and a lot of work had to be done to tidy up and build the capacity for countries to manage their debt. We are engaged in work to build up countries' debt management capacity. It is quite right that countries should borrow responsibly and take out loans, but they need to manage their debt and ensure that they can afford to repay it.
I think that 26 countries have now qualified for heavily indebted poor countries status. Sierra Leone has just qualified, which is very good news. It is about to have elections and there are police across the country, which is a welcome development. However, there is a problem with the HIPC initiative. It had a formula for how much debt a country could afford in relation to earnings from its exports. Because commodity prices have dropped considerably and oil prices have gone up, many countries such as Uganda, which had already exited, are no longer sustainable under the formula. That was a matter of discussion at the World Bank meeting at the weekend. We will have to find extra resources for many countries to achieve sustainability. That is another argument for opening trade access. If countries are dependent on the export of a few commodities and prices fall, their economic development is called into question. All the countries that have been through the HIPC process have been helped to manage their debt for the future so that they do not get into these difficulties again.
The other very important meeting that took place a short time ago was the UN conference at Monterrey on financing for development. There was remarkable consensus between OECD and developing countries about the best kind of reform in which to grow economies to reduce poverty. It really is an extraordinary change since the days of the cold war. In the past, developing and developed countries would have found contentious, ideas such as encouraging the public sector to grow, having effective governance, regulating an economy responsibly and having better public services that are universal, but today there is agreement on the reform agenda across the world. That was one of the things accomplished at Monterrey. Again, there was a focus on implementing measures, not on arguing about what constitutes a desirable reform agenda.
Mr. Gregory Barker: I totally agree with the right hon. Lady's analysis of the need to help Africa develop so that it is capable of producing more than just the most basic staple commodities. We need to reduce institutional and trade barriers for that to happen. We have our own part to play with the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Is the right hon. Lady happy though that, in the past two years for which figures are available, the number of investments that the CDC made in sub-Saharan Africa almost halved from 41 to 26?
Clare Short: I am happy with the way that the CDC is being reformed. Some of the criticism is grossly misinformed. Our proposals, which the House supported, were to reform the CDC so that rather than being a public sector investment institution, looking for low rates of return and with a limited investment fund, its expertise on investment in developing countries could be used so that it became more of a conduit for private sector investment in those poorer countries—places where the markets do
488
not attract much investment at all. That meant selling on some of the businesses that it owned to local or other ownership so that they could continue to function, and trying to increase the rates of return to encourage the private sector to move into those countries.
Last year was especially difficult for the world economy. Most investment houses have reduced their estimate of the value of their investments because of the state of the world economy. That has affected the CDC, too.
We are engaging in a difficult reform. It is being watched by other public sector development investment institutions across the world. If we succeed, the institution will be enormously important. Inward investment will provide the means to achieve technology transfer, access to clean water, sanitation, electricity, modern communications and so on. The amount of such investment going to the poorest countries is still extremely small.
We should try to find another opportunity to discuss at greater length the progress of the CDC reform. The hon. Gentleman correctly expressed the concern of the House that we get that right, but I completely reject the criticisms, for example, those in the article in The Times, which were malicious and ill informed.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the Secretary of State's concerns, and welcome the definite co-ordination that is under way.
The issue relates not only to inward investment but to what countries can do for themselves. Does the right hon. Lady welcome the fact that the President of South Africa has at last acknowledged that AIDS and HIV must be tackled for the good of the country? On a negative point, does she share my concern about the latest threat in Zimbabwe? White farmers have been dealt with and action is now being taken against Indian traders. Surely, that will further impoverish the country.
Clare Short: I agree that the changes in South Africa—offering treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS and offering tests and anti-retroviral treatment to women who may have been infected after sexual assault or rape—are both right in themselves and will heal a bitter row that probably distracted the country from getting on with the task of preventing the spread of the infection.
HIV/AIDS is yet another burden for Africa. It has also spread considerably in India, and Russia has the fastest growth rate in the world, so it is wrong for people to think that the disease is a problem only in Africa, although it is more advanced there.
The good news is the achievement in Uganda, where rates of infection are down to 6 per cent. from the high 20s. There is a massive reduction in the rate of infection among young people. That shows what can be done and what needs to be done throughout the whole continent.
I agree that Zimbabwe is a complete tragedy. The economy is collapsing; there is negative growth, and hunger and poverty are increasing. The elections were flawed. The country should be an engine of growth in Africa. It has a highly educated population, good land and other resources, but the economy is being wrecked and the people are suffering terribly. We must hope for, and work towards, an end to its misgovernment so that the people of Zimbabwe have the chance for a better future.

489
I was describing the achievements of the past year and focusing on the world's efforts. At Monterrey, more official development assistance—aid—was committed by both the United States and the European Union after years of declining aid spend. That was a turnaround in the world's commitment to development and is a step towards the achievement of the millennium development goals.
The EU made a commitment that, by 2006, we would reach an average of 0.39 per cent. of gross domestic product. That means an extra $7 billion every year thereafter. The US made a commitment to an increase of $5 billion from the same date.
So that is good news. It is still not as much as the amounts that the reports commissioned by the World Bank and from former President Zedillo of Mexico said will be needed from the world in aid resources to reach the millennium development goals—that is, roughly double the assistance that is already given through the international system. However, the meeting reversed the decline that has taken place for many years in the international system, and that helped to make it an important success.
Dr. Tonge: I am becoming a little confused by the number of declarations, conferences and pledges on development that are going on around the world, so will the Secretary of State clarify a couple of points?
First, what is the relationship between the fund recently set up at Monterrey and the global health fund? I presume that they are completely separate, but is there any cross-over? Secondly, has the money merely been pledged or is it in a bank somewhere gaining interest that can be dished out to the countries that need it? I sometimes worry that such pledges remain just pledges, and may seem grandiose but do not really amount to much.
Clare Short: A fund was not set up at Monterrey—rather, the United States and the European Union committed themselves to grow their spending on aid. It was a commitment on future spending, so the money is not in the bank. The US has suggested that its $5 billion might go into a new fund that is run in a different way to USAID. The EU's pledge is to increase our spending through existing channels, not through establishing a new fund. So no, there is no money in the bank. There is a pledge and a commitment, and it will be our duty and that of others to ensure that the EU keeps to it. It would be a betrayal of the developing world to sign up to a radical reform agenda, and then to fail to keep our part of the promise.
The global health fund arose from the G7 meeting and from commitments made by Kofi Annan. There has been some confusion about whether it is only for HIV/AIDS—it is not—and whether it is the only instrument for getting more spending into the care of those with HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB, three illness that cause enormous ill health and suffering, and thereby economic loss, in developing countries. We in the UK have always seen the global health fund as a fund to provide drugs and commodities through which, by pooling resources internationally, we can achieve greater reliability of supply and lower prices, and then encourage developing countries to improve their delivery systems. As a country,
490
we have pledged $200 million to the fund. We are already spending £1 billion on strengthening countries' health systems.
That is what the fund is for. Because Kofi Annan made a speech saying that we need an extra $10 billion a year to combat HIV/AIDS—he meant all forms of spending, including Government spending—everyone sees the global health fund as a failure, which it is not. It is in the final stages of appointing its chief executive, or whatever title the person is to have, and it has received a series of applications from developing countries on which it is about to make decisions.
The final UN international conference that is required to complete the architecture is the forthcoming world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, Rio plus 10. We have discussed that in the Select Committee. I hope that the prize that we will get from that conference is an overcoming of the division between the environmental lobby of the north, which tends to be cautious about promoting development because it believes that the world is under strain and cannot afford any more economic growth, and the view from the south that such an environmental agenda locks them out of development. I very much hope that we will get a real commitment to sustainable development at Johannesburg. We need to guarantee development for the poor, but in the context of a sustainable planet, and to bring the development and environmental lobbies together properly to promote sustainability, rather than a "do not disturb, do not develop" approach. If we can achieve that, we will have global agreement on how to drive the world forward.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State took part in an interesting sitting of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit on just this point. At the risk of sounding like a voice for the north, does she agree that it is important in the context of Johannesburg to transfer our technology to developing countries? That offers huge opportunities both for our domestic markets and for developing countries, which could be enabled to bypass some of the environmental degradation that we have undergone through the process of industrialisation. For example, we could take them straight to the future of electricity generation—embedded generation instead of huge grid connections.
Clare Short: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should transfer not old technology but modern, more environmentally sustainable technology. However, we will not transfer technology on the scale that is needed. Half of humanity has no sanitation, and more than a billion people have no access to clean water, which means that their children constantly get sick because the water has been used for other purposes by other human beings. The need for investment in sanitation, water and energy is massive, and we will get that investment only if we can grow economies so that countries can afford more imports. They would then be able to afford the transfer of technology that occurs through trade and foreign direct investment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must make sure that any transferred technology is state of the art, rather than old and polluting—that would be a terrible development.
The achievements of the past year which I have just summarised mean that the world now agrees on the agenda and on the best way to engage in reform. We need

491
now to drive forward implementation and to improve the measurement of our progress in achieving development goals. The World Bank is calling a meeting in June to improve the collection of statistics and measurements across the world system, so that we can learn from the progress that has been made and find out which countries are not making progress.
At the meeting last weekend, the World Bank issued a report on progress towards the development targets. We are on track to achieve the targets to halve poverty, so we are set by 2015 to reduce by a billion the number of people living in abject poverty. That is partly because progress in China has been remarkable for the past 10 years or so. Progress in India and Bangladesh has been considerable, but it could be better, and we must remember that two thirds of the world's poor live in Asia.
We are not, however, on track in Africa—it is getting poorer. The population is growing faster than the economy. Africa is by far the poorest continent, and 50 per cent. of its people live in abject poverty. I repeat: it is getting poorer. Twenty per cent. of the continent's people are living under conditions of conflict. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is hardly a state. It is an enormously resource-rich part of the world, as big as western Europe, but it lacks the institutions of a modern state and it is in desperate humanitarian need.
We have to do better in Africa, and we have two opportunities to do so. The first is through NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development, in which African leaders are coming together to say that they are determined to do better, to end the conflicts, to reform their states and run them better and to provide better services for their people. That gives us an opportunity to respond to Africa's own reform agenda. In the past the agenda has tended to be set in Washington and imposed on reluctant states, so it has been more likely to fail. The importance of NEPAD is that Africa is leading its own drive for development.
There is another major opportunity. We must concentrate on ensuring that Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola all come to peace. According to World Bank estimates, the levels of conflict in Africa are costing 2 per cent. of economic growth to every country on the continent, including those that are not in conflict, simply because of the reputation of Africa, the difficulties of transport systems and so forth. If we can focus on bringing to peace those three massive, resource-rich countries, which straddle the continent and have been engaged in war for two generations, that really would improve Africa's prospects.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: As usual, I do not find that much to disagree with in what the right hon. Lady is saying, which is always slightly depressing for a Conservative Member. Does she agree, however, that NEPAD has resulted in marvellous words with which we all concur, but we need to see some concrete action from its leaders, particularly the President of Nigeria, who presides over an extremely corrupt state and yet has signed up to NEPAD's statement on the importance of good governance and accountability?
Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. We must have implementation, but it is important that Africa is calling for reform itself rather
492
than being hectored by others. I agree that lack of progress on reform in Nigeria is very worrying. In that oil-rich country, 70 per cent. of the population live in abject poverty, and all its systems are riddled with corruption and ineffectiveness. One in five of all Africans cannot go forward without Nigeria going forward, and progress has been very slow.
Nigeria is now in pre-election time. Some of the reforms in which Governments in developing countries must engage to run their economies better and provide better services to their people threaten vested interests and are difficult to implement. A wave of reform tends not to happen in a pre-election period, so I am worried that there will be still more delay before the reform agenda can be driven forward in Nigeria. Nigeria is in bad shape and we must do all we can to ensure that the reform effort moves forward so that the rich oil resources there are used for the benefit of the people and not just for the benefit of a corrupt elite while the rest go poor.
This is an important time of opportunity. There is more and more agreement across the world about what needs to be done and about the urgency of doing it, and more and more knowledge about what works in development. We now need to progress more sharply and rapidly with implementing what we have agreed. Extra aid is needed, but we need to use the existing aid better. Only half of the $55 billion that is already in the international system is spent in low-income countries. Much of it is used for foreign policy purposes or gestures or to procure trade for the giving country. If it were directed to the poor and put behind reformers, its poverty-reducing effectiveness could be increased by 50 per cent.
We have redirected the whole of the UK effort and untied our aid, but we need to drive that process forward across the world. As the House knows, the EC is a major sinner in this regard and is getting worse. We have worked for a reform agenda that is being put in place and that will improve the performance of the staff and the capacity of the organisation to spend money, but the way in which it is allocated has moved even further away from poor people, which is a disgrace. We are working hard, and we need parliamentarians across Europe to join in exposing this scandal and to establish a determination to do better.
That problem is the result of gesture spending and old alliances. Lots of resources go to Latin America, for example, where most of the countries are middle-income. They are the most unequal countries in the world, however, and they have lots of poor and excluded people. Those countries do not need aid resources; they need to use their own resources better to include all of their people, educate all of their children and provide work and opportunities to all of their people to improve their lives. We must therefore work to redirect the money available to where it would be most effective.
We also need to implement the commitments made at Doha. The European Union is about to negotiate regional trade agreements with all the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries under the Cotonou agreement. We need to keep an eye on that to make sure that the offers are generous and that they improve the trading opportunities of developing countries.
We must do better in terms of dealing with conflict. The Government have two mechanisms—a global conflict prevention pooled arrangement bringing together the

493
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my Department and the Ministry of Defence, and one for Africa that I chair. The bringing together of those three Departments and their expertise has really improved UK thinking about conflict resolution and conflict prevention. I am trying to focus sharply on bringing the three big conflicts to an end, which would transform the prospects of the continent. I hope that the House will watch that and try to give support. If the kind of international energy and quality of attention that went into the Bonn agreement for Afghanistan were put into the three conflicts in Africa, they could be brought to an end.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Having recently visited Sudan, I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend on the prospect for peace and the imperative for peace in that country. We commend the efforts that are being made to step up the diplomatic process and influence.
With regard to Angola, which I know my right hon. Friend has visited recently, will she explain further the role that this country could take to try to eliminate some of the desperate circumstances that some of us have seen there, particularly in internally displaced person camps? There seems at last to be an opportunity to get to grips with those appalling circumstances.
Clare Short: Angola has been at war since the early 1960s. It fought the Portuguese for its independence, and the Russians allied with the country, so it declared a one-party state and adopted a Soviet model of development. That led to support from then apartheid South Africa and the United States for UNITA, a rebel movement. A civil war has therefore been going on there ever since independence. Again, although it is a very rich country in terms of natural resources—it has masses of oil, diamonds and other rich resources—it suffers from desperate poverty.
The country has now come to peace, which is a very important opportunity, and it is sincere about wanting that peace to succeed. The UNITA fighters must be disarmed, demobilised and resettled, which is a considerable task. A third of the population of the country has been displaced in the course of the war—4 million people have been removed from their land, and the country is littered with land mines. The resettlement effort will therefore be enormous, but it should be an engine of economic development, given its richness in natural resources.
The UK does not have a big programme in Angola. We do not speak Portuguese and do not understand Portuguese bureaucratic systems—I am not sure how many people do; it is an intensely bureaucratic tradition. I am working to release resources from the Department to help to bring in the best advice on how to demobilise and resettle people, however, and I have offered to enable a team representing the Government and UNITA to come to Sierra Leone to talk to all the people engaged in disarmament, demobilisation and rehabilitation there, to learn the lessons. I had discussions at the World Bank meeting, and a mission is about to go to Angola to help with DDR.
Angola also has terrible problems of corruption, and the IMF programme there has gone off-track. I had discussions with Hans Kohler about looking again at
494
Angola, as it is no longer a country in conflict but a post-conflict country. That does not mean that we should lower our standards on reform, but the effort is worth while. I shall probably contribute some expertise from the UK, too. Angola should be able to access international expertise to help to move its peace process forward.
Tony Cunningham: I have a couple of points. We are talking about the Sudan, the Congo and Angola, but there are conflicts in other parts of the developing world. Although they may be at peace at the moment, the fact that they are not oil-rich or diamond-rich means that they tend to get neglected. Not too long ago, Ethiopia and Eritrea were at war. In one battle, something like 80,000 people were killed, but that did not even appear on page 17 of The Guardian. It was forgotten about because the countries involved do not have oil, diamonds and so on. Two of the poorest countries—they are both in the UN's bottom six—were wasting huge amounts of resources on fighting each other.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to spend more time and effort on all the countries that are in conflict rather than just on those that are highlighted because of their natural resources? In addition to Sierra Leone, will she consider the success in Mozambique on bringing the former Renamo and Frelimo guerrillas together after the civil war there? That might be a good example for Angola.
Clare Short: I agree that we should bring wars to an end everywhere. I do not agree that the focus on Angola, Sudan and the DRC is coming from people who are interested in investing in those countries. Those countries are in such an appalling state that their natural riches are not being deployed to the benefit of their people. I do not therefore apologise for focusing on the Sudan, the DRC and Angola, as, if they moved to peace, it would transform the prospects of the whole continent.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Ethiopia-Eritrea war was an absolute tragedy. It was fought out like the first world war with lots of young men thrown at each other and slaughtering each other over a barren piece of territory. There has now been an adjudication on the border, which both sides have accepted. There are no rich resources in that border area, and the war was completely wasteful and caused great loss of life and suffering, and was a setback to economic development.
I am hopeful about Ethiopia. Prime Minister Meles is a remarkable man. He is determined to bring reform to Ethiopia. It is one of the poorest countries, with a gross domestic product of only $100 a head. Some 62 per cent. of its children are chronically malnourished and many of those who do survive are stunted physically and mentally. Even if they get the chance to go to school, they will never be able to develop their natural talents. We desperately need a major reform effort in Ethiopia.
I agree that Mozambique is a great success. It is a very poor country, but has had 10 per cent. economic growth for many years. We need similar levels of growth in other countries in Africa if we are to halve poverty there.
Norman Lamb: I agree about the importance of focusing attention on those particular conflicts in Africa to get the economies growing again. However, does the right hon. Lady agree that it was

495
counter-productive to increase substantially this country's arms sales to Africa over the past four to five years? I accept that countries have a right to defend themselves, but increasing arms sales, which are usually paid for by increasing debt, goes against sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty.
Clare Short: I have seen the claim about increased United Kingdom arms sales to Africa made in documents produced by non-governmental organisations. I am afraid that I have not checked the figures, but I think that they are largely explained by South Africa's big arms order. Let me make my position clear: properly procured weapons and equipment for properly and transparently managed armed forces are essential to achieve stability and order in the continent of Africa, so some arms sales are legitimate and right. However, there is much corruption in the arms industry throughout the international system. Indeed, Transparency International published a report on that today. Badly procured arms and wasteful expenditure often lead to bloated armed forces, which sometimes results in coups. That type of procurement is the last thing that countries need in order to develop.
Africa needs better, more disciplined, more transparently managed and properly equipped police forces, courts, judicial systems and armed forces. I am pleased that we have agreed to carry out a defence review with Uganda. People from the Ministry of Defence are in Uganda helping it to look objectively at the security threat that it faces, what equipment it needs and the size of its armed forces. It will be possible for it to manage its expenditure properly through public finances rather than secretly, which is how most defence expenditure is managed at the moment. I agree that the issue is important. We are making progress, but we need to make much more progress on supply and demand.
The world is grossly unequal and in danger, but we have an opportunity to make enormous progress. We have great clarity about what we need to do. All sorts of lessons have been provided to promote effective development and some countries are doing very well. Those examples need to be widened. If we also do better at resolving conflict, we could have a period in which countries make enormous advances. It is within the grasp of our generation to remove abject poverty from the human condition, which was only a dream for previous generations. That is an achievable objective, but it is not inevitable that we will be successful. If we are not, the world will become more unstable and more dangerous for us all, and no privileged country will be able to buy its way out of the trouble that will otherwise spread across the world.
2.13 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: People are so weary of politicians carping about each other that I want to begin by congratulating the Government on holding this debate on the occasion of the publication of their annual report on international development. We asked for that during the passage of the International Development Act 2002, and although the amendment was rejected, we are delighted that it has been accepted in spirit. I think this is the first time that the publication of the annual report has given rise to an annual debate. All of us with a deep interest in international development appreciate the opportunity that that offers us.
496
I also thank the Secretary of State for letting me have a copy of the annual report at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon. That certainly made a difference to my ability to prepare. However, speed-reading a document of about 136 pages is not the best way to achieve close scrutiny, so inevitably my remarks are based on a mixture of what I read in the document and what I have seen of the Government's work in practice.
On the positive side, last year we saw improved responses to international crises in Goma, Gujarat and Afghanistan. There is no doubt that the Department's emergency relief model is becoming more refined. We applaud the Department for that, and it is right to place that on the record. We also gave a warm welcome to the Home Secretary's decision to incorporate the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery and corruption into emergency legislation following the events of 11 September. We pressed for that to be part of the International Development Bill, and thank the Home Secretary for giving credit to the Conservative party for pressing for its inclusion.
There are many positive aspects to developments, but there are also some serious concerns. In the report, there is a deafening silence on the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) for raising that in an intervention, and also my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on that very subject.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation was a model of its kind. It was established in 1948 specifically to encourage, through investment, small, mostly agricultural enterprises in the third world. What made it different was that there was never an expectation of a return on the investment of more than about 8 per cent. It was something good, something that worked, something that did not cost a lot of money, something that was constructive and something that had dignity.
So what happened? The Government abandoned the guiding principle of the concept to replace the scheme with a planned public-private partnership. Investment will move away from small businesses with low profits to be invested instead in more high-tech high-yielding enterprises with greater profits. As likely as not, those will he companies that could attract investment without any help from us. What madness!
After we debated that issue recently in Westminster Hall, I received a letter from a former employee of the CDC. Without wishing to exaggerate in any way the investment success of the CDC, he says:
"it has delivered numerous examples of sustainable agricultural businesses throughout Africa, which employ large numbers of rural Africans…CDC's withdrawal from this sector has resulted in large-scale redundancy programmes, declines in standards of management and business ethics, and an apparent investment void."
He cites the example of a CDC-supported teak company that made 80 per cent. of its work force redundant in one of the poorest regions of the country before re-employing many of them on a casual basis and without the benefits that went with the CDC's terms of employment. He asks the question, and I echo it: is this development?
Clare Short: I find it extraordinary that the Conservative party has adopted a posture of supporting

497
sub-optimal public sector-led investment that gets a rate of return to which the private sector would never respond. If the hon. Lady is saying that Africa and other regions in which the CDC operates can get investment only at that level, she is suggesting that the private sector will never invest in those countries and they will be marginalised from the globalising economy for ever. [Interruption.] I am not missing the point. If the CDC goes for a lower rate of return than the market would accept because it is not possible to make better investments in such countries, those countries will be marginalised for ever.
We have not wrecked anything. I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at the CDC's annual report, published a short time ago. Perhaps the Select Committee will decide to reconsider the issue. We obviously need to ensure that we get things right, but the hon. Lady seems to be making a Communist argument.
Mrs. Spelman: It is not just the Conservative party that is raising serious concerns about the CDC. If the right hon. Lady consults the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who responded to the Adjournment debate, she will discover that not one Labour Member spoke in defence of the Government's actions. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) crossed the Floor to speak with the Opposition. The lack of support for the Government from any part of the House on that occasion should at the very least be cause for concern.
Hugh Bayley rose—
Mr. Barker rose—
Mrs. Spelman: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and secondly to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley).
Mr. Barker: Does my hon. Friend accept that it may be right, as the Secretary of State says, to modernise the CDC, but that the right hon. Lady does not appreciate the huge leap implicit in going from a rate of return of 8 per cent. to one of 25 per cent? That cannot glibly be regarded as modernisation. It is a massive step change to get a return on equity of 25 per cent. Surely a much better model for Africa would be in the form of the old 3i corporation, which was seen as seed-corn development, pump priming where other equity will follow, with returns on capital of perhaps 15 to 18 per cent. either as equity or mezzanine debt. I speak as someone with venture capital experience, and I do not think that the Secretary of State grasps the nature of a 25 per cent. return on capital.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It shows the benefit of having the opportunity to debate what can be done to improve the present situation. My hon. Friend's expertise in venture capital was valuable when we debated these matters in an Adjournment debate.
The great difficulty is that the sort of returns that it is now the strategy of the CDC to secure are extremely difficult to achieve from agriculture. Agriculture is the
498
bedrock of civil society in many developing countries. The loss of investment through the CDC in agriculture is extremely serious for many developing nations.
Hugh Bayley: I shall defend the Government's policy on the CDC. For the hon. Lady's argument—that it is a bad thing that the CDC is beginning to move away from its agricultural investments—to be convincing she would need to make the case that the CDC is a better source of finance for agricultural development than the Department for International Development.
The Department is increasing its investment in agricultural projects. As the hon. Lady has said, that is because they would not necessarily generate a commercial rate of return. Surely it is right to get each part of the development operation addressing the problems that it is best attuned to addressing.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman makes a revealing point about what may be at the back of the Government's mind in connection with the CDC's change of strategy. During the passage of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999, the former Member for Hertford and Stortford, Mr. Bowen Wells, made exactly the point that the root cause of one of the problems was innate competition between what the CDC could do and the work of the Department. At the time, that was strenuously denied by the Government spokesman. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has brought out an underlying truth that needs to be addressed. There is still a fundamental problem, as many United Kingdom farmers know too well, which is that with a low rate of return in agriculture, it is difficult to secure the necessary investment for the essential modernisation of agriculture. Our deep concern is that opportunities are moving away.
Clare Short: I would welcome a debate. I hope that the usual channels are listening
Mrs. Spelman: I have had a hint from the Secretary of State that she might be prepared to allow another debate on the CDC in Government time. There may be an important reason for doing that. Is it not better, when something is going wrong, that we admit that honestly together and try collectively to work out how to put things right? Perhaps all hon. Members whose hearts are in this matter could contribute to a subsequent debate.
Clare Short: For the sake of clarity, I must point out that I do not have the power to allocate time. I would welcome the chance to debate the CDC; we need more informed debate. Some of the allegations are misinformed, but I am sure that they are well meant. We should find a way, either through the Select Committee, on the Floor of the House or elsewhere, to pursue the issues properly. I give that undertaking—but unfortunately, I cannot allocate time.
Mrs. Spelman: I am well aware that the usual channels have major control of how parliamentary time is allocated. However, the right hon. Lady has made a welcome suggestion. I am sure that, with the presence of the Chairman of the International Development Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), a number of us can bring pressure to bear.
Tony Baldry: It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Select Committee has a

499
firm date in the diary to take evidence from the chairman and senior members of the CDC. I hope that that will enable the Committee to ask the sort of questions that the House would like it to ask.
Mrs. Spelman: I hope that the usual channels are listening to the calls on both sides of the Chamber for the opportunity to be given to us.
Dr. Tonge: My intervention has already been answered. I heartily concur with what the hon. Lady is saying. I know that many Members have reservations, as I did when the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 was passing through the House, and as did the previous Member for Hertford and Stortford, Mr. Bowen Wells. The Chairman of the International Development Select Committee has said that he will take the matter on board and have a thorough investigation. I am sure that the Secretary of State would welcome that, too.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Lady for her support in our endeavours to secure an opportunity to rework things together. We shall all contribute to try to make that possible.
Without turning these proceedings into a mini-debate on the CDC, I wish to defend the individual who sought to give me his perspective of what is really happening in the organisation for which he worked for most of his professional life. The letter from the former employee was thoughtful, and should not be too quickly dismissed as having no relevance to this discussion about where the CDC is heading.
The ex-employee pointed out in a measured way that
"at least the old CDC made small investment returns and operated with the best intentions. Its former staff knew how to plant tea and coffee. Until 1999 CDC made only one loss in its fifty year history: the combined losses in 1999, 2000 and 2001 are likely to exceed £150 million."
He asks, and I join him in asking, whether it
"is too late for the DFID to consider taking over CDC's existing agricultural businesses and managing them on a trusteeship basis?"
That is a constructive suggestion, to which the Government might like to give time. Together, we need to see what can be done to retrieve the situation.
An issue that is significantly underplayed in the report, but to which the Secretary of State rightly gave great attention, is the question of our overseas aid given through the European Union. There is a fairly bald statement on page 83 of the report that the
"share of EC official development assistance going to low income countries fell from 52% to 38%".
That is in direct opposition to our national aim of helping the poorest. As the Secretary of State said, this situation cannot be allowed to continue.
There is not much in the report about how to improve on such a disastrous situation. By coincidence, this week the Select Committee published the results of its inquiry into EU overseas aid, which amount to a discerning critique of the failures. It is worth highlighting a few points from the report, and I am sure that members of the Committee will raise these matters today.
For example, the aid budget is vulnerable to being raided for political purposes. There is a weakness, compared with our capacity, in focusing on where aid is
500
given. There is a lack of transparency as to which funds are intended for poverty reduction. There is too much of a focus on middle-income countries at the expense of developing countries. It seems that wherever we go in the world, no one has a good word to say for the EU assistance development programme.
While I was in India, the European Commission representative in Delhi came up with one constructive idea for tackling the lamentable delays and inefficiencies of the EU aid programme. He suggested that a member state such as ours might contribute manpower and expertise at grass-roots level to oversee the programmes in which we have a share.
There is an oblique reference to that idea on page 30 of the annual report, in the context of delegating more responsibility to the EU's overseas offices. However, those offices have few staff. Perhaps by that means we could help to avoid duplication. Fundamentally, we must face up to the criticisms that abound about EU overseas aid, and together work out how it could be made more effective.
If the EU aid budget is a thorn in the side of the Secretary of State, Tanzania must be another. I could find nothing in the annual report about the notorious BAE Systems deal. We know that it was a test case to find out whether the good intentions of getting debt-relieved nations to spend money on health and education would work, and it failed. The Secretary of State might have had more chance of opposing the deal if she had found out about it earlier. BAE Systems applied for a licence in 1997, but as the Secretary of State told me in a written answer, she was not informed until October 2000. A constructive suggestion would be to improve that process in Government.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the sustainable development amendment to the Export Control Bill, which was recently approved in another place. It was supported by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and bishops, and might give the Department for International Development a greater say in such matters. I call on the right hon. Lady to have the courage of her convictions and tell the House that she will support the sustainable development amendment.
As I read the report, my big concern is whether our aid programme is really effective. We cannot be complacent or rest on our laurels. To her credit, the tone in which the Secretary of State presented her review of international development showed no complacency. I welcome that.
There is much rhetoric about helping the world's poorest, but the truth is that much aid is determined by political motives. The vast majority of European development aid goes to central European countries hoping to accede to the EU. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) rightly drew attention to the genuine plight of a nation in central Europe, I feel deeply uneasy about the fact that more European development assistance goes to Poland than to Asia, Africa and Latin America put together.
The largest recipient of British overseas aid is India, from which I have just returned. We are about to treble the amount that we give from £110 million to £300 million. India is a country of terrible poverty, with a third of the world's poor living there. Imagine my surprise when I opened The Times of India to read an

501
editorial with the headline "Who needs foreign aid anyway?"—a startling point of view from a major recipient country.
The editor points out that incoming aid just about cancels out the interest on loan repayments, and all the while India is undergoing phenomenal growth through foreign inward investment, especially in computer services. I need to be clear: I am not saying that India should not receive aid, but the way in which it is given is crucial. If the Indians themselves challenge the way in which we do that, perhaps we should stop and listen. There should be seed-corn capital for investment, grants for projects and assistance to kick-start local initiatives, but not dependency-creating loans. There is a crying need for internal reform in India, and our expertise in good governance is almost as important as money.
Tony Worthington: The hon. Lady refers to an editorial in The Times of India suggesting that we should withdraw aid from India. Is that her position?
Mrs. Spelman: I thought that I had made it clear that I am not in favour of ceasing to provide aid to India. The question is how it is given. In fairness to the Government, there has been considerable refocusing of the way in which the Department for International Development is working in India. I met DFID' s head while I was in Delhi. We are now focused on four of the approximately 30 Indian states. My concern after visiting that country is that although there is no doubt that we can achieve greater effectiveness through backing politically reforming states such as Andhra Pradesh, where there is a state Government with a zeal to modernise agriculture, one of the consequences is that the poorer states, such as Bihar, will fall further and further behind.
Tony Worthington: The hon. Lady raises these questions, but she is a politician. She is supposed to be putting forward policies. What is her policy on India?
Mrs. Spelman: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is for the Government to propose and implement their policy, and it is the role of the Opposition to ask questions. This is the one debate a year in which we get the chance to ask a series of questions.
As the Secretary of State said, there is no room for complacency. One glance at the graphs in the annual report showing progress towards millennium development goals reveals an appalling picture for sub-Saharan Africa. All the performance indicators are right off target. In addition, it is almost impossible to factor into such an assessment the terrible question of how HIV and AIDS will affect those poor regions of the world. My experience of visiting India teaches me that the full scale of that epidemic is about to strike another region.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra rose—
Mrs. Spelman: I shall move on now, if I may, to discuss trade.
I was taken to India by Oxfam, as part of its fair trade fortnight campaign, to see one of those fair trade projects outside Vellore. The women involved in the project are
502
earning only 70p a day from palm weaving, but with their profits they have already managed to provide sanitary facilities in their village. That is an example of how development policy can be made even more effective.
Our strategy in India, as I said, has been to back the reforming states, but an important question is: what makes a good donor and what makes a good recipient? The relationship between donor and recipient entails responsibilities on both sides. In India we have succeeded in finding good recipients, and I hope that we have demonstrated the skills of a good donor—but enabling the very poorest states to become good recipients is the fundamental challenge for us. The irony of our strategy is that it will leave poorer states lagging behind.
That problem is writ large in sub-Saharan Africa, where the combination of political chaos, conflict and corruption holds us back from helping the most needy. We must develop a model of development assistance for failing states that may go on to become rogue states. As 11 September taught us, we cannot afford to neglect them.
Hugh Bayley: I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady speaking of the need to define a good recipient of aid. We must ask what kind of Government or regime allows aid to be used cost-effectively to implement the millennium development goals. The reason for raising that question, and the reason why I raised it in the International Development Committee earlier this week, is that if we make a distinction between good and poor recipients of aid, we need different policies for our aid relationship with each type. How would the hon. Lady use different policies for good recipients and poorer recipients?
Mrs. Spelman: Again, we are not at the stage of the parliamentary cycle when we have formulated our full plans for the future of international development—[Interruption.] None the less, as the hon. Member for City of York says, we are thinking about it.
In the short term, one of the things that I want to impress on the aid agencies that work in many of those failing states is that it is perfectly reasonable for the donor to expect the recipient to take responsibility, as well as the assistance that is given. The writing of a blank cheque without an emphasis on such responsibility is unlikely to be as effective in the long run as if the recipient state could be incentivised to move closer and closer to good governance.
That is my line of thinking, without yet giving specific policies that would bring that about.
At times, we are worse than unhelpful to the developing world. That is shown most clearly by our policy on trade. For decades now, we have been talking about reforming the common agricultural policy, but, with some minor changes, it continues to deprive developing countries of access to our markets. It is even failing to provide a reasonable income for our own farmers. Of course we accept that they need to make a fair living, but the subsidies that we pay to dump agricultural surpluses in world markets are, frankly, iniquitous.
It may surprise the House to know that India is the largest producer of milk and the second lowest cost producer after New Zealand. India aspires to a new regional market in the middle east, but EU subsidies price it out of that market. In 2000, America's subsidies to its farmers were six times the amount that it spent on

503
overseas development aid. The EU spends nine times more on agricultural support and export subsidies than it does on aid. That is entirely inconsistent with the political rhetoric following the events of 11 September.
We understand the need to address inequalities, and the head of the International Monetary Fund, Horst Kohler, seems to agree. He said in a television interview:
"The big issue is subsidies for agriculture…we need leadership to tackle these subsidies and then we will create a better world."
Britain should provide that leadership for change and advocate the fair trade model.
Mr. Robathan: May I say how much I agree with my hon. Friend? As someone who has a farm, I have a personal interest. I agree with her about the pernicious effect that export subsidies have on markets in developing countries, but does she see any tangible evidence that there will be reform in the near future?
Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend will recall that the Secretary of State has said that reform will be brought about only by getting parliamentarians throughout Europe to agree to, and press for, it. We cannot do it on our own. We can provide leadership because Britain is uniquely placed, given our history of trade and our relationship with many developing nations, together with the fact that our agriculture is highly efficient. I would expect the Government to provide leadership to build an alliance for real change.
Mr. David Drew rose—
Mr. John Battle rose—
Mrs. Spelman: I think that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was first.
Mr. Drew: I could not agree more with what the hon. Lady says, so will she join the Government in getting entirely behind the Curry commission report and taking forward what we need to say through the various farm organisations—not just in this country, but across Europe—as well those involved in international development? Of course that report refers to the way in which we would want to move towards modulation in this country, which will help.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have 15 years' experience of working in agriculture, so I am fully aware that we have got—
Clare Short: Subsidised agriculture.
Mrs. Spelman: As the Secretary of State says, agriculture is subsidised, but that has brought our own farmers to their knees; it is not working for farmers in this country. Reform is long overdue, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we must push hard for reform that is not only fair and does not disadvantage our farmers, but—given this brief in particular—allows a fair opportunity for the developing world. That is the vision for which we must strive.
The Secretary of State may be aware that Oxfam put the EU at the top of the double-standards index—a measure of the gap between the free-market principle and
504
protectionist practice. I was interested to see on page 64 of the annual report a picture of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister in Ghana with some cocoa producers, but Ghana is excluded from the everything but arms initiative. Why do not we help Ghana by offering it better access to European markets? Again, there is an opportunity for real improvement.
Debt relief is the final issue that I want to raise where we can make a real difference. We have heard today that 27 nations have had their debt relieved, but does that reflect reality? What is the recipients' indebtedness now? What about the countries that do not qualify under the tortuously complicated HIPC rules?
Ethiopia, for example, expects a 47 per cent. reduction in debt under the World Bank-initiated HIPC programme, despite which it will have to spend the same amount on the remaining debt as it spends on health. As I speak, 42 countries that could be included in the programme have not even reached the first rung of the criteria required before they can expect some interim relief on their debt service payments.
The IMF warns that the HIPC initiative is likely to fail in many countries and that eight to 10 countries will still be in debt by the end of the programme, so I just hope that, on debt, the Secretary of State is not saying to herself, "That's it. No more needs to be done now." The Jubilee 2000 campaign was one of the most effective campaigns in recent times. Those of us who took part in the human chain around Birmingham during the G8 summit will not let this rest. We are a rich nation. We must find more and better ways to prevent the cycle of indebtedness. We can will the means to the end.
Annual reports from school always contained a series of platitudes, but parents learn to read between the lines. This annual report shows that the Government must work harder if they are to prove next year that they mean what they say about helping the world's poorest. Old relationships built around foreign aid, welfare and donor-driven goals are finally being challenged and re-evaluated. The future is about establishing partnerships and enhancing the situation, so that developing countries take ownership of events in their own countries and use that to go forward.
We do not doubt the Secretary of State's sincerity, but she must ask herself some hard questions about the pattern of British development assistance and its effectiveness, the CDC's retreat from rural Africa, our thinning patience over EU aid reform, and the failure to get it right in Tanzania. To use the scholastic euphemism, there is room for improvement, but I am delighted that the Secretary of State said that we have to do things better.
2.47 pm
Mr. John Battle: I welcome this debate and the publication of the report. May I tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the report represents an encouraging year of leadership, vision and action? After 15 years as a Member of Parliament. I am delighted that international development is being debated more on the Floor and in Westminster Hall. Moreover, more of our constituents are interested in and concerned about international development, so there has been a shift. I also welcome the remarks on agricultural reform made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and hope that they can be taken forward.

505
I want to give some practical examples of joined-up Government. I was delighted to see that page 107 of the Red Book includes a significant paragraph on financing development. The Department for International Development also publishes a bulletin with the Treasury, but I suggest that that should be a tripartite report by this time next year. I should like the Department of Trade and Industry to be included in the heading as well as DFID and the Treasury. Let us take trade matters further forward with that interconnection of development.
The Secretary of State said that we need to drive forward implementation. As my journeys with the Select Committee have shown me, we need to be careful that we are not lulled into a sense that we are making inroads when we are not. I am terrified—this is one of those great illusions—that people are running up a down escalator. They think that they are moving up, but they are really being pushed down. We must be sure that we are making deep inroads in reducing poverty.
The poverty of many regions of the world is still unimaginable. The figures hide the reality that millions of people have to bury their children prematurely. I shall give some practical examples. One in five people live in abject poverty, and one in three in relative poverty. A whole continent of countries—Africa—is mostly locked out of the global economy. As is recognised in the DFID report, on current trends sub-Saharan Africa will fail to meet the millennium development goals. Much more needs to be done.
On a Select Committee visit to northern Nigeria, I saw the sheer scale of rural poverty as the desert sands blow in and take over the land. There is a crisis of water provision, food production and rural agricultural sustainability. People in villages eke out a living by growing and drying tomatoes on a tiny scale, without access to processing, markets or real trade. There were thousands of villagers living in what I would describe as pre-Biblical conditions but, sadly, lacking Jacob's well. So the millennium development goal of halving poverty by 2015 is a tough target. We are rising to that challenge, but internationally much more needs to be done for individual countries, particularly the rural poor in Africa.
At Monterrey, the European Union and the United States made additional commitments to increase development assistance by $12 billion. The new American money, the $5 billion, will not arrive until 2004. It is not yet clear how it will be used or what the nature of the new fund is. Financing for development has a long way to go.
The campaign to cancel debt must be continued. What is more we must ensure that promises are delivered. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) raised that point. If I may, I shall put in a plug for my early-day motion 386, calling for Members to support that target of 0.7 per cent. We must keep up the pressure, and not just here in Britain, because it sends a signal to Europe and the wider world.
We need to work with America. I say that as a parliamentarian. We need to work with non-governmental organisations, Church and faith groups, Congressmen and women and Senators. We must make contacts with all people of goodwill to encourage America not unilaterally to isolate itself from international development strategies.
506
Yes, America gives an immense amount of humanitarian aid—often it makes its surplus grain available—but it needs to engage much more positively with progressive development strategies and assistance to Africa, and to get behind the New Partnership for Africa's Development as the most hopeful vehicle for action for the future.
Arguments are shifting. We need to understand the role of trade as well as of aid in future. Trade rather than aid will be the long-term key to the global inclusion of the poor, so it is crucial to make the international trading system fairer to poorer countries and people. I welcome the Speak Out for Trade Justice lobby that will take place on 19 June. I hope that it will be a catalyst for Members of this House and spark off a debate in constituencies about the relationship between trade and aid, and our international obligations.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s when I was working on these matters there were debates on trade policies: the EU policy on textiles and the notorious multifibre agreement. I remember being lobbied hard to say that we in the Yorkshire area where we have textiles should work to keep out textiles from third-world countries. Someone came to me and said that we must keep out textiles from Mauritius to protect jobs in textiles. I remember checking the import penetration of textiles from Mauritius into the Leeds market and it was 0.03 per cent. What happened? The lobbying was effective and worked. Mauritius was blocked off. Import controls were put on.
I recall going to a social club in Bradford to talk about these matters with textile workers. I talked to a man who was playing snooker. He said, "You realise it's a bad day. I have been in here all day because I lost my job." I asked why. He said, "I used to work as an engineer making textile machinery, but the order for my machine came from Mauritius and because people in this same room campaigned against Mauritius I have lost my job." Think of the snooker table. The job will go across the table, hit the cushion and come back into the pocket of the person next to you. That is interdependency. That is the global economy. We should recall that the economic interlock on our globe is much tighter than we realise. Trade is the key to tackling poverty.
We are learning that globalisation promises unity, but it cannot achieve that because of the lack of justice. Globalisation divides as much as it unites. What appears as globalisation for some is localisation for others. What is a new freedom for some descends as an uninvited and cruel fate for others. Some of us can be globally mobile; others become fixed in their localities. Being on the move for some means travelling on a jet; for others it means a refugee truck. Localities in a globalised world can lose their meaning and their negotiating capacities. That great visionary of environmental initiatives, Schumacher, urged us to "Think Global and Act Local", but that is no longer adequate. The world is more interdependent, interconnected and vulnerable. We need to be more subtle and to think and act globally and locally at the same time. The structures of poverty north and south are interlocked.
I close with two themes for the future that are not covered in the report, but which we should take more seriously. The first concerns the whole notion of migration, refugees and asylum seekers. I should like to see them included in the development debate internationally. In 1975, about 80 million people—about 1.5 per cent. of the world's population—lived outside their country of birth. According to the world migration

507
report the number of migrants has now risen to 150 million people, who are mostly legal residents of their new country. No problem with that.
The banker from Seattle who signs a five-year contract for a post in Berlin is a migrant and so is the labourer from Indonesia or Thailand who is subcontracted to a building site in Brunei. Refugees, too, are migrants with that well-founded fear of persecution in their home state. There are now 7 million refugees in Africa alone. Most refugees do not travel thousands of miles away to a new continent but move across the border to the country next door. How often are the refugee camps that we may visit increasingly seen as permanent new townships? If they are, we should face that reality and include them properly in development strategies.
We need to shift the thinking from the static model that refugees live in a temporary camp site and will go back to the place they left, and recognise that increasingly that is not the case. Refugee action and international development strategies must be threaded together. Refugees should be seen as part of development, as valuable human resources and as part of the international solution. That could change the debate.
Secondly, I compliment the Department for International Development sincerely for supporting the development of poverty reduction strategies which put developing countries into the leadership with donors working to support development efforts. I will go further. The work of DFID field workers, for example in Ghana and northern Nigeria, in developing participation strategies, including building from the base up and genuinely working with and including the poor, is radical, innovative and tremendously encouraging. Too often, top-down models have prevailed, even under the cover of language of empowerment, good governance and participation.
An academic, Bill Cooke, who works at the Institute for Development Policy at Manchester university wrote a set of brilliant essays called "Participation: The New Tyranny". He warns us that:
"an emphasis on the micro level of intervention can obscure and even sustain broader macro level inequalities and injustice."
We need to bear that in mind when we consider the whole approach. We need to be aware of the need for more subtle and more complex power analyses at local, national and international level. Moreover, we in the north, in our large cities, can learn from those participatory strategies and basic community development how to work with people and engage them in popular powerful management of their local economy, culture and life.
If scarcity is the discipline of economics, solidarity should be the inspiration of politics. When I first entered the House, I used to joke that I had to raise five issues in Armley, Bramley, Wortley, Kirkstall and Burley before daring to raise the question of international development, otherwise I would be regarded as straying too far from home base. I put my neck out today and say that it is now one for one; for every question I ask about my locality I can ask an international one because the debate has shifted. We should maintain that pressure to show people in inner cities that they are linked to people in rural Nigeria and that their futures are bound together.
The challenge is not just economic, but about developing genuine international solidarity. The universality of globalisation is not about the unity of capital alone; it is not
508
about the unity of the haves but about the true universality of humanity. I close with a quotation from George Bernanos, who said:
"The ways that lead to freedom are not peaceable or calm. We don't wait for the future like waiting for a train; the future is rather like a climb; the future is not something we have to accept passively, it is something we have to create."
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that international development is the key moral, political and economic challenge of our time; we in the House and people elsewhere must all rise to it.
3.1 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on a fine and moving speech, which I enjoyed very much. I shall send a copy to those of my constituents who oppose me and criticise me for caring more about the third world than I do about them. My usual response is that I care as much about the third world as I do about them.
It is difficult to tackle the report when we have had only 24 hours to look at it. I admit that I have not read it from cover to cover, but I have dipped in and out trying to find facts and figures. To lighten the mood a little, I shall comment on two pictures. The picture of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development sitting cross-legged on the floor of a hut in Indonesia is particularly fetching. We have all done such things, but he looked very endearing indeed. On page 64, there is an extremely intriguing picture which should go into the Christmas caption competition. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are in Ghana apparently discussing the merits of polystyrene chips; I cannot work out what they are looking at—it is certainly not cocoa pods.
Clare Short: It is cocoa; the picture shows what you get when you chop open a cocoa pod.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the Secretary of State. I have not been to Ghana yet; I am going next week or the week after to investigate the water industry. However, I thought that explaining what the Secretary of State was up to in the picture would make a wonderful caption competition. I wish that the civil servants who produced the report had included an index, although I accept that that would be a huge undertaking.
I sometimes get tired, and people say that I am suffering from compassion fatigue. A lot of them ask me why I bother, particularly old cynics in the medical profession and elsewhere. Billions of pounds have been ploughed into Africa over the past 20 or 30 years; hon. Members only have to look at page 89 of the report and those extremely depressing graphs to see that every measurable indicator of progress is going down; nothing is improving, as the Secretary of State confirmed.
Is aid a waste of money? We respond superbly when providing humanitarian aid; DFID is probably one of the best organisations in the world for rapid reaction, getting things moving and getting things done. Some of my friends and colleagues, however, ask whether we are not just throwing aid at people who will take a bit longer to die; we save their lives temporarily, but perhaps they will die later from AIDS, malaria, diarrhoea or starvation.
In southern Sudan, where there is civil war, we know that aid has on occasion been diverted to the Sudanese People's Liberation Army. Has that prolonged the war and

509
made matters worse? Is aid really worth while? To use the words of dear old Hippocrates, are we striving "officiously to keep alive" and trying too hard? Would it be better if we left well alone?
My response to people who ask those questions is "How can we not do something?" Travelling to third-world countries, it is difficult to ignore the suffering. Archbishop Tutu said that just because people are used to children dying like flies from diarrhoea, malnutrition, malaria and so on does not mean that they care any less; mothers do not love their children less because they are likely to die soon. Morally, therefore, we must do something but, as the Secretary of State said, and as we have all said many times, we must do something because it is in our interest. Failed states breed terrorists and send asylum seekers and immigrants to our shores. All the problems of the third world and poverty-stricken countries ultimately affect us. There is therefore not just a moral argument but a practical one for doing something.
Sometimes, people in international development think that they will concentrate on a particular country for a week, only for a natural disaster to occur. Responding to those disasters is DFID's job and, as I said, it does it superbly. Civil wars, such as those in the Balkans and Afghanistan, create problems, and DFID is expected to clear up the mess. I resent that. I have frequently said in the House that funding such action should come not out of the budget reserved for the poorest people in the world, but out of some other budget. Before we take military action, we should consider who will do the clearing-up and who will fund the reconstruction; the Department has had to look at that, too.
Palestine has received millions of pounds of much-appreciated development aid from the European Union, which put in an awful lot of time, effort and resources. However, that was destroyed in two or three weeks by Israeli military action, probably by weapons that we sold to Israel, which is an enormous paradox. I cannot find the right word, but it is appalling that we sometimes do not think through the results of our actions.
This morning, the World Food Programme put out a plea for aid to tackle problems created by bad governance in Malawi and Zimbabwe in southern Africa, which everyone saw coming. All sorts of reasons have been given about why we could not do anything, such as the fact that Zimbabwe is a sovereign state. All the aid that went into those countries has been wasted; there is a huge crisis and a looming famine. It is a crazy situation, and I sometimes wonder whether we are going in the wrong direction. However, I must stop depressing myself completely and make a few specific points.
Clare Short: The hon. Lady should remember that Uganda has consistently grown its economy, has achieved a measurable reduction in poverty and has got all its children in school. Mozambique, which is recovering from the same awful problems as Angola, is doing enormously well. Tanzania has turned around; it is growing its economy and getting more and more children into school. There are successful African models, which we must generalise across the continent. It is not all
510
hopeless and aid is not all wasted; some of it has been enormously effective in improving the lives of some of the poorest people in the world.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the Secretary of State for cheering me up. Nothing in the world would stop me from delivering aid, but I want better and more honest ways of doing so. We should not stop examining what we are doing or questioning how we are doing it, however good DFID is and however many plaudits it receives. We must not be complacent, but must continue to search for different ways of developing underdeveloped countries.
I have been reading the OECD Development Assistance Committee report that looked at UK overseas aid last October, and I want to release one round of unfriendly fire in this debate. The committee considered our progress towards spending 0.7 per cent. of gross national product on overseas aid—a worthy target, to which I hope we all adhere. The Chancellor announced that the ODA budget would increase to 0.33 per cent. of national income in 2003–04. That is excellent; it is to his great credit that he is moving towards the target. He also announced that Britain, along with the United States and Canada, has promised to cancel 100 per cent. of debt for the first 20 countries in the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—scheme. Again, that is to his great credit. It is absolutely wonderful and he has received many plaudits. The position of Mother Teresa has already been bagged, but I suggest that he is fast becoming a sort of Albert Schweitzer of the Treasury, who is concerned about the things that we care about.
That is wonderful stuff, but the money to finance that debt relief through the HIPC scheme is apparently coming out of the ODA budget. Does that not mean that two announcements have been made about the same money and that the debt relief is not extra, but is coming out of the overall budget, which has been increased slightly? Debt relief should be not a substitute for aid, but additional to the aid budget.
According to DFID's annual report, the estimated cost in 2001–02 of the HIPC 100 per cent. policy of debt relief will be £8.5 million. That sounds like peanuts, but as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, only 26 of the 42 countries eligible for the HIPC scheme have qualified, and only four have reached completion and had a proportion of their debt written off, so we are only at the beginning of the process.
Therefore, despite the Chancellor's announcement of the cancellation of 100 per cent. debt for the first 20 countries in the scheme, hardly any of the debt has yet been cancelled. As eligible countries qualify for the scheme, the cost of the 100 per cent. policy will grow, but it appears that it will be set against DFID's accounts and that the increase in aid that the Chancellor announced may be eaten up by the growing cost of debt relief. In that case, there is an even stronger argument for the proportion of national income that is spent on ODA to approach the 0.7 per cent. UN target at a much faster rate. Otherwise, I suspect that we will not be getting what we thought we were getting.
I hope that the Under-Secretary—I assume that he will make the winding-up speech—will tell us what the true level of overseas aid will be minus the debt relief sums, if they are to be included. I have tabled questions to the Treasury on the subject and it has sent me the usual

511
response: that it will reply as soon as possible. I have yet to receive a reply, but we have a right to know by exactly how much the aid budget is being increased and whether it will continue to include money for debt relief.
Clare Short: The hon. Lady makes an important point that concerns not only the UK, but the whole international system. About half the debt of the 42 countries in question is owed to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other multilateral institutions, while the other half is export credit debt to countries such as ours. Once the countries get into the HIPC process, they will stop paying, so relief is provided to more countries than just those that have completed the process. When the export credit debt is written off—that is happening, and the process is acting as leverage for a lot of good reform—it then counts towards ODA-GNP targets.
My Department's budget is the figures that we can see, and that money is not being spent on the debt relief. In the UK and everywhere else, when the debt is written off, it counts towards the ODA-GNP target. I hope that those comments are helpful, as they explain how the international system works. The ODA-GNP targets grow as debt is written off.
Dr. Tonge: I am not completely convinced. I accept the Secretary of State's explanation, but I still think that a bit of double accounting—it used to be called creative accounting in local government—is going on. I think that we are being told that more is being done than is actually happening, and that the overseas aid increase is not as big as it seems because other considerations are being taken into account. As the Secretary of State knows, I would defend her and the Department to the death if necessary for the work that they do. [Laughter.] How about that? However, I would not defend the Treasury, the Foreign Office or the Department of Trade and Industry. I am always watching very carefully what those bounders are up to, because they are always trying to pull the wool over our eyes and I think that the Department for International Development sometimes requires a bit of support. I shall leave that subject hanging in the air in the hope of getting a satisfactory response, perhaps from the Treasury, in future weeks.
The millennium goals are mentioned extensively in the report. We all know that they relate to reducing poverty, provision of primary education for all, and maternal and child mortality. I suspect that most hon. Members would assume that with my medical background, I would want desperately to deal with health issues. I do not. I am still hooked on the Prime Minister's concept of education, education, education. There is nothing quite like it in the whole world, and the fact that we are pushing towards primary education for everyone by 2015 is commendable. It is difficult to decide on the most important factor in development, and we have had endless arguments in the Chamber about what should come first, but education runs through all of them.
Some 120 million children of primary school age are still without proper education. I think that 53 per cent. of girls—and 74 per cent. of those living in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa—do not go to school. One of the most touching sights in the developing world, especially in Africa, is the droves of little children in pristine uniforms marching to school out of their straw huts, shanty residences or wherever they live. The sight of them
512
leaving happily and proudly is such a contrast with that of our children creeping like snails unwillingly to school. It is very refreshing to visit the country and see their enthusiasm.
In Bangladesh, one can see tiny children as well as older ones working in boiling heat all day to make bricks, but then having the energy to go joyfully into a schoolroom until sunset, so that they can learn something. Indeed, having done all that hard work, they believe that they are privileged to be able to do so. We must never forget how marvellous education is.
Africa has the lowest average primary school completion rate in the world. We know that many children drop out of school because of family commitments or the need for extra income. Of the 70 developing countries that have already built enough schools to educate all their children, only 27 retain 100 per cent. of children in school through to primary graduation. They are falling out of education rapidly; adult female literacy in developing countries declined in 2000 from 39 to 31 per cent.
I want to turn now, as the Secretary of State will expect, to a matter that concerns me hugely. She knows that I have recently returned from a visit to Sudan with the all-party group on Sudan. I hope that all its members will concur with what I shall say. There has been only one decade of peace in that country. Almost one in five children in the south die before they are five, but only about one in three children countrywide go to school. The adult literacy rate is less than 15 per cent. in conflict zones and it is rare to find anyone in southern Sudan who can read or write.
Some donors, including our Government, feel that education is development and that development cannot occur in conflict situations. I want briefly to run through the reasons why I think that we should try to reverse that policy. Education is considered to be long-term development, but UNICEF says that education must play a part in every emergency. It certainly does so when refugee camps are set up; there is always a school tent for the children. Surely the Department for International Development's definition of emergency assistance could be widened to include education. A large resource input would not be necessary. Southern Sudan is not asking for schoolrooms; its schoolrooms are big trees in the countryside.
Clare Short rose—
Dr. Tonge: Perhaps the right hon. Lady could wait until I have given all my reasons.
Southern Sudan does not need big schoolrooms; it simply needs a few teachers—and more money to train them—who can move around with the population, which frequently has to move, as well as some chalk, slates, blackboards and a few books. We are talking about very basic resources. It does not need many resources. A better educated population, especially women, can help towards the peace process in southern Sudan. The more people are educated there, the more they will be able to recognise the risks of continuing conflict. Education should be seen as a basic resource.
Clare Short rose—
Dr. Tonge: I want to make a couple of other points before I give way.

513
UNICEF has said that educational activities—including those involving parents and members of the community—play an important part in building the community. We know how much civil society has suffered in southern Sudan and how much it needs educated people who can help to rebuild it. The people themselves say that education is what they want most, apart from peace. They want their children to go to school. If we are to prevent conflict and try to broker peace, we must concentrate more on education.
The kind of help and facilities that the people are asking for could travel with the population. We must remember that 80 per cent. of southern Sudan is at peace most of the time; the conflict has not been in the entire region all the time. It moves around, and the people there say that the facilities that they need could move around with the population. I shall now give way to the Secretary of State.
Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The answer to her question is yes, the humanitarian support for displaced and refugee children should always include education. The quality of the humanitarian effort in Sudan has been very poor. Until recently, 90 per cent. of the support was spent on aeroplanes, and only a tiny amount of the quite big expenditure was getting through to the people. After my visit, I sent one of our humanitarian advisers to get a commitment from the Government and from the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in the south that they would allow us to work with them to enhance the quality of the humanitarian effort. That includes getting children into school, although not yet as part of the rebuilding of the state—that will come after peace—but as part of the enhanced humanitarian support that will get displaced and refugee children into school. We will be working on that.
Dr. Tonge: That is excellent news. I hope that all the members of the all-party group who went to Sudan will have heard that; we shall come knocking on the Secretary of State's door asking for details very soon.
Like the hon. Member for Leeds, West, I am increasingly of the opinion that, although those countries need aid for education, health and clean water, they need trade and investment more than anything. If we look at the countries that have made progress, they are those that have trade and investment. I therefore endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. The Secretary of State mentioned the World Trade Organisation. We must strengthen that organisation instead of constantly denigrating it. People in this country should realise that, if the WTO were strengthened and had more representation from developing countries, it could be such a force for good in the world. Developing countries desperately need trade.
I shall refer quickly to commodity prices, which continue to cause instability in countries that depend on such income. Coffee is the perfect example, and problems are looming again in that respect: the price of coffee has fallen by 70 per cent. since 1997. I remind the House that a fall in coffee prices was one of the factors that triggered the Rwandan genocide. Trade issues must be watched carefully, because they can trigger much worse events in the world.
514
At the G8 summit in June, the Government must propose tariff and quota-free access to all exports from the least developed countries by 2005. We must make progress on that. The everything but arms initiative, which the hon. Member for Meriden mentioned, must be expanded to include tariff and quota-free rice, sugar and bananas from the least developed countries. We have to give on these matters. The common agricultural policy, which is fast becoming a sick joke because of the time it is taking to reform it, has to be revised and agreed by EU leaders.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady—with whom I enjoyed a happy week in Sudan—for giving way. My intervention is not on Sudan, however, but on the CAP. It has to be reformed. I think that everyone in the Chamber who is concerned about international development agrees on the impact that it has on the agriculture of developing countries, in terms of export subsidy and so on. What evidence does the hon. Lady have that it will be reformed?
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. I have no evidence, except that Minister after Minister—including the Prime Minister—in this Government and the last one have always said that it would be reformed. This is a matter of the utmost urgency. If the European Union is to expand—my party and I hope that it will—we must reform the CAP. Those two events go together, and we simply have to get on with it. The only evidence I have, however, is what people say. The hon. Gentleman suggests that that is all talk and no action, and I agree with him that that seems to be the case at the moment.
Foreign direct investment in developing countries increased from $24 billion in 1990 to $184 billion in 1999. It dropped, however, to $167 billion in 2000, and only 6 per cent. of that capital ended up in the poorest parts of the world. Most private capital goes to Latin America, eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It worries me that the Commonwealth Development Corporation was the only organisation that would go into areas where there were civil wars or undemocratic Governments. The CDC dealt with that kind of situation. No company wanting a 25 per cent. return on its activities will go into an unstable situation. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) wants to expand on that, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter that we are concerned about.
Multinationals sometimes invest in developing countries, although their investment does not always reduce the poverty there. Irresponsible investment and employment practices can contribute to poverty and economic insecurity. I should not have to remind the House of all the campaigns that have gone on over the years against multinationals because of their activities in developing countries. The problem is that they are still not subject to regulation on an international scale.
The OECD guidelines are good, worthy and beautiful, but there is nothing to make the multinationals adhere to them. I have recently been made aware of an organisation called the UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. It is an organisation to which people can complain if they think

515
that a multinational is behaving badly somewhere in the world. I understand, however, that no submissions have been made to it so far.
We need those OECD guidelines to be legally binding, please. Then multinationals could not compete with one another for bad practice, but they would have to compete for good. I feel quite optimistic about that matter, as companies have taken on board a lot of the messages from the demonstrations and all the fuss that the NGOs have made about their activities and world trade.
Many multinationals are thinking about all that or are at least publishing glossy brochures that show the wonderful things that they are doing in the countries where they operate. That is a great leap forward. Companies such as Rio Tinto are much better and are taking that agenda on, but the guidelines must be legally binding. That is the only way to achieve corporate social responsibility in the long run.
The House has been very indulgent. I have touched on only a few issues, and there are many others that I could mention. The report tells us many things, but it does not provide a genuine feeling as to whether the millennium goals will be achieved. I guess that we could not hope for that. I still fear that HIV/AIDS and continuing civil wars will prevent the world from making great progress in the next 20 years, although I hope that I am wrong. I am particularly worried about the consequences of HIV.
Nevertheless, I congratulate the Department on the work that it does. Its civil servants must surely be the most dedicated and successful at Westminster. I am also pleased by the extraordinary number of Members in the Chamber. It is a credit to the Department, the Secretary of State and the Minister that so many are here. At first, I wondered whether Members were avoiding the local elections, but perhaps I am being too cruel. I congratulate Members very much on their attendance, as it shows how seriously the issue is being taken and how extremely important it is.
3.32 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I apologise to the House, as I am unable to be present for the winding-up speeches. I must attend a constituency event to which I had agreed before the debate was timetabled.
I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on her departmental report. I shall concentrate on two core issues, which should be prominent in any discussion on international development. The first is partnership. As expressed in the New Partnership for Africa's Development initiative, partnership for development is invaluable. Following last week's meeting in Dakar, it continues to gain momentum and, as a home-grown African initiative, it deserves our full support.
Inherent in the idea of partnership is equal relations. It is time to move from the hierarchical relations based on who gives and who receives aid. We all understand that aid is essential, but it is a drop in the ocean in terms of real and sustained development across the world. Only through fair trade can countries create economic prosperity.
Interestingly, a debate on European Union, British and American relations is taking place in Westminster Hall. It is always difficult when two debates that may cover the same subject are going on at the same time. We in Europe
516
and north America must open our markets to emerging economies as they are opening theirs to us. As the Secretary of State, the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, continuing high EU farming subsidies are a major barrier to fairer trade for African horticultural exporters. And so say all of us in the Chamber.
For that reason, it is imperative that developing countries make every effort to use their muscle at World Trade Organisation meetings and other trade-related conferences. For all the bad press that the WTO receives, it is still one of the few international organisations that is run on a one member, one vote system. As such, it is more democratic than the United Nations or the World Bank can ever claim to be.
Encouraging and facilitating the growth of less powerful voices in such arenas should be part of the Department's mandate, and discussions in which real partnership can be forged through negotiations must also be encouraged. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the need to enshrine in law the guidelines for multinationals. Also, I very much welcome the WTO negotiations on the so-called Singapore issues of investment and competition, which are due to start next year.
However, we must think more deeply about which industries can produce the sustainable development that so many countries require. Export orientation certainly provides a good route map, but it must be coupled with diversification. Mono-economies are vulnerable and, in many cases, unsustainable. It is imperative that the growth of industries such as mining is coupled with a corporate social responsibility agenda.
In Ghana, for example, to say that foreign exchange is like gold dust is a truism—gold is indeed the Government's major source of foreign exchange and an absolute necessity. Yet many mining corporations in some countries have left environmental and social problems that will take decades to rectify. I welcome next month's mining, minerals and sustainable development conference in Canada, which offers an unprecedented opportunity to change the culture of the mining industry for the better.
On my recent visit to Ghana, I was impressed by the efforts of Ashanti Goldfields in the Wassa West area of western Ghana, in co-operation with the local community, to return land used for mining to sustainable agricultural use. I hope that NGOs such as the Third World Network take up the invitation to discuss with Ashanti Goldfields their concerns about mining operations in western Ghana. I believe that many are unfounded, and it is extremely important that local NGOs take up the opportunities offered by multinationals operating in their countries—especially those, I have to say, in which the Ghanaian Government have a golden share—and get those matters dealt with.
Given that the resources of all the multilateral banks combined are dwarfed by those of the private sector, it is important that an investment-friendly environment is created to encourage businesses to invest in emerging economies. Interestingly, Unilever's best investment area in the world is Africa, where it achieves an overall rate of return of more than 35 per cent. on capital employed. However, economic and, indeed, political stability are

517
precursors of such investment, and international donors can help to create the right climate for long-term private sector interest.
Trade in services is also important. Returning to Ghana, it is clear that urban water provision requires investment on a scale not possible solely through governmental channels. I hope that Christian Aid in this country listens to Ghanaian civil society in terms of some allegations that are being made. I am pleased to hear that my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Richmond Park, is visiting that country shortly. I note from the report that the Department has already helped South Africa and Guyana with arrangements similar to those proposed for Ghana.
Private sector involvement in providing essential services is necessary in many areas, but any trade in services must he fairly and transparently regulated to ensure that the best possible route to sustainable service provision is found. Partnership between Governments and the private sector is imperative to improving services for expanding populations in many developing countries.
The second major point that I want to emphasise is international responsibility. The route to sustainable development is trade rather than aid, but it is clear that many countries are not in a position successfully to integrate into the world economy. As the conclusions of the last NEPAD meeting show, many national leaders face impossible situations.
Ravaged by conflict, countries such as Sierra Leone and its less internationally popular neighbour, Liberia, cannot expect trade to solve their ills in the next few years. The people of Sierra Leone hope for free and fair elections as well as a responsible and honest leadership, but even if those elusive goals are achieved, what of the thousands of soldiers who spent their youth with a semi-automatic weapon as a companion? They must be demobilised and reintegrated. In Sierra Leone, the dedication of the United Kingdom Government provides hope for the future through funding of reintegration programmes, training of the national army and assistance to the innocent civilians who have lost everything to war.
However, across the border in Liberia the international community has had good grounds to be more cautious in providing assistance. The relative lack of outside support has allowed peace to become an even more illusive goal. Under Charles Taylor, Liberia has regressed into violence. Those who suffered at the hands of out-of-control rebels in the 1990 war forget nothing, and will not bow to a Taylor Government. The contrast between the relative success of post-conflict reconstruction in Liberia and Sierra Leone shows clearly how much international support can achieve. I ask the Secretary of State to consider support for the situation in Liberia.
It is important to outline again and again the idea of international responsibility, which should be borne in mind given the recent stunted progress at Sun City in South Africa in the InterCongolese Dialogue. Post-conflict countries require our support, through aid and technical assistance. Without such support, they have the capacity to destabilise entire regions.
Thus, the international community has a responsibility to help countries to pull themselves out of destructive and debilitating conflicts, and out of the poverty that can be both a cause and an effect of such destruction.
518
I had hoped that, in her opening speech, the Secretary of State would shed more light on what was discussed at World Bank-International Monetary Fund spring meetings. Perhaps the Minister will be able to elucidate those issues in his winding-up speech, which I regret I shall have to read in Hansard. Last week, the Chancellor expressed clearly the current high level of political will to combat poverty and instability. I welcome the open and frank discussions on the important issues of sustainable debt and expanding the HIPC initiative.
In a similar vein, the recent experience of Argentina has opened up a debate on the possibility of creating mechanisms for dealing with country bankruptcy. That is a most welcome move, and I hope that there will be further discussions leading to agreement on a way forward on this issue. I congratulate Anne Krueger, the IMF deputy managing director, for her work so far, and I look forward to concrete proposals being put to the next IMF meeting this autumn.
The G24 also proposed that the rich countries should allocate a proportion of their special drawing rights to a special development fund. There is now a high level of agreement that far greater funds are needed for development, and the use of special drawing rights may be a way forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide information on how the debate on that has moved. I understand that there was a 40 per cent. vote in favour of that proposal at the World Bank-IMF autumn meetings. How far have we moved to get consensus and agreement on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Marshall aid plan for development?
The other point that the Chancellor made in that excellent pamphlet was that other revenue-raising mechanisms could be used at an international level to provide further funds for development. A tax on international currency speculation was one of the most promising proposals, and could raise the enormous sums needed. More and more economists are beginning to realise that such a tax is technically and administratively feasible if collected through settlement transactions. The new settlement transaction system is going live this month. I welcome the open-minded approach taken in the UK and in Europe on this issue, and hope to see further constructive discussion.
It is imperative that the hierarchical nature of international development relations in the past is replaced with 21st century partnerships. At the same time, the international community must recognise its responsibility to countries that are unable to engage with the global economy. For that reason, aid must be focused on the least-developed countries and the poorest groups.
I commend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor on their work. They realise that we still have a long way to go to achieve effective financing of our development goals, and they are leading the way by pushing for international responsibilities to be met in a spirit of international partnership.
3.44 pm
Tony Baldry: I am glad that Government business managers have made time for a debate on international development. Immediately after the publication of the departmental report is obviously a good time for such a debate. The Select Committee on International Development will study the report with care.

519
This week has also seen the publication of the Select Committee's report on the effectiveness of European development assistance. Eight members of the Select Committee are present for this debate. Two of them have already spoken: the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Putney (Mr. Colman) both made excellent speeches, and I agree with everything they said. I hope that outside and inside the House it will be felt that Select Committee members can collectively make useful judgments, and can individually bring useful experience to bear. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will describe his recent experiences in Sudan, and the Select Committee yesterday heard about the moving experiences of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) in Jenin. I hope that that collective experience is of value to the House.
An enormous amount is happening in international development, any part of which could justifiably form the substance of a full day's debate. The year 2000 saw the publication of the United Nations millennium goals, which set some clear and unambiguous targets that we have to achieve between now and 2015, including halving the number of those who live on less than $1 a day, ensuring that children everywhere are able to complete a universal primary education, and halting, and hopefully reversing, the spread of HIV and AIDS. There is a total of 18 straightforward targets for the international community to achieve.
We must recognise that the pace of progress towards reaching the millennium goals is different in different parts of the world. As the Secretary of State said, China, with an annual growth rate of something like 9 per cent., will comfortably meet those targets. However, I note that the Department for International Development and the Treasury, in their recently published joint report "The Case for Aid for the Poorest Countries", acknowledge that on current trends sub-Saharan Africa will fail to meet the 2015 goals.
Chapter 4 of the departmental annual report helpfully shows how we are doing in meeting the millennium development goals, and illustrates each goal with a useful, clear graph showing progress to date and the rate of progress needed to meet the targets. Everyone can look at those diagrams, but by my calculations, on two of the targets we are well on track, on two of them we are well ahead, but on the other 14 there is still a substantial distance to go, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, as shown by the graphs on page 59.
This year, there will be three important development-related conferences. We have already had the WTO conference at Doha. It is important to recognise that Doha was not the finish but the start of what will almost certainly he a number of years of painstaking and detailed negotiations on reforming the system of world trade. It is vital that poorer nations obtain fair access to developed markets, and that the fine words and good intentions of WTO members at the outset are not overwhelmed by mercantilist self-interests in the detailed negotiations.
I should like to make two points about the Doha and world trade negotiations. Agribusiness, which means maximising the return on agriculture and primary production, is the foremost activity for many poorer countries. If they do not get greater access to developed markets for their agricultural produce, there is little prospect of their improving their standard of living.
520
At present, the common agricultural policy is one of the most protectionist trade regimes in the world. Indeed, not only does it make it very difficult for agricultural produce from poorer countries often to make it on to the shelves of our shops, but it encourages agricultural practices that lead to the dumping of surplus European produce in poorer countries, further undermining their farmers' ability to earn a living. When the International Development. Committee was recently in Ghana, it was very noticeable that the supermarket shelves were stacked with tins of tomatoes from Italy. That is hardly necessary in a country such as Ghana, which produces excellent tomatoes of its own but which all too often lacks the investment and infrastructure to process them. However, I suspect that so many Italian tomatoes were in Ghana because, in effect, they had been dumped there by the European Union.
European Union spending on agricultural export subsidies dwarfs EU development assistance. Access to European markets, including those for key agricultural products such as sugar, rice and beef, continues to be restricted. In this week's Select Committee report on EC development assistance, we said we agree with Chris Patten that
"the most important issue that we will have to resolve as a Union and as a Commission in order to convince developing countries that we really have their interests at heart is the whole issue of CAP reform".
We unanimously observed that it is
"time that the EU hacked up its warm words with good deeds and made concrete progress with removing export subsidies and improving access to the EU market."
We could also extensively debate the concern that many developing countries' efforts to deal with their HIV/AIDS crises are hampered by disagreements about intellectual property rights—another WTO issue. Theirs is a tragedy of monumental proportions. Only last week, it was estimated that HIV/AIDS is now so widespread in South Africa alone that many people there will die before the age of 40, and that in the not too distant future AIDS will cut life expectancy to 38.
I hope that there will be a positive response to two measures introduced in the Budget: the new tax credit to encourage companies to increase research into vaccines and medicines for the prevention of malaria, TB and AIDS; and the new tax relief to encourage donations of medical supplies and equipment to developing countries. Hopefully, the new tax credit will be a further incentive for the UK pharmaceutical industry to focus its attention on this important work.
Doha was followed by Monterrey, and the good news at the financing for development conference was that the United States did come forward with substantial extra money—up to $5 billion extra each year. However, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West that there is still more that the United States can do. We need collectively to engage with colleagues in the US Congress, and with non-governmental organisations and other development organisations in America.
However, I suspect that a much clearer commitment needs to be made at Monterrey on meeting pledges to the global health fund so that progress on health can be made. An assurance needs to be given that no developing country's national strategy for meeting the 2015 education target will fail through lack of the funding that would enable them to move forward on education.

521
The Chancellor of the Exchequer frequently mentions the UK's objective of meeting the 0.7 per cent. target, but, importantly, we have no timetable. That is perhaps understandable, as to meet the target the Chancellor would have to double current funding to DFID, but it is surely possible to establish a process and to find a form of words that demonstrate a clear commitment. For example, we could aggressively seek to meet our target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product for overseas development by, say, 2012.
Although the sums for increased development that were outlined at Monterrey are welcome and represent real progress, the Budget Red Book confirms that
"they still fall short of the aid levels necessary to achieve the Millennium Development Goals…which the World Bank estimates will require $40 to $60 billion each year."
I should be grateful for some clarification from the Minister. On page 107, the Red Book notes that, in November 2001,
"the Chancellor proposed an International Development Trust Fund".
On Tuesday, the Select Committee took evidence from those development NGOs that had been particularly involved in the Monterrey process. None had any details about that international development trust fund. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what the Chancellor is proposing, and how much substance the fund has to date. The Red Book suggests that the fund will lever in private sector finance. Again, it is unclear how that will be achieved. Will it constitute a private finance initiative for international development?
Rather than setting up a new mechanism such as an international development trust fund, about which people seem to have heard little, why not seek to achieve the 0.7 per cent. commitment sooner, rather than later? I draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the Minister to early-day motion 386, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, and which has attracted signatures from 232 Members. It simply calls on the Government to make a firm commitment to achieving the 0.7 per cent. target by 2012, and the 0.4 per cent. target by 2006. That is surely achievable, and perhaps such a straightforward commitment would be easier for everyone to understand than the setting up of yet another fund.
What is certain is that 2015 is not far away, and, according to the Treasury's own estimates, $40 billion to $60 billion a year remains a fairly substantial shortfall.
Norman Lamb: Has the hon. Gentleman been successful in achieving agreement within his own party about the essential importance of achieving the 0.7 per cent. target within a specified time scale?
Tony Baldry: My hon. Friends on the Front Bench can speak for themselves, but I do not think that any division, dissent or lack of commitment exists among Conservative Members in respect of meeting the 0.7 per cent. target. However, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who is winding up for the Opposition, will have heard the comments that were made, and he will doubtless respond. I would hope that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have signed the early-day motion to which I referred.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the latest recommendation of the Environmental
522
Audit Committee, which has been examining preparations for the world summit on sustainable development? The Committee also called for a timetable for reaching the 0.7 per cent. GDP target, so across the parties, the evidence, and the pressure on the Government, is increasing.
Tony Baldry: That is a timely intervention. As I was about to say, Monterrey will be followed in September by the world summit on sustainable development—the last in the trilogy of summits, at Doha, Monterrey and Johannesburg. The Environmental Audit Committee has published an excellent report on the UK's preparations for the summit, and I hope that, through the Liaison Committee, time can be found to debate it extensively, whether here or in Westminster Hall. Perhaps it could be debated together with the report that the International Development Committee will shortly be publishing on the impact of climate change on development. I should point out to those hon. Members who have not read the Environmental Audit Committee's report on preparations for Johannesburg that it is well worth reading.
Everyone will support the Government's approach at Johannesburg, which will be to push issues such as poverty eradication and access to clean water, rather than climate change and biodiversity, for which frameworks of action have largely been agreed. Poverty remains the central threat to achieving sustainable development. A commitment to working for a sustainable planet is in no way inconsistent with a commitment to ensuring that the world's poor can access development, or to a commitment that, wherever possible, all will be done to help lift them out of poverty. Work by the Environmental Audit Committee and some evidence taken by the International Development Committee have suggested that tension exists between environmental NGOs and developmental NGOs, but I hope that there is no conflict. If poor countries are to prosper, they need sustainable development, and we must find ways to take forward that process.
Doha, Monterrey and Johannesburg are part of a continuing process and will be important in ensuring—through debates such as these, which I hope will be annual—that the international community is delivering year on year on the promises made at these conferences. We could spend a whole day debating EC development assistance. After all, a quarter of DFID's budget is channelled through the EC. The good news is that the European Community is the fourth largest donor of development aid; the bad news is that precious little of that money goes towards helping poor countries. Indeed, a shrinking share of Europe's development assistance goes to the poor.
In 2000, the proportion of EU development assistance spent in low-income countries reached a new low. None of the top 10 recipients of EU aid is a poor country. Poland receives more development from Europe than the whole of Asia and Latin America combined. At the moment, far too little of Europe's development budget is being used to tackle poverty, and far too much of it is being used in pursuing the wider foreign policy objectives of other European member states. The Select Committee came to the straightforward conclusion that money earmarked for development aid should be targeted on the poorest, and that EU development aid could be deployed more effectively.

523
There is much more for us to debate. With regard to conflict and defence sales, we will shortly have the opportunity to debate the Export Control Bill when it returns to this House. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments on sustainable development that were passed in the other place. It would be a pity if the Government used their majority in this House to remove from the Bill the commitment to sustainable development. If they do, it is difficult to see what the Bill is about.
We have heard that India is the recipient of the largest amount of UK bilateral aid, and the country strategy paper on India shows that that is because a third of the world's poor live there. However, I hope that I am not alone in being at a loss to explain why we give substantial development aid to India—it has within its borders one third of all the world's poor, and yet we are about to grant export licences to the same country for defence equipment worth £1 billion. That £1 billion is equivalent to 10 years' worth of UK bilateral aid to India at the same level. In effect, we are removing from the Government of India the obligation to pay for the defence equipment themselves, as they are able to use the bilateral aid money for that purpose.
Of course, I realise that other factors, such as jobs and employment, must be taken into consideration. However, the provisions on sustainable development in the Export Control Bill need to be firm commitments. Otherwise, many people will feel that it is a rather weasel-worded Bill.
Mr. Robathan: On that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that the enormously expensive development of nuclear weapons by India—God knows how much it has cost—sits rather ill with the fact that that country receives aid from us, and from other countries?
Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry this week in which I raised very similar matters, but I shall not try the patience of the House by repeating my comments today.
On debt relief, Select Committee members saw for ourselves in Ghana—which has now achieved HIPC status—the enormous benefit that can be achieved by reducing debt and thus helping to reduce poverty. The sums involved are not insignificant: so far 26 countries receive debt relief worth $62 billion under the HIPC initiative, but debt relief must lead to a sustainable exit from indebtedness.
I am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister have seen early-day motion 736, which was initiated by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). It has been signed by 321 hon. Members, and I doubt whether any such motion has attracted so many signatures. It calls for the acceleration of debt cancellation under the HIPC process, and I hope very much that the Government will bear it in mind.
I shall conclude with two brief points, the first of which has to do with Africa. At one end of the scale, a number of large multinational organisations such as Ashanti Goldfields or Shell are doing very well in Africa, and, at the other end of the scale, huge numbers of traders continue the entrepreneurial trading that they have conducted for centuries. Between those two groups, however, there is a huge "missing middle" of small and medium-sized businesses.
524
It was depressing to be told by the representatives of the World Bank in Ghana—which is a good example of an African economy—that the quickest way to make money was to import goods and shift them as speedily as possible. That is how entrepreneurial people make money in Ghana. When DFID next reviews its country strategy plans, I hope that, where appropriate, it might consider what further support and help can be given to the private sector, to the encouragement of enterprise and, in particular, to the development of medium-sized businesses in developing nations.
My final point has been firmly underlined by the NEPAD initiative, and concerns a matter raised already by the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. It is that, if development is to work, it has to be a partnership. The NEPAD conclusions refer to mutual interests, shared commitments and binding agreements. The phrase "good governance" is not simply some slogan: there has to be proper democratic accountability for countries to succeed. We need to move on beyond the systems that exist in too many developing countries where, it strikes me, governance is still a matter of patronage from the top and petitioning from the bottom, rather than of democratic accountability, of Governments accounting to elected politicians, and of those politicians in turn accounting to their constituents.
As the Secretary of State noted, if Africa is to move forward, Nigeria has to move forward. Those of us who went to Nigeria saw only too clearly that that country has to convince the rest of the world that it is bearing down on corruption and that it is determined to take forward good governance.
In conclusion, I find the statistics on development almost overwhelming sometimes. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said that something like 120 million children still lack primary education. I find it difficult to visualise 120 million children, so when I go overseas now I take photographs—of children, elderly people, and women at work—and put them on the kitchen wall at home. The photographs remind me that the people in them are individuals who deserve our support.
The photograph on the front cover of the Department's annual report is very telling. It shows a woman working with others to hew out a future for herself. What we are involved in is not a matter of millions or billions of people, but comes down to showing solidarity with and support for every single woman who wants a better life for herself, her family and her children.
4.7 pm
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I shall not speak for too long, as not much time is left for all the hon. Members who wish to contribute. However, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her Department on their efforts to address the problem of poverty in the world, as well as on the informative report that they have produced. I am pleased to be able to contribute to today's debate as a member of the Select Committee on International Development.
Successes or failures are perhaps harder to quantify in international development than in the work of any other Department, as they depend on so many factors beyond the Department's control. However, the Department has invested huge sums of money in many of the world's poor and developing countries to tackle the issues of education, health and poverty.

525
Mention has been made of India. I come from India, and retain an interest in it. It is a huge country, with enormous resources. The money being given to India is being used properly to reduce poverty, and I do not agree with my Select Committee colleague the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that the Government should not consider supplying arms to the country.
Results in reducing poverty across the globe cannot be achieved by one Department in one country. They can be achieved only through partnerships between developed and developing nations, and between Governments and their peoples. Events in the past year have shown that we live in an increasingly integrated world where suffering cannot be ignored, even if it is far away. Failure to address poverty and disenchantment in a single country can have repercussions across the globe.
The Department for International Development has clearly worked hard in the past 12 months and there are a number of achievements with which it should be pleased. One is in the area of sustainable development, which the Brundtland commission defined as
"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
The topic is particularly relevant this year as countries prepare for a United Nations summit on the issue in Johannesburg in September. I am pleased with the conclusions reached through the Department's work with the OECD Development Assistance Committee and the UN that good poverty reduction strategies should contain the elements necessary for strategic planning for sustainable development. Unfortunately, as was pointed out in a report published last December by the United Nations Economic and Social Council, progress towards the goals laid out in Rio de Janeiro at the conference on environment and development has been slower than expected. Indeed, the report suggests that in some respects, conditions are worse than they were 10 years ago.
I am not pleased with the attitude of the present United States Administration, who have shown a disregard for environmental concerns. As the United States is the major power of the industrialised world—and also the largest consumer of resources—I would have expected better leadership from it.
The poor quality of many people's living environment results in the deaths of millions each year. To take just one example, the World Health Organisation estimates that about 2.1 million people—the vast majority of whom live in developing countries—die annually from indoor air pollution. One reason for the continuing problems is undoubtedly the failure of many developing nations—and developed nations, for that matter—to integrate sustainable development fully into Government policy. Instead, it is often treated as a stand-alone issue and passed to a separate environmental department. We need to work with developing countries to ensure that sustainable development is treated seriously by all sectors of government.
Another area that DFID has addressed, and which seems particularly appropriate to mention today, on Africa malaria day, is disease. Several hundred million people annually continue to be infected with malaria, which
526
results in nearly 300 million clinical cases and 1 million deaths a year. The deterioration in health structures, migration, poverty and the emergence of drug-resistant parasites has meant that the problem is actually getting worse in some countries.
It is estimated that economic growth in African countries where the disease is endemic has been slowed by up to 1.3 per cent. this year. I am pleased, therefore, that the UK played a leading role last year in securing a commitment from the G8 countries to a global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
The Department has also tried to address the dreadful problem of HIV/AIDS. Last year it published its strategy for its contribution to tackling the disease, which has a devastating effect on people in many countries. I have been to countries in Africa with a parliamentary delegation, and we saw the devastating effects of the disease on the lives of many people—on their life expectancy, current development and future well-being.
During the 1990s, life expectancy declined by 6.3 years in the nine countries hardest hit, and there are currently about 36 million adults and children living with HIV/AIDS. The situation is exacerbated by two factors. The first is the refusal of many leaders—often for cultural or political reasons—to accept that there is a problem. One example of that, I am afraid, is India, where officials have frequently played down the problem. Similarly, South Africa's president has also failed to accept the international consensus on HIV/AIDS.
It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, when HIV hit Thailand, its Government prepared an aggressive campaign to provide information to the groups most at risk. Thailand spends more than 60 cents per person on HIV, whereas India spends a little less than 6 cents. Mr. Sarkar of the United Nations AIDS programme for south Asia has expressed his concern that the epidemic in India has not peaked and is unlikely to stabilise, because of a lack of education and intervention.
The second problem is the slightly simplistic approach taken by many to the problem. I believe that the message about HIV has been hampered by the focus on drugs patents, specifically for drugs to treat the disease. It is a simple fact that even if the drugs were provided free, Governments could not afford to distribute them, especially in a country the size of India. Also, the drugs must be taken properly. Some have to be refrigerated, which is often not possible, some have to be taken at certain times, and some with eight glasses of fresh water a day and at regular intervals. Some drugs can make people very ill.
For those reasons, many sufferers cannot continue their course of drugs; they start taking them and then stop. Starting and stopping is particularly dangerous, because it allows HIV the opportunity to adapt and become resistant, thus making many current treatments useless in the future. A recent study in San Francisco, with all its medical sophistication and experience, has predicted that by 2005 nearly half of all HIV patients in the city will no longer respond to their current treatment.
The emphasis on drugs in developing countries has shifted attention away from prevention and has left ill-informed populations with the impression that there is a cure—in which case, why should they change their habits? It is important to educate people. It is essential that DFID works with Governments around the world to

527
address the issue, and that heads of state in developing nations recognise the problem and take the necessary action. Failure to do so will be nothing short of devastating.
The Department appears to have achieved much in the past year; we should not forget the untying of aid. It is encouraging to note that peer review of the Department by the OECD Development Assistance Committee has welcomed many of the changes made since 1997. It says that the UK's approach demonstrates the value that bilateral aid agencies can add through contributions to international policy debates and by monitoring the implementation of international undertakings.
We can achieve a great deal and make a real difference to people's lives if we work together. We cannot do it on our own. The report is good, and we must continue to consider the problems faced by the international community.
4.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), my colleague on the International Development Committee. As he knows, I share his concern about the impact of AIDS on the developing world. I am glad that he raised it.
During the past four years, as a member of the Committee, I have had the good fortune—usually—to visit many countries in Africa, including, among others, Rwanda, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Swaziland. Over the past nine months, I have visited Eritrea, to see mine clearance: Congo, with the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention; and Ghana and Nigeria, with the Select Committee. Only two weeks ago, I visited Sudan, with the all-party group led by my colleague, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
I want to talk specifically about African development and to concentrate on the Congo, Sudan and Nigeria. I recommend to everyone in the House, and to those who accuse us of swanning off around the world, that they do not include any of those countries on their list of holiday destinations. I want to examine how the situation in those countries can shed light on NEPAD—the New Partnership for Africa's Development—and whether it supports President Mbeki's proclamation of the African renaissance that he wants to see in the new millennium.
I visited the Congo last August. Congolese people described the country as the heart of Africa. Many people will know of Joseph Conrad's powerful story, "Heart of Darkness", which was set in the Congo. As the Secretary of State mentioned, the country is the same size as western Europe. During the past three years, it has experienced an appalling civil war. That followed the ghastly legacy of Mobutu, which dates back to the cold war, Lumumba and the Belgian colonisation and all that involved.
The country is divided into three areas: the west is controlled from Kinshasa by the Kabila regime; the north-east is ruled by a client government of Uganda; while the south-east is controlled by a client government of Rwanda. None of those ruling groups has any legitimacy. The idea that Kabila should be president of the Congo because his adopted father—murdered a few
528
years ago in suspicious circumstances—was the president lacks credibility; it certainly has no democratic legitimacy.
As many people know, the Rwandans and the Ugandans have legitimate security concerns in the Congo, as well as some less legitimate interests in mineral exploitation. We were told that about 800 sq km of virgin rain forest has been logged out in the area where the Ugandan army is operating. I do not know whether that is true.
In addition, the Zimbabweans appear to be looting diamonds in the south of the country. There were Angolans and Namibians in the country, but I am not certain whether they have pulled out. There are about 4,000 UN troops in the country—not a tremendous presence in a country the size of western Europe.
There is a list of problems. For example, there is an obvious absence of any form of education or health system in large parts of the country. There is grinding poverty and starvation. There are many internally displaced people, with all the difficulties that that entails. More than 2.5 million people have died during the past three years, because of the war and from starvation.
The country is fertile, however. It is rich in minerals and there is fantastic rain forest, which is a resource and a joy, yet there are dreadful problems and the situation does not appear to be improving. As a member of an African NGO said to us: "How beats the heart of Africa?" Not well.
Ten days ago I was in Sudan. Geographically, it is the biggest country in Africa. The south, which we visited, is fertile and the country has oil revenues, but a civil war has raged there for 35 of the past 46 years. About 2 million people have died during the past 19 years. There are 4 million internally displaced people. Slavery is practised by the Baggara—tribes on horseback. That is unbelievable in the 21st century. In the south, the Baggara have been acting as militia for the Government, and they may still be doing so.
There is a northern Government, based in Khartoum, who can be described briefly as a Muslim, Arab Government although the definition is not quite that simple. They have declared a jihad on their own people in the south, who are, in essence, black Africans whose religion is Christian or animist. In both the south and the north, there is appalling poverty; we saw only a tiny bit of it in a week, but we heard of worse things. In the south, I saw poverty such as I have never seen—it was extremely striking. Operation Lifeline Sudan will cost about $160 million this year. Thrown into that melting pot is the fact that between 1991 and 1996, Sudan was the home of Osama bin Laden, with all that that entailed.
The third country that I want to consider is Nigeria. It has the largest population in Africa: between one in four and one in five black Africans live there. The population is about 125 million, and one estimate is that it will probably grow to 141 million by the end of the decade. Corruption is endemic. As the Secretary of State acknowledged, two thirds of the population live in appalling poverty on less than a dollar a day, in an oil-rich country. The revenue from oil alone is $18 billion a year.
The rate of infection from HIV is about 5.8 per cent., yet 95 per cent. of the population use no form of contraception at all. As we left Abuja airport—which is something else—we saw that Abacha's photograph was

529
still displayed. Abacha was so evil that the Select Committee has interviewed representatives of the Nigerian Government, who have demanded the return of the stolen money from UK banks. General Babangida—for many years the military dictator—continues to live in Nigeria in great luxury.
We met the independent commission on corrupt practices—a charming retired judge and his team. I am sure that they are well-meaning. They boasted that during the past six years they had indicted six people, two of whom were border policemen who had accepted a bribe from American travellers who wanted to enter the country. This was the same country where a former military dictator was living in enormous luxury with money looted from his country.
We passed through many checkpoints. At one, I saw a lorry driver throwing money to the police. Later that day, in Kaduna, I accosted a senator and asked him about the incident. He said that the lorry driver was probably just being nice.
Our consideration of NEPAD should start in the heart of Africa, in the largest country, and in the country with the largest population. Yesterday, the Select Committee interviewed representatives from the UNHCR, who pointed out that NEPAD made no mention of refugees and internationally displaced people. The UNHCR provided us with a document that stated:
"The issue of forced displacement has not featured explicitly in the discussions…of NEPAD."
That is a matter of concern as there are so many displaced people around Africa owing to the conflicts there.
NEPAD is of course about development, but it identifies two priorities—peace and security, and governance—as conditions for sustainable development, with all that the two concepts entail. That is sensible, and I am sure that all hon. Members wish NEPAD well. However, action is required, not words, and we need to see evidence of good results, not just statements of good intent.
I am sure that the Secretary of State and her Department would largely agree with what I am saying—generally they have been doing a pretty good job on this and on other matters—so I am not raising a partisan issue. I support the Government in their efforts. I was particularly encouraged by the Secretary of State's comments about looking at the windows for peace in Sudan, Congo and Angola. I am delighted by her optimism, but not 100 per cent. convinced.
We must ask what, if anything, can be done. It is not easy, and none of us would pretend that it is; I certainly do not claim to have solutions. Nevertheless, it is worth considering what can be done in Congo. I saw the Rwandan ambassador yesterday; I think that she is a good person. There is a great security problem in Rwanda. Those hon. Members who have visited the country with the Select Committee on International Development—two or three of those present have done so—know of the awful genocide and what the Interahamwe, who are now in Congo, meant for the Rwandan people.
The international community must ask much more loudly what Zimbabwe is doing in the Congo and what role it is playing in the civil war, financially or otherwise.
530
The Lusaka accords can work—they have a great deal of support—but more pressure must be applied to make them work and to bring about proper inter-Congolese dialogue, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), but seems to have stalled. The international community can help, but it must speak with one voice. When our Belgian counterparts held the presidency of the Commission last year, they tried to broker a deal that recognised the Kabila regime as that which governed the whole of Congo. On what grounds—le fils de papa? It is not good enough, and I appeal to the Government to do yet more.
On Sudan, I applaud the Government. The Secretary of State's visit in January this year, the appointment of former ambassador Goulty as her special representative, and the work of the United States in appointing Senator Danforth, were positive developments, but more is needed. I did not leave Sudan terribly encouraged by what I had seen. IGAD—the Intergovernmental Authority on Development—has the basis of an agreement, but it needs further pressure and support from us, from America, from the United Nations and from countries such as Egypt. Egypt views Sudan as part of what would have been called, during the cold war, its sphere of influence. It is for the Sudanese to determine what happens in Sudan, not for the Egyptians. I commend the Government for what they have done in Sudan, but urge them to do more.
Mr. Drew: As one of the famous four who went to Sudan, I am keen to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say and entirely concur. Does he agree that part of the complexity of the problem is that as many peace formulas are being suggested as there are nations in Africa and, indeed, nations outside Africa, all of which have their own opinions? We need a co-ordinated effort between the north and the south to ensure that peace is secured at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Robathan: I do not want to be drawn too far down that road, because my views on how serious both parties are about achieving peace in Sudan may not assist in doing so.
As we all know, the world has enough problems at the moment. In Sudan there is talk in the press of setting up camps to train mujaheddin to fight in Palestine and/or Afghanistan. That should bring home to us that this is not an isolated issue. The Sudanese Government under President al-Bashir came to power in 1989 with the National Islamic Front, and I believe that we had sanctions against Sudan from 1991 to 1996. Since then, the National Islamic Front has been transformed from a military dictatorship into a civilian Government, still under President al-Bashir and with almost exactly the same members, apart from Turabi. They have no more legitimacy now than they did when they seized power in 1989, neither do they have any more of a democratic mandate or any more justice on their side.
International pressure could bring about a greater chance of peace and greater agreement. The people of the south are determined to have self-determination—that may be another word for independence; who can tell?—and want a referendum. The Sudanese Government agreed to that at Asmara in 1998, and it should be held. The south is set on self-determination, but the northern Government are less than keen on granting it.

531
I turn again to Nigeria, where I fear that a time bomb is waiting to explode. There is galloping population growth, AIDS, an amazing juxtaposition of poverty and riches, governors not in the least interested in the governed, pressure on land, reports of 4,000 people killed in riots over Sharia law, and violence. It was apparent to me that on the streets there was violence of a kind that is not normally seen elsewhere. In one little street one afternoon I saw people attacking one another. Nigeria is so important, and the people of that enormous country must take responsibility themselves. President Obasanjo speaks the right language, but he is not taking the necessary action.
I remind the Minister of a letter that he sent me this week about a company that I have mentioned before—Julius Berger, a German construction company that has cornered the market in construction sites around Nigeria, not least an enormous modern stadium that is being built in Abuja, and makes the dome look cheap and well organised. It is a byword for corruption on the streets of Abuja. I shall not go into everything that I said in my letter to the Minister, but in his reply he says that he is not aware of any allegations concerning the company. I point him in the direction of the Nigerian press, which contains clear allegations, if not proof, about the matter. It took my researcher, who is rather good at such things, about five minutes to run them off the internet. People on the streets of Abuja and in our high commission are aware of those allegations.
In his letter, the Minister says that if I have specific allegations I can contact the anti-corruption commission in Abuja. While we were there, we talked to a delightful and well-meaning retired judge. I mentioned General Babangida and asked how a man who had looted his country could live in such luxury, holding court, in Nigeria. He said that nobody had come forward with allegations about that. I said that I could show him a book by Karl Meier called "This House has Fallen", which contains a long list of allegations. Up spoke a rather grave person from civil society who said, "The point is, Your Honour, if you make an allegation about this, you are likely to disappear the next day." So not many people are willing to put themselves forwards as witnesses in court. I think that we all understand that. I say to the Government that if we, as a friend of, and donor to, Nigeria do not pursue these allegations with our European partners such as Germany, we will not be doing Nigeria any good.
I have spoken for long enough, and although I wanted to concentrate on Africa, I have not discussed in any depth AIDS, the ghastly black death that is stalking the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, and I have hardly dwelt on poverty. I am an optimist by nature, but it is difficult to be optimistic when one has seen some of the things that we on the Select Committee have seen. Certainly there is cause for optimism in some countries, which the Secretary of State mentioned. In many ways, Rwanda and Uganda are beacons of hope, but it is a pity that they are both involved in the war in the Congo. There is peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia, although as the Secretary of State so rightly said, what on earth were they fighting about in the first place?
We need to look at the state of that poor benighted continent. I have picked two items from today's media. The first says that Zimbabwe is threatening its 12,000 Asian traders. Is not this where we were in 1971 or 1972
532
with President Amin? Have we learned nothing in 30 years? The second is a report on the BBC this morning about the state of starvation in Malawi. I do not know a great deal about Malawi, but I do know that there are serious allegations of corruption there. It is desperately sad when a country that is fertile ends up with starvation.
I commend DFID for its strong stand, but I urge it to be a little stronger on the question of good governance and corruption. We do no favours to Africans in Nigeria or anywhere else if we keep quiet, if we are diplomatic and if we pull our punches. We need to tell the truth. The world has problems enough in the middle east and Afghanistan. The global village is a dreadful cliché, but it is true that there is a link between Osama bin Laden, the mujaheddin and whatever else one wants to mention. Let us support NEPAD and wish Africa well, but let us not use wishy-washy words and pretend that things are going well when they ain't. The scale of the problem of governance needs to be understood. The kleptocrats who run much of Africa need to know, as they drive in their Mercedes cars past the peasants who have no shoes, that the world will not support such behaviour.
More than anything, Africans and African Governments must take responsibility for themselves. "The Case for Aid for the Poorest Countries" says:
"Without serious action by poor country governments to address valid governance concerns, there will be no breakthrough on building support for increased aid, and limited development progress."
The Department's annual report, published yesterday, says:
"Aid works only when developing countries themselves drive the reform agenda."
The Government are absolutely right, and I wish them well. We need to show ourselves to be serious, as the African Governments must show themselves to be serious, about working towards just peace, conflict prevention, good governance and reforms, and then our development aid can be so much more effective in meeting the huge challenges in Africa.
4.43 pm
Hugh Bayley: The frighteningly high vote won by Jean-Marie Le Pen in the first round of the French presidential election has sent shockwaves across Europe, and it should concern particularly those of us who are interested in international development. We need to ask why so many people in France—it could be as many in this country—rally behind a racist xenophobe who simply does not realise that, in this globalising world, each of us in Europe is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made clear, linked with others in the world, and our livelihoods and prosperity are interdependent.
What happened in France ought to remind us all that both time and distance play terrible tricks on memory. It is 60 years since the first French Jews were deported to Auschwitz on 27 March 1942. Saturday 4 May, the day before the second round of the French presidential election, will be the 60th anniversary of the day when the first Jews were gassed in Auschwitz. Every single voter in France should reflect on that on the day before they cast their vote. Everybody in France should remember that 83,000 French citizens were sent to the death camps—an episode that Jean-Marie Le Pen describes as a footnote to history.

533
Here in this country—in Burnley, Bexley, Enfield and everywhere else that the British National party has candidates in elections in the same week—we need to reflect on where fascist ideology leads. We need to address the political issues that lie beneath what is happening in many countries in Europe, such as the social deprivation and the divisions that allow extremism to grow.
It is not only time—the passing of 60 years—that allows a memory to fade; it is also distance, which allows us to forget, or not to notice, human rights abuse, hunger and disease in other parts of the world. If we, the rich world, do not address injustice and the causes of poverty in developing countries, not only do we fail in our moral duty, but we allow conditions in which extremism in those countries will grow. We know from last autumn that that can have appalling consequences, both for people in developing countries and for us in the developed world.
That is why we need to break through the blocks in our collective memory, and why the financing for development conference in Monterrey is so important. The Zedillo report, commissioned by the United Nations, estimated that if we are to achieve the millennium development goals by 2015, we will need collectively to invest in aid some $50 billion more than we do now every year until 2015.
Real progress was made at Monterrey. The EU, under pressure from our Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, agreed to increase its share of GNP devoted to development assistance from 0.32 to 0.39 per cent. by 2006. That will contribute an additional $7 billion a year in aid. In addition, the United States agreed an extra $5 billion a year in aid for each year from 2004 until 2006. That shows the importance—this point might have been better made in this afternoon's debate in Westminster Hall—of engaging with our ally, the United States of America, and of seeking its help in terms of working for important political goals from Europe. I see the fingerprints of our Prime Minister's conversations with President Bush—if I am not mixing the metaphor too much—in that decision by the United States President.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Clearly, the sums agreed at Monterrey and under the comprehensive spending review are significant and important. Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman recall the Secretary of State's intervention on the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) when, as I understand it, she confirmed that debt relief was included in the figure as a percentage of GDP? Although such sums show increasing progress in this country, we cannot say that we have met our UN targets until we hit 0.7 per cent. in overseas aid.
Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He could have been reading the next line of my speech. I thank him for that—I need not read that particular line; it can be taken as read.
Very significant progress has been made, and it has been led by this country. However, we are nowhere near the 0.7 per cent. target, or the Zedillo target of an additional $50 billion a year. The world's current official development assistance spend is some $54 billion, and
534
Zedillo proposes a doubling of official development assistance to some $100 billion or £105 billion a year, in each year between now and 2015, if we are to meet those goals. The Monterrey pledges by the United States and by all the member states of the European Union acting together will provide an additional $12 billion—an increase of some 20 or 25 per cent. That is a significant amount, but it is by no means enough to attain those development goals.
That was acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Red Book that he issued on Budget day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West pointed out. The Red Book states that, because the Monterrey pledges have not met the target set by the UN or by the World Bank,
"The UK will continue to seek further progress, to ensure that no developing country genuinely committed to good governance, economic reform and poverty reduction will be denied the chance to achieve the Millennium Development Goals through lack of finance."
If that will not come from the pledges already made, we must ask ourselves and the Government where those additional resources will come from. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said that we should look in closer detail at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal for an international development trust fund. That is a good idea and I second the proposal. As Members of the House, we should give whatever support we can to the Chancellor's proposal and, in our contact with parliamentarians from other countries, we should talk up his suggestion of a trust fund to pool resources of donor countries and to attract additional contributions from the private sector.
We should also consider the proposals made by George Soros and others to allocate additional special drawing rights to developing countries. The last time that the Bretton Woods institutions allocated additional SDRs was, I think, in 1981. Those institutions are in a position to issue further SDRs, and we should consider that seriously.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) that we should consider the Tobin tax, which is gaining greater international recognition. There are some problems, however, with seeking to generate revenue for development by taxing currency transactions. International trade might slow as a result, which could be harmful to developing countries. Furthermore, the euro zone might see a competitive advantage in placing a tax on currency transactions for those trading partners that have to exchange currencies to trade, as it would not apply within the euro zone. To put those fears at rest, if the Tobin tax were introduced, perhaps the euro zone should propose an additional contribution of its own. Nevertheless, the Tobin tax is an important proposal, and we should consider its potential for contributing to development.
If we are to bridge the Zedillo financing gap, we need to consider reforming the terms of trade. Most hon. Members touched on that. I hope that the debate gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the clear and direct message that hon. Members on both sides of the House think that the development agenda needs to focus sharply on how the Doha trade round delivers for poor people in poor countries.
We know that private sector financial activity contributes far more to the GDP of even sub-Saharan Africa than aid does. We also know that the least

535
developed countries provide and receive a declining share of trade. The World Bank estimates that had Africa maintained the share of trade that it had in the late 1960s, its income would be higher by some $70 billion a year, and the Zedillo gap would not exist.
Trade has the potential to narrow the financing gap if there is a greater volume of trade between developed and developing countries. However, if it is to provide benefits for poor people in those countries, the terms of trade need to change. We need to focus in particular on agricultural subsidies, as the hon. Member for Banbury said, and on intellectual property rights, which have acted as a barrier to the purchase of certain medicines in developing countries.
In addition to measures such as special drawing rights and the Tobin tax, we should try to create a goal—or, better still, a financial instrument—that provides an incentive to increase aid and at the same time to lower trade barriers, so that we increase trade between the least developed countries and developed countries. The first thing to address is the need to lower export subsidies from rich countries, which cost us some $1 billion a day. Rich countries spend five times as much on export subsidies as they do on development assistance. Oxfam's report "Rigged Rules and Double Standards", published a couple of weeks ago, makes the point that export subsidies do not just cost us money, but cost developing countries about $100 billion a year, which is twice as much as they receive in aid.
We need to liberalise our economy to get rid of export subsidies, because they harm development. We also need to encourage developing countries to liberalise their economies. The Tinbergen Institute estimated for the World Bank that developing countries would stand to gain up to $155 billion a year if they further liberalised their economies, which is three times the amount they receive in aid.
Perhaps alongside the 0.7 per cent. of GDP development goal, a second development goal could aim to increase the volume of trade to least developed countries by a certain percentage by 2015. Perhaps we should even increase the level of overseas development assistance and decrease export subsidies so that by 2015, or some other date, they are in balance. If we agreed such a goal, it would provide an incentive for people involved in trade in all developed countries to address the difficult issues, such as agricultural subsidies and textile tariffs, which need to be addressed if there is to be a prospect of meeting the millennium development goals.
We should consider also not only where the money comes from but where it should go. We should be guided by the Secretary of State's excellent report, which, like other Members, I welcome. It shows that the Government have a strong record of achievement and of global leadership on international development. It shows also, with commendable clarity, where the international donor community is falling down.
Globally, although we may be moving towards achieving the millennium goals, we are not moving fast enough to achieve them by 2015. At page 59 of my right hon. Friend's report, a graph shows with great clarity that in sub-Saharan Africa we are making progress on primary education enrolment, an issue on which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) touched, but that virtually no progress has been made on moving towards the
536
poverty alleviation goal. It shows also that the public health measures are worse now than they were in 1990. Infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa is worse than in 1990, and becoming worse still. The percentage of births attended by a trained and skilled health worker is also declining.
The lessons that I draw from the graphs in the report are that a greater proportion of our aid should go to sub-Saharan Africa. Other Members have mentioned the Select Committee's report on EU aid, which shows that over the past decade the proportion of aid going to low-income countries has fallen from 76 to 39 per cent. in 2000. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is as keen as any member of the Select Committee to increase the proportion of EU aid that goes to the least developed countries.
I believe that the slide away from aid to the poorest countries has been tolerated within the EU because it has not been clear enough where EU aid is going. That is because, unlike each member state, the EU itself does not report how it spends development assistance money according to the OECD's development assistance committee criteria. We in the UK know how much of our aid goes on primary health care, on clean water and on trying to meet primary education enrolment goals. People in the Netherlands, Sweden and France know the same. However, if such questions are put to Mr. Poul Nielson, the EU Development Commissioner, he has to say, "I am sorry, I don't know the answers. Our reporting systems do not provide that information."
To the EU and the Commissioner's credit, they have agreed that they should be able to answer those questions. However, the single most important reform that the EU could make in order to show that it realises that what is happening now is wrong and must change, is to create mechanisms that show where EU development assistance goes. As EU development spending will increase substantially over the next few years as a result of a deal won by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State at the financing for development conference, it is all the more important to ensure that the increased stream of funding goes to help the poorest people in the poorest countries. If it does not, we shall not meet the millennium development goals.
I shall quickly highlight two other points. There is the need to tackle conflict prevention in Africa, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), having just returned from the Sudan, will want to discuss. I welcome especially the appointment of Alan Goulty as the special representative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I met him when I went to the Sudan six years ago. He is an excellent diplomat, an Arabist through and through, and he is totally committed to the future of the Sudan. If anybody can act as a bridge and enable the peace process to move forward, it is Alan Goulty.
Secondly, on health, we had some very good analysis of the public health problems in developing countries from the independent commission on macro-economics and health, and we had two good proposals from the Chancellor in the Red Book: first, to create a tax credit for research and development of vaccines and medicines to prevent and treat malaria, TB and AIDS, which I warmly welcome; and, secondly, a relief for responsible donations of medical supplies by UK companies. Those are good initiatives, which I am delighted to see.

537
Access to necessary and cost-effective drugs should not be discretionary. There should be a right of access to basic health care for poor people in poor countries, just as there is a right of access to health care for richer people in a country such as ours. That means that we need to amend the TRIPS agreement—the World Trade Organisation's agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—in a way that retains the patent protection of pharmaceutical drugs in developed countries, without which pharmaceutical companies will not continue to invest in researching and developing the new drugs that we all, in the developed as well as the developing world, want, but which also extends to poorer countries the opportunity to purchase cheaper copies of patent-protected drugs.
That opportunity should be available to all countries, not just to those manufacturing copies under licence. If we fail to resolve this issue in the Doha negotiations, it will be unethical. The trials of drugs to tackle AIDS, TB and malaria must by their nature take place in Africa, where there is a large concentration of people suffering from those diseases, and it would be medically unethical to use Africa to trial drugs for use in other parts of the world and not to make those drugs available to people living in Africa.
Finally, I propose the creation of an international panel on medical ethics, from which the pharmaceutical industry should seek ethical clearance both for trials of drugs in developing countries, and for the licensing of the manufacture and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs in the developing world. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ask her health officials to examine the practicality of such a proposal, and to discuss it with Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General of the World Health Organisation.
5.8 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: Not only did I anticipate what the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) would say with reference to the 0.7 per cent. target; he anticipated what I would say with regard to TRIPS and the health needs of developing countries.
On behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish national party, I put on record our welcome for the debate, which we hope will become an annual event. We are pleased to have the opportunity to take part in it, but I have one small suggestion to make. The Order Paper should refer to the annual report as the relevant document for the debate. It would be useful for other hon. Members to realise that this was an opportunity to hear what the Government have been doing during the past year.
The debate has been well attended, considering that local government elections are taking place somewhere or other, though not in Wales. Those participating, however, tend to be the usual suspects. Although the standard of debate has been very high, I am sure that if we had an opportunity to widen the forum, other Members might be called to speak.
Mr. Robathan: We might not get called.
Mr. Thomas: Well, that might happen, but let us hope that other Members at least come along to intervene and ask questions about the report and that the debate becomes an annual event.
538
The debate is also worth while because this is the Global Campaign for Education's week of action, which reminds us about the central goal of ensuring that its action plan on free primary education for all should be decided by the end of this year. I hope that the Minister will say in his winding-up speech whether he thinks that that action plan is on track to be agreed by the end of this year. However, I want to confine my remarks to the TRIPS regime and GATS and to some of the difficulties that we need to address to deliver health care to developing countries.
There is obviously a disproportionate burden of death and illness in developing countries, especially because of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Some 2.4 million people have died of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. A further 25.3 million people in the region are HIV positive, of whom only 25,000 receive the drugs that could revolutionise their treatment. Many of those drugs are still under patent.
Under the TRIPS agreement, many countries that presently produce generic drugs, such as India, will need to abandon that production under a new system of patent protection by 2005. We have to review how the new system progresses. It is clear that generic drugs are much cheaper because there is a competitive market and no research and development costs. A triple combination treatment for HIV/AIDS costs $930 per person per year, whereas a generic version of that treatment is available for $250 per person per year. Nevertheless, we have to take into account the fact that per capita spending on health in Africa is about $10 per person per year, so there is still a huge gap to overcome.
I had an opportunity to see the health interaction between this developed country and developing countries this week, when the Nigerian Minister of Health, Professor Nwosu, visited a company in my constituency. The company, Micropharm, produces snake venom antidotes using sheep. We have a few sheep in Wales, but not so many snakes.
Mr. Robathan: There are snakes, too.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may know that, in Wales, people from Aberdare, as I am, are known as snakes.
The sheep are not threatened and I am not talking about animal experimentation; they are simply used to produce the antibodies to the snake venom. Those antibodies are exported to developing countries, especially those in Africa. In Nigeria, 1,000 deaths a year are caused by the carpet viper. Micropharm produces the antidote to that snake's venom in my constituency.
Incidentally, Micropharm has a wonderful stock line. A bit like the Trotters' van, it says, "New York, London, Ffostrasol." That is a wonderful way to bring home to us all the international aspects of things that happen in our constituencies. I want to put on record my thanks to Professor John Landon, who was responsible for establishing that company and who works in those three towns, which are, of course, in three countries.
One of the difficulties is how to get our best technology and medical understanding into developing countries to help them. TRIPS is obviously designed to help by protecting patent rights to encourage companies to undertake research and development and to supply the

539
resulting products to developing countries, where they will presumably be bought by money from the developed countries' overseas aid budgets. I suppose that that could be called a virtuous circle.
There are some difficulties with TRIPS however and some exemptions to the way that it works. I understand that an exemption can be made in national emergencies. I think that the United States Government used that exemption after the events of 11 September to increase the production of anthrax vaccine for its domestic market. One of the key issues that we need to consider is how we can ensure the domestic availability of medicines under the new TRIPS regime.
After 2005, developing countries that do not have a domestic capability for developing generic medicines will no longer be able to buy those generic drugs. That is my central concern. Countries that produce them now, such as India, will have to come under the TRIPS agreement by 2005. That leaves other developing countries to develop generic medicines for their own domestic markets, but I am not convinced that they will have developed the necessary capacity to do so by 2005 or even by 2016, which is the latest possible date for the least developed countries.
The problem was recognised at the WTO meeting in Doha in November where there was a declaration on TRIPS and public health. That declaration agreed that the primacy of public health over intellectual property rights should be protected and agreed the rights of Governments to use public health safeguards within TRIPS. The Doha declaration said:
"We recognise that WTO members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement. We instruct the Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem and to report to the General Council before the end of 2002."
The problem has been recognised and there is an instruction to find a solution to it.
I have received a suggestion from Oxfam as a possible solution to the problem. It is the removal of TRIPS restrictions on exports of public health-related products. Under article 30, the TRIPS agreement could be amended or interpreted in such a way as to allow countries to export generic versions to countries that cannot manufacture them themselves. That would be a simple way of overcoming the possibly temporary, but nevertheless real, difficulty that TRIPS in its present form may present for some developing countries. I understand that the European Commission in its own paper has more or less gone along those lines. The African Group has also called for a similar approach.
Hugh Bayley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's approach. It will be necessary also to build in some mechanism that stops what the pharmaceutical industry would call parallel trade—the selling back of drugs from poor countries where they are available at low prices to rich countries. If that happened, pharmaceutical companies would not make the profits to pay for the research and development of drugs that we all want. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an important nut to crack as well?
Mr. Thomas: I agree completely. It is important to avoid that. It would lead to exploitation on all sides and
540
would not help developing countries at the end of the day. I understand that the UK Government have set up an independent commission to look at TRIPS. No doubt it will examine those issues. We look forward to a report on that and possibly even a further opportunity to debate these matters on the Floor of the House.
TRIPS does not just affect health; it affects access to knowledge, software and so on. It is important to emphasise, as all hon. Members have done, that if we are to achieve health improvements in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, it comes down to money. With TRIPS or any other agreement, it comes down to how much money we can release into development in those sub-Saharan countries. That, in turn, comes down to getting our 0.7 per cent. target and a timetable to achieve it on the Government's agenda. It may be on the agenda, but it has not yet been agreed.
Related to TRIPS is the General Agreement on Trade in Services. One side of the health coin is the provision of medicines and the other is the provision of public services, such as clean water and sanitation. There are some concerns with the current GATS negotiations, and I shall touch on them briefly. We have perhaps not yet had the opportunity in Parliament fully to scrutinise GATS. I am not aware of a debate having taken place in Westminster Hall or on the Floor of the House, yet there seems to be increasing pressure within the GATS regime. In theory, liberalisation does not necessarily lead to privatisation, so GATS should be at the heart of the way in which developing countries improve their economies. We have as much obligation to lower our trade barriers as those countries do to operate in an open and liberalised market, but that could lead to increasing emphasis on the privatisation of public services and we could exclude developing countries from the virtuous circle that we have achieved in this country.
I am slightly concerned that the United Kingdom has missed a trick in GATS. Given our increasing use of private health companies and the private finance initiative to meet our needs, it could be argued that GATS will start to affect our own public services. Whether or not one accepts that argument—the Government obviously do not—we need a debate in the House on GATS. It is also clear from the report of the International Development Committee and an early-day motion signed by 262 MPs that we need an independent assessment of the way in which GATS affects services in this country and, more importantly, services in developing countries.
Finally, we must complete the circle. In a recent inspiring speech to the London School of Economics, Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, talked about the road to sustainable development from Doha via Monterrey to Johannesburg which is bringing together trade, development and environmental issues in a unified package to support sustainable development and maximise our contribution to it. I want to draw the attention of the House to three key recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit on which I serve. First, the world summit on sustainable development provides the best opportunity to establish a framework for integrating trade and sustainable development agendas. Although the Environmental Audit Committee does not agree, corporate social responsibility should be on the Johannesburg agenda, and we should work towards an international agreement on it. The Johannesburg summit should be the key reference point for future negotiations on TRIPS, GATS and so on.

541
Secondly, we need a better evaluation of the UN's commitment to the summit, as some countries are not pulling their weight. In particular, are we doing enough in the European Union to allow all countries fully to participate in the summit and have their voices heard? Finally, we must ensure that agreements on financing development, particularly those made in Monterrey, are linked to action plans agreed in Johannesburg. If we do not do so, Johannesburg will be just another talking shop. Whatever Rio's faults, our understanding of the environment is much clearer thanks to that summit than it was 10 years ago. In 10 years' time, this country's understanding of development issues and the alleviation of poverty should be as clear as our understanding of the environment post-Rio. We have an opportunity to begin that process in Johannesburg, but our understanding must be linked to serious action plans.
5.23 pm
Tony Worthington: I am relieved that another annual report has not come out while I have been waiting to speak; however, it is a joy to have an opportunity to contribute to our debate.
I want to talk about a crucial issue that many people have mentioned—trade. The theme of my contribution to the globalisation and anti-globalisation debate is the issue of when we need more freedom and when we need more regulation. The territory is incredibly complicated: some people say they are for globalisation without qualification and others say they are against it without qualification, but both groups are wrong. I praise the Secretary of State and the Department for the report; the complexities of the issues that it tackles make them the most intellectually taxing that anyone has to deal with.
I raise the issue of trade because I fear that we are simply not doing enough on many aspects of trade and are not reducing poverty as much as we could because we are not sufficiently focused on trade. I use the word "trade" in a very broad sense, to cover any exchange relationships between the developed and developing worlds. I shall speak mainly about Africa, because I am afraid that it has become my obsession, as it has for many others.
Sub-Saharan Africa now accounts for only 1.3 per cent. of world trade—one third of its share at the beginning of the 1980s. It is falling behind, and the faults lie in the countries themselves and in our part of the world. While they are falling behind, we and they are stimulating terrorism, poverty, the collapse of the rule of law and so on. In the words of Mike Moore, director general of the World Trade Organisation,
"poverty is a time bomb lodged against the heart of liberty".
In passing, I should like to praise Mike Moore. If ever a person received a hospital pass, he did so by taking over the WTO just before Seattle. If there was ever an inheritance that one would not have wanted, that was it. However, we passed through the years and arrived at Doha. Everyone will find limitations to Doha, but the organisation was a stable one and progress could be made. If the WTO had been destroyed, it would have been a major setback for development in the world. Even now, trade in developing countries generates more than
542
30 times as much revenue per capita through exports as those countries receive in aid. In the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry after Doha,
"it has been estimated that halving protection in agriculture, industrial goods and services could boost developing countries' incomes by around 150 billion dollars a year—three times the value of all aid budgets put together."
As I said, I am interpreting the concept of trade very broadly to include all the economic interchanges between rich and poor nations. For example, it includes the trade in people. I do not have the slightest doubt that we exploit the developing world in terms of its people. We may put in some funds for primary education, but we then rake off enormous benefits from those countries' talented people. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) will recall, we were told in Ghana and Nigeria that there were more Ghanaian doctors around New York than in Ghana. The number of Indian scientists in the United States is colossal. Many developing countries hate to see their brightest and best go to American universities because they do not come home. The United States is not only the least generous of the G7 countries in terms of its aid assistance, which is often tied and provided on political rather than humanitarian grounds, but is the most extractive from the developing world in people terms.
We are rightly putting a lot of emphasis on universal basic education, but that will not pay off as much as we would want if we, the Americans and other developed countries pick off the brightest and best in what resembles a modern version of the I I-plus, whereby we put in the primary education but many of the brightest and best do not serve their country. They must have individual liberty, but it is worrying that one of the consequences of providing what we call aid is that we then help ourselves. In people terms, that happens a lot.
We know that that is the case because we are concerned in this country about how we are seeking to make good our shortage of teachers, nurses and scientists by taking a disproportionate number from the developing world. I think that we should have an analysis of the balance of trade in people. DFID was working on such a project some time ago, but I wonder whether there has been any real analysis of the account with regard to what we put in to help people and what we take out in terms of people.
Another aspect of trade is the trade in money. A great deal is said about the need to have foreign direct investment going into developing countries, but how can that work if the locals, and others, ship it out to money markets around the world in greater quantities than are coming in? I welcome the fact that some of the Nigerian Abacha money is to go back to Nigeria. Let us take that case as the most glaring, foul example. The Nigerian Government were seeking to reclaim £4 billion that had been taken out of Nigeria by one family. DFID's worldwide budget is £3.5 billion. One Nigerian family took £500 million more out of Nigeria than this country put into the developing world. Money is being extracted on that scale.
This is where the issue of regulation comes in. That we have allowed successive Nigerian Presidents, as well as Mobutu, Mugabe, Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, to get richer while we criticise them is simply scandalous. Similarly, huge amounts of Russian money have left the country and been recycled while Russia gets poorer. I am told that about 9,000 Russian firms are registered on the island of Cyprus. Movement of money is happening on

543
that scale. Until 11 September, we were incredibly dilatory about all this. Afterwards—I remember the announcement—it was suddenly discovered that a large number of bureaux de change in this country were involved in money laundering. I just wonder how long that had really been known, without being acted on.
I hope that the return of the Abacha money is a sign of better things to come, but I am not sure. On our visit to Nigeria—we were the first Select Committee to go there following the return of democracy—I could find no one who knew what was happening to the oil revenues. In theory, it had been the military who had been stealing them. As I went around I asked people, "Can we see the accounts?" This ought to be a simple process: Shell extracts oil; it has a value; some of the revenue will go to Shell and some to Nigeria. Yet it is impossible to get the answer to the question of where those oil revenues are going. In theory, if democracy and transparency have taken over, we should be able to see lots of schools and clinics opening, and lots of benefit to the Nigerian people. I can only conclude, because no one could point any of those things out to us, that the "food chain" remains pretty well undisturbed. Abacha and Abubakar may have gone, but the corruption carries on. That is simply not good enough.
The issue of oil revenues takes me on to other areas in which the rules of the WTO are simply irrelevant. These include diamond smuggling and timber harvesting. We have been extremely slow to realise the importance of setting up proper regulation and policing systems, and poorer countries have been plundered of their natural resources. Sierra Leone and Angola, for example, became totally ungovernable. Countries that were literally sitting on diamond mines or oil fields were plunged into poverty.
A small London-based NGO, Global Witness, found out more about the diamond issue in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and about how the forests of Cambodia were being plundered until they were virtually extinct, than all the intelligence resources of the world's Governments could find out. We must act on that information. I praise Global Witness for its achievements; I believe that it now has some ideas about how we could tackle corruption more effectively from the British company end than we have done so far. I look forward to hearing them.
I used to think of corruption as pilfering or slippage—not very serious—but I now think that corruption in many so-called developing countries will prevent any growth at all. Its eradication is crucial to any progress and there must be more regulation. That requirement is reflected in part by the fact that the number of tax havens has grown astronomically in recent years.
We used to be able to reel off the tax havens—the Cayman Islands, Jersey, Guernsey and so on—but now the books show that there are tax havens everywhere. That, in part, is also down to the Americans, as they have stimulated free trade and there is a lack of regulation. However, following 11 September, we must come together and get the Americans on our side over development. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, a lot of us are being invited to America to talk to Congressmen and Senators. The whole business of tax havens must be tackled.
To me, trade also involves firms' trading practices and their impact on the welfare of citizens. That is another aspect that we do not consider enough. How much
544
avoidable death, sickness and poverty does the developed world thrust on the developing world through its trade practices? Let me give an example that is close to my heart and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. My constituency has a major problem with the legacy of asbestos. Only a couple of years ago, all forms of it were banned in Europe, although it has been known for decades that asbestos kills. The same firms that we have banned from selling in Europe are operating and killing in the developing world by forcing people to work without protection.
If there was ever a case of corporate manslaughter, that must be it, so I was delighted recently when former Cape Asbestos workers in South Africa received compensation in our courts. However, we still allow that form of free trade to persist. That is not acceptable, and we need more regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) said, we must also tackle the practice of dumping out-of-date drugs and giving them to people who do not know how to use them, which causes more harm than good.
A number of Members have referred to AIDS, which is dramatically reducing life expectancy in Africa. We must face up to what the free market is doing: large, unrestricted sums of private money go into research on keeping prosperous Americans and Europeans alive, because that is profitable for the pharmaceutical companies, but hardly any private money and only limited sums of public money go on research into a vaccine that would prevent poor Africans from getting the disease in the first place.
It is obvious that there ought to be better protection for women, who must gamble on men being responsible, which has always been a pretty dodgy thing to do.
Dr. Tonge: Hear, hear.
Tony Worthington: That is obviously the hon. Lady's experience. The serious point is that the money available for research into microbicides, which are a barrier to women catching HIV from their partner, is extremely limited. There must be much more regulation and much more direction of money in that area, because liberal trading alone simply will not work.
Another area in which our trading policies are not working is sustainable development, which we are not adequately pursuing, and because of that we are promoting future poverty rather than development. It sickens me that, having emptied the seas around Britain, our fleets are now emptying Africa's seas. We should listen to the Namibians about the fishing practices of the Spaniards—it is like going back 10 years to the fishing practices of the Spaniards in this country. They must be regulated, and should not be left to free trade.
We say that sustainable development is a major part of our policy across government. The only problem is that the Government cannot find any case in which damage to sustainable development was sufficient to prevent an arms-related export. I am waiting for an answer to a parliamentary question, which the Secretary of State says she has not seen, on whether arms sales to Africa, apart from South Africa, have gone up. At the end of last year, we managed to achieve the feat of wiping out much of Tanzania's debt with one policy initiative, and increasing its debt with another, through the sale of an inadequate, expensive and inappropriate air traffic control system.

545
Trade is immensely important, but we need to interpret it much more widely than we customarily do if we are to get a handle on it. I am in favour of freer trade, but it must be ethically steered. If free trade is allowed to run unregulated, the rich and the bully win. The wrong regulations can be equally devastating.
The European Union is full of people who, from the days of Willy Brandt and "North-South: A Programme for Survival", swear that they are in favour of development and ending poverty, but nevertheless created that abomination called the common agricultural policy, which favours rich farmers in rich countries. Food surpluses are dumped in the third world, and until recently there were tariffs against the poorest farmers in the poorest countries. We impose on poor farmers the obligation that they should not have barriers to our goods if they are to receive poverty reduction assistance from the World Bank.
Last year, we did not even have the boldness to give free access to developing world sugar under the everything but arms initiative. That had to be phased in, although its impact would be minimal. I like what Oxfam says in its admirable document "Rigged Rules and Double Standards". It has constructed an index of double standards, and the European Union wins by a short head from the United States, although that was before the US raised its steel tariffs, so perhaps it has edged ahead.
I have spent some time on the matters that we usually think of as involving trade. Over the past few years, I have become convinced that many countries in Africa are nowhere near an economic breakthrough. There have been some success stories, as the Secretary of State said. I would add horticulture in east Africa, the diamond industry in Botswana and the Customs regime in Mozambique, but they are too few and far between. Often, no progress seems to have been made at all.
I am sure that many of the conversations that members of the Select Committee had in Ghana and Nigeria about economic development could have been had at any time in the past 50 years. Cocoa growers receive a pittance for their cocoa beans, and take massive cuts when commodity prices fall. The big chocolate firms do not allow them to go into value-added territory, and they are faced with big tariffs on any value-added goods that they have.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West was with us when we went to a cable maker in Ghana. It mined the aluminium in Ghana, which was sent to Belgium to be processed and then sent back to Ghana to be converted into cable. The wastefulness and exploitation of that process is wrong.
If I dare, I shall say a little about the CDC. I hope that I shall not incur the Secretary of State's wrath. I have listened to the debate on the CDC, and I think that there is probably some common ground. I am sure that the Secretary of State is familiar with the concerns, shared by many hon. Members, about the direction in which the CDC is going. It may be doing well in new areas such as extending the use of mobile phones, call centres, and investing in banks. Such measures may well be sensible and may generate wealth, and it is true that it is slightly patronising to argue that the CDC should be concerned only with the primary industry of growing crops.
546
However, as it moves into such new areas, we should remember that it is no longer involved in farming and agriculture, in which far too little is happening.
I want to return to an issue that we discussed in Westminster Hall. We frequently hear that some 80 or 90 per cent. of the populations of developing countries depend on the soil for their livelihoods. Those populations are doubling every 25 to 30 years, but few of those countries are achieving a growth rate that will exceed such increases. Regardless of profit, we must make the land more productive, so that people in the countryside can be fed and can maintain decent livelihoods, because the cities cannot cope. We must improve the life of people in the countryside, and hopefully we can also improve exports.
However, I did not sense that many of the countries I visited have an agricultural policy that uses the land to its full potential. In some countries, it is appallingly difficult to establish such a policy. Because of inheritance rules, land is repeatedly divided up, and for all manner of cultural reasons land policy is very difficult to change. Northern environmentalists resist putting our science to work because they insist that developing world farmers have all the wisdom—despite the fact that, without change, there will be deepening poverty, huge infant mortality rates and the perpetuation of squalor. In addition, one can predict desertification, an even greater lack of access to water, and the elimination of forests.
I am simply raising with the Secretary of State my concerns about the neglect of agriculture. It is true that there are success stories. Interestingly, in 15 years Vietnam has changed from being a net importer of rice to being the world's second largest exporter, but in terms of a command structure its culture is perhaps very different from Africa's.
The annual report contains little on macro-agricultural policy. Even the lengthy and very good Oxfam report on rigged rules and double standards contains nothing on agricultural policy, or on how the people will be fed and exports created.
It is argued that if one removes the European tariffs, everything will be all right, but it will not. On our visits abroad, we have examined whether there is a connection between tariffs and what can be grown. The Chairman of the International Development Committee mentioned the tomato surplus in Ghana. He will agree, however, that even if the tariffs had been right, no one in Ghana could have argued in a systematic and business-like way that that surplus was connected with any form of export market.
Much work needs to be done on agriculture. It has been neglected, and we should examine it much more fully.
5.49 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I have followed the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on a number of occasions, and I always end up agreeing with him on most topics. A while back, with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, we spent a week going around Nigeria before the civilians took over. We were trying to impart some spirit of democracy and integrity, but I got the impression that politics in Africa more closely resembled piracy. We have to keep trying, but sometimes the feeling is that one is banging one's head against a brick wall. We can only do our best, but the debate has shown that the difficulties are very substantial.

547
One in five people in the world lives in abject poverty, and 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. We are part of a global community, so for us to take an interest in the rest of the world, and in improving standards, is a matter not only of morality but of self-interest.
We take for granted such things as clean running water—but if we could achieve no more than the provision of clean water in the third world and the developing world, we would have taken a great step forward.
Another matter to emerge from the debate is the need for sensible contraception. This may be slightly more controversial as a subject, but sensible contraception—especially the provision of condoms—in the developing world would be helpful, given the population growth. Indeed, the AIDS problem would have been diminished had we managed to put as much effort into convincing people in Africa of the benefits of condoms as we have into dealing with the aftermath of unsafe sex.
Today's debate is on a worthy subject, and it is being held on the day when the annual report from the Department for International Development and a report from the Select Committee on International Development are published. The House is full of experts on international development, all of whom want to debate these very important issues.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie was right to focus on trade. I believe that it is probably more important to get the world economic cake growing, and to enable countries in the third world to take advantage of an expanding trading environment, than it is to pursue many of the aid programmes that have been introduced.
As has been noted, Africa produces many primary products. The next stage for the countries in Africa is to process those products themselves. The House has heard this afternoon about the barriers that have been erected against Ghanaian chocolate, so one wonders how much chance those African countries have of breaking into the trade cycle.
All of us shop in supermarkets such as Tesco and Sainsbury's, and I am always amazed by how many products from all corners of the globe—such as wine from New Zealand or Chile, and apples or other goods from other places—are available. However, until we get African goods into the supermarkets so that salaried people can return value to the producing countries, we will not be able to raise the basic standards in those countries. The World Trade Organisation and the general agreement on tariffs and trade are therefore extremely important.
Over the past 20 years there has been a trend away from supplying aid through Governments to supplying it through NGOs. Also, big aid packages have given way to much smaller packages. Corruption is endemic in parts of the globe, so it is sometimes better to bypass the governmental structures and deal with people in villages and local communities.
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Many failed states in Africa, such as Nigeria, have wrecked Government systems. If we do not help to rebuild the systems in those countries, we will never get their economies to function properly, and we will not be able to provide health care for everyone. We need to help
548
countries with crumbled public institutions to build decent, modern state systems, so that they can have decent economies and take advantage of trading opportunities.
Mr. Syms: The Secretary of State makes a good point. We certainly have to do our best to raise standards in those countries.
The commitment to providing primary school education for all is important, and we must also ensure that girls as well as boys benefit. That would at least allow the intellectual capital of the countries involved to develop.
A lot of good things are happening, and there are many initiatives, but we must ensure that they are followed through, and that we measure the progress being made. As has been noted in the debate, Britain is pretty good at measuring or tracking what is going on, whereas the EU is not quite so good.
I still find it difficult to criticise the EU for giving money to Poland or Hungary. At the beginning of the debate the Secretary of State referred to the straits of Gibraltar. As Spain and North Africa are very close, with only 20 miles between them, we have to take an interest. The Oder river is on the other side of Europe and, given the transition and the shock of the change from a communist to a free-market system in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, it is inevitable that the EU will take an interest. It is in our interest to do so. If the transformation in eastern Europe goes well, Europe will become more prosperous, with bigger markets and more citizens. Providing that we get the politics right, Africa will have the opportunity to buy into that.
Given the relative position of South Korea and Ghana 40 years ago, it is interesting to note what South Korea has achieved since then. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to Vietnam, and I wonder whether the Asians might be the best people to impart what they know to Africa rather than us in the west. There seems to be a certain ethos, a way of doing things, in Asia that can take countries from poverty and drive them, in the Confucian tradition, towards a degree of success, as China has succeeded in doing.
Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not know very much about why some states succeed and others fail? Perhaps we should do more work on finding out why some succeed so well.
Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Comparative case studies would be useful. Some states in Asia have managed to succeed and go from poverty to relative wealth within a generation, without necessarily having civil wars. They have not all been democracies—indeed, Asia contains countries with many types of government.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made a good point about failed states, particularly those with debt problems. Argentina's debt is causing real stress there. The Economist has made the point that there is no bankruptcy or receivership pathway for countries as there is for individual businesses. The international community must think more about how countries can overcome their problems. When debts overwhelm countries, even quite prosperous or potentially prosperous ones such as Argentina, it can be a dislocating process.

549
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the British Council. Information is very important. When I was in Nigeria and went to the British Council in Kano, we saw people there devouring British newspapers, even though they were sometimes months old. I am not sure what Nigerians would make of Sven-Goran Eriksson or the goings-on in this country. Nevertheless, there is an appetite for the information that newspapers and books can provide that cannot necessarily be had elsewhere in Nigeria.
The internet also has a role in disseminating information to Africa. To give an example, a firm in my constituency called Cotton Net Ltd., whose managing director is Bruce Evans, wanted to have an internet trading site. In 1999, The Daily Telegraph advertised what it described as an e-dream competition. The company entered, along with 1,000 other entries, and went through various processes. C14 Net, a company in the United States quoted on NASDAQ, was involved in the competition. Cotton Net won the competition and received a letter of intent saying that £1 million would be invested in the company, but then the dotcom crash happened and no money arrived.
Cotton Net had the very good idea of trading the cotton produced by many small farmers in eastern Europe. It has taken some trade, which it can do at a lower commission than many wholesalers. However, the company is struggling, so if anyone has any bright ideas to enable Cotton Net in Poole to trade in cotton, Bruce Evans would appreciate it. Getting the products to the markets is a real problem in many parts of Africa.
We are making progress, although it is sometimes painfully slow. We must get the negotiations on trade right so that we all become richer. We must ensure that aid is properly scrutinised and produces the right outcome. We all know that we must do much more about debt.
We live in a big wide world, and we need the consent of everyone in the world for things to go well. We have heard much about rogue states and terrorism, and we know that aircraft can travel to this country in only a few hours. It is important that our fellow human beings have a decent standard of living and proper government. We are making progress and I hope that it will continue. I hope that more people will invest in Africa—but there are problems when we hear about nothing but famines, wars, coups and looting. However, we must travel hopefully and I am sure that one day, when we debate this subject we shall find that we have made much more progress.
6 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I shall be brief—partly because I have almost lost my voice, so I may have to abandon my speech after a while. This has been a superb debate on our most vital policy area and our most successful Department. I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in it.
There has been some discussion of the relationship between international issues and Members' constituency interests, and of how we can balance the two in our casework. My response is that they are wholly interlinked. For example, I visited Sudan a few weeks ago, not only because I was interested in the country but because
550
Sudanese people live in my constituency. They visit me and ask, "What are you doing about the situation in Sudan?" Visiting Sudan and taking an interest in international development are part of my constituency casework—we should all acknowledge that connection.
I nipped out for a cup of tea earlier and unfortunately ended up reading a page of the Evening Standard about a couple of racists who are standing in the elections next week. After that, it was good to come back to the Chamber and hear Members on both sides of the House reaffirming their common humanity and their common interest in such a profoundly important subject.
The aid budget needs to be increased dramatically. There has been enormous progress from the 0.26 per cent. inherited by the Government in 1997 to the present 0.39 per cent. We need to go further, however. That would be a most powerful affirmation both of the central importance to the Government of the aid policy and of the success of the Department for International Development.
Massive challenges face us across the world. Many of them are set out in the honest and straightforward report issued by the Department. However, people should not despair about the problems. Indeed, no one in the House or in this country has the right to feel despair, given the circumstances that face people in other parts of the world. We can draw great comfort from the HIPC initiative, from our constituents' support for debt relief, and from the way in which countries such as Uganda and Mozambique have magnificently used the opportunities afforded them to invest in health and primary education to develop their societies.
We can draw great inspiration from a Prime Minister who is committed to African development and to dealing with the problems of Africa. We can also take great hope from NEPAD—itself an African initiative. We can draw great optimism from the Secretary of State's comments and the statements in the departmental report about the possibilities for peace over a great swathe of the continent—from the Atlantic to the Red sea, from Angola to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and from the Great Lakes to Sudan.
We have not spent enough time talking about the role of non-governmental organisations, which play a magnificent role in promoting policy and can be an important thorn in the side of Governments when they carry out policies on the ground. Many of us have seen them operating in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances in the most impoverished places, working to feed children and to develop health and food projects. We owe them a great deal.
My first trip to Africa was to Burundi with UNICEF in 1998. Our host was a man called Luis Zuniga, who was head of UNICEF there. A couple of years later he was murdered doing his job—visiting an internally displaced persons camp to assess the state of the children there and try to protect them.
I have also visited Angola, a country that has enormous potential and tremendous opportunities now that its war is over, although corruption remains a huge problem. Angola is potentially very wealthy, with huge oil and diamond reserves, but in its IDP camps we saw squalor worse than I want to see again. Fifty-six people were living in a tent of the size that hon. Members might take on holiday for a fortnight in France. There was little running water and no electricity, and some children were

551
starving or had had limbs blown off by land mines. Then, the Angolan Government used the war as an excuse; now they no longer have that excuse. They have an enormous responsibility, with the support of the international community, to get to grips with the country's massive problems and huge opportunities.
In Angola we met extraordinary young people from the Angolan youth parliament, who expressed their distress at being able to see the opportunities that were available to young people in the rest of the world, and their disgust at living in a situation that UNICEF has described as possibly the worst anywhere in the world for children growing up. The example of those young people offers real hope for the people of Angola.
A few weeks ago we visited Sudan, which is the largest country in Africa and has enormous mineral wealth. The despair of Sudan has already been well described, but everyone we met showed an urge towards and a desire for peace. We met intelligent rational people for whom peace is the intelligent rational choice.
It was clear that if the Sudanese people had peace, the country could develop tremendously on the basis of its mineral wealth. It could become an important player in NEPAD, and an important bridge between Africa and the middle east, the Muslim world and the Christian world, and the Arab world and the African world. Its potential is enormous, but hard choices will have to be made to secure peace. The new unit set up jointly by the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under Alan Goulty has an opportunity to play an important role in peace negotiations in a country where we saw that the influence and interest of the United Kingdom was broadly welcomed.
Both sides will have to face up to the fact that at some point, which they must define, there will have to be an act of self-determination. At the very least, there will have to be a referendum, in which everyone participates, on the future of the country. There will be plenty of time to work out whether the country's future lies in separation or devolution. Sudan must also work out how to tackle all the issues of development, including economic development, and how to fulfil the needs of a proper civil society, such as basic structures for health, security and education. Both sides need to face up to the need for a referendum, and our Government, along with the surrounding countries, will have to help them to do so.
I am delighted by the Secretary of State's remarks about the importance of primary education in humanitarian development, and of assisting children who have been displaced.
Before I conclude, I want to make one constituency point. We have a small town, a very white town, in the middle of a rural area, which under the influence of the local Oxfam group declared itself the world's first "fair trade" town. Garstang is now twinned with New Koforidua in Ghana and it has built up good links with that country. One of the most inspirational experiences that I have had as an MP was organising a local produce breakfast with the previous Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who is now the Minister of State, Scotland Office. It was attended by local schoolchildren, farmers, business people and dignitaries, who all enjoyed eating bacon and eggs and talking about
552
the relative position of farmers in Garstang and Ghana. If we can keep that sort of dialogue going, there is real hope for the future.
6.12 pm
John Barrett: Much of what had to be said today has already been said, but it has struck a chord on all sides of the House. I congratulate all the previous speakers on having made informative and interesting contributions.
I have been impressed by the genuine concern of many hon. Members here today, and as a new member of the International Development Committee, I have already heard evidence given by the UNHCR, Action Aid and the Secretary of State, among others. Much credit must go to the Secretary of State, whose forthright approach on these issues leaves nobody in any doubt that she feels passionately about her work and the work of her Department. The annual report was published too close to this debate to allow me thoroughly to read it all, but contributions from other speakers showed that they found time for a more detailed analysis. In fact, I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) reading it during last night's parliamentary party meeting.
One issue on which I should like to focus is the untying of aid, which is a welcome move. I entirely agree that DFID should continue to promote that among other Governments. The UK Government's decision is good because it is taking the lead and pushing other countries in the same direction. Tying up aid can skew development projects away from poverty-focused projects and lead to the provision of the wrong type of service and advice.
I heard what my hon. Friend said about debt relief. It was interesting to read a recent note from Jubilee Plus which mentions that the US has built up a massive external debt of $2.2 trillion, and while it pays $20 billion per annum to service that debt, poor countries are crippled by over $300 billion of debt service repayments on a debt that is almost the same as the US Government's national debt.
One of the reasons why I first got involved in politics was that I realised that the problems facing us in this country, important though they are, are often nothing compared with the plight of millions around the world, many of whom are starving. Some years ago, I was involved in supervising the delivery of aid to eastern Europe on behalf of a Scottish charity that had raised money, medical supplies and presents for children who were suffering from the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion. That was my first experience of seeing that inefficiency and corruption can go hand in hand, and I hope that the Secretary of State and her Department will continue to pursue and root out corruption whenever there is evidence of it among recipients, to make sure that those most in need receive what is due to them. The millennium development goals are important, and, again, all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have subscribed to the contents of the DFID report.
There is always a fine balancing act—on the one hand, respecting a decision of a democratically elected Government to set their own priorities, while, on the other, ensuring that aid goes to the most needy. The Tanzania air traffic control system is a perfect example of that, and we hope that this Department will pursue a wise course of action in that regard.

553
One of the previous speakers mentioned Sudanese residents bringing the issue of Sudan to his attention. I think that I mentioned in a debate on Sudan in Westminster Hall that no constituent of mine has ever raised that issue with me; indeed, it is relatively rare that people raise third-world debt with me. It is not because they do not care. I believe that it is determined by where the news teams are. We saw pictures of the famine in Ethiopia, and that had an impact around the world. Members of the House must take responsibility to press the media to take an interest, and the Department must ensure that there are no forgotten areas of this world.
Some of the most difficult areas to deal with are those where conflict exists, whether it is in Sudan, Palestine or Afghanistan. In Palestine, we have witnessed the destruction of projects funded by EU aid. In Afghanistan, rebuilding of the country must be a priority. As the Secretary of State said, without an infrastructure, there will be no way for aid to get through, and people will continue to starve. This morning, we heard again that 3 million to 4 million people are at risk from famine in Malawi—a country where development aid was cut recently because of corruption—and emergency aid will now be required. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has raised this issue with the Secretary of State. Once again, I am encouraged to be brief, as many items have already been dealt with.
Finally, I want to refer to the Budget Red Book. I noticed that about two pages were dedicated to international poverty reduction; interestingly, that constitutes approximately 0.7 per cent. of the document. Unfortunately, we are not making great progress towards the 0.7 per cent. target. At the current rate of progress, my researcher, who is 22, will be delighted to know that he will be able to celebrate the 0.7 per cent. target being reached just in time for his 100th birthday. Surely we must do better.
6.18 pm
Norman Lamb: I want to join in the tributes to the leadership shown by the Secretary of State in raising the profile of international development, and, critically, in increasing public acceptance of the case for augmenting spending in this area. In the past, there has been much misuse of development assistance and misdirection of money—it has been used for the wrong purposes and has got into the wrong hands. As a result, public acceptance has fallen significantly over the years. The Secretary of State's role in re-establishing and rebuilding the importance of this area of spending in the public's eyes has been enormously valuable.
This afternoon's debate has not focused much on the passing into law of the International Development Act 2002. In some ways, that is surprising, because the establishment of the central principle of poverty alleviation and sustainable development is of great importance. Apart from anything else, it directs attention to other areas of Government in which that same focus may not yet exist. The Government's international policy on the developing world still lacks coherence. We have established that development assistance must be devoted to the alleviation of poverty and to sustainable development, but that principle needs to apply across Government and Government policy.
554
Let me highlight one or two examples of how the principle has clearly not been in place in the past year and on which further work needs to be done. Many hon. Members made the case about European spending on development assistance. I will not cite all the statistics that show how out of focus European spending is; suffice it to say that it is not being spent sufficiently on the countries in most need, and that problem is getting worse. There is a reform process, but inadequate and insufficient progress is being made to ensure that the money is spent in the most deserving countries. Unless the pace of reform improves substantially, we will have to ask ourselves whether it is better for us to keep that money and spend it in accordance with the Act, so applying the core principle of the alleviation of poverty. At the moment, the way in which European money is spent on development assistance goes against the Act's core principle.
Several hon. Members mentioned the Commonwealth Development Corporation. In the recent Adjournment debate on that subject, the Minister rejected the contention that there was cause for concern about the move towards partial privatisation. Let me repeat the strong assertion that there is self-evidently a possible conflict between seeking the highest rate of return on an investment and having poverty reduction as the core principle. Other hon. Members said that CDC money, used as a pump primer in areas where commercial money will not go, plays a crucial role in developing countries. It is enormously regrettable if we are to lose that, as appears to be the case.
Like the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I have just returned from the trip to India organised and paid for by Oxfam. I was told that the CDC man in India is busily organising investment in information technology. IT is concentrated in one or two specific high-growth areas in India. It has little impact on the rest of the country. The point was made most forcibly to me that that is not helping to alleviate poverty and that the money needs to go to parts of the country where it is much more needed.
On arms sales, I agree with the Secretary of State that developing countries need internal security. Of course they need armed forces so that they can defend themselves. Is it right, however, that arms exports to Africa from this country were worth £52 million in 1999, £125 million in 2000 and are anticipated to be worth £200 million next year, according to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade? They are paid for, inevitably, by increasing debt in countries where we often have to write off that very debt. In addition, there were reports this week of sales of military aircraft to India that are capable of conversion to carry nuclear bombs. Given the fragility of relations between India and Pakistan, is that wise? Is it compatible with the thrust of the Department's work?
On Tanzania, the point has been made many times that selling an air traffic control system for military use to one of the poorest countries in the world goes against the principles of the Act. It is extraordinary that that export licence was granted. There should be a full inquiry into how that happened.
There is also the United Kingdom's involvement in the manufacture of and trade in cluster bombs, and their use. We must question whether such involvement is contrary to the core principles that are set out in the International Development Act 2002. There are 14,000 unexploded bomblets scattered round Afghanistan, and the impact on civilians following conflict is massive. The situation

555
prevents them from returning to agriculture. It prevents children from playing as they would normally do in peaceful times. If we are to have the same coherent focus on developing countries, there must be international agreement on the use of cluster bombs and on the obligations of countries that use them following conflict to clear up the mess that they create.
In terms of creating coherence and consistency in policy, there is the issue of trade, which is highlighted in chapter 2 of the report and mentioned by many Members this afternoon. I support the work of the Department in working with the Department of Trade and Industry to increase opportunities for developing countries to trade. It is clear that the Doha agreement is a step in the right direction.
I was struck by the fact that India makes up 20 per cent. of the world's population and yet has a share of only 1 per cent. of the world's trade. There must be more equitable trading rules. The EU is one of the worst offenders, as the Oxfam report has demonstrated.
I was struck in India also by the massive challenge for the country itself in breaking down internal barriers to create a single market. There are incredible queues of lorries between states within the country, each charging its own tariffs on entry. India needs to create a common tax system throughout the country. There is a massive need for labour law reform. It is essential also to tackle the endemic corruption that riddles the country.
Without those internal changes, there will not be the necessary internal investment. That will prevent India from participating in international trade. There is an obligation on both the developed world and the developing world to take a great deal of action to ensure that international trade increases.
I turn to the effectiveness of spending within the budget of the Department for International Development. I welcome the Department's acceptance of a clear strong link between good governance, proper management of public finances and the achievement of development targets. Chapter 3 of the report refers to the recognition of the huge scope for improvement in public financial management in the 25 heavily indebted poor countries. That improvement still needs to be made. I welcome the Department's recognition of the increasing link between the giving of assistance and achieving improvements in governance and financial management. The New Partnership for Africa's Development initiative, where Africa is taking responsibility itself for improving governance and obtaining assistance in return for those improvements, is a case in point.
In India, I saw the Department working in four states, choosing the states where there is most evidence of a move towards good governance, and where reformers are in charge and making a real difference. It was good to see the Department working with reformers to ensure that our money went to good effect.
Close scrutiny of how the Department's money is being spent is vital. Since my return from India, I have received an e-mail from India referring to the fact that the Department's HIV/AIDS work in conjunction with state governance in two states, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, is effectively subcontracted to a private company, Dalai Engineers Ltd., a name that hardly suggests that the company has massive experience in HIV/AIDS work.
556
That may be working well, but I should appreciate it if the Minister could investigate the matter and let me know whether the money is being effectively used.
I warmly welcome the increasing budget for aid, although I am disappointed that the Government have not been more ambitious. The extra money creates new challenges to ensure that it is spent effectively by the Department. It has been suggested to me that there is a shortage of ideas for good quality projects, and there is a danger of a poor return on money if it is simply pumped into the system. More money means more pressure on staff to ensure effective use, so transparent evaluation of the work of the Department is essential.
DFID has an internal evaluation unit, and the Department's website includes a section on evaluation, yet reports on evaluation go up only to 1997. There is nothing thereafter. Are those evaluation reports continuing? It is essential that they are available on the internet for the public to see.
I conclude by acknowledging that the Department has made massive progress in the past year. However, we must all realise that there is an enormous burden on both the developing world and the developed world to continue the process of reform and to ensure that all the money is spent on the alleviation of poverty.
6.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I shall be brief, as I realise that we are coming to the end of the debate.
I commend the Department and particularly the Secretary of State, who is no longer present, for the work that they are doing. However, much is not being done in the most efficient and effective way. The Government's duty is to ensure that every penny that we spend on international development is spent wisely, sensibly and to the best effect.
From what I have read in the reports issued this week, I believe that the money that we are giving to the European Union is not being spent in the wisest possible way. The time has come to change that policy. We should consider restoring to ourselves control over the money that we spend on international development. We have a duty to help those in the poorer countries as much as we can, but that is not done by handing the money over to Brussels to spend in a way that is not as efficient as the way in which we would spend it.
I am wearing a poppy and rosemary, not because it is Remembrance day in the United Kingdom, but because today is ANZAC day. I was privileged to attend a service at Westminster abbey this morning to commemorate ANZAC day. It brought home to me the close relationship that the United Kingdom has with the countries of the Commonwealth, particularly Australia and New Zealand. I know that those two countries have proud records on international development aid.
I strongly urge the Government to focus on co-operating with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and, as other hon. Members said earlier, the United States of America—countries with which we have a common heritage and a common understanding—to promote international development in countries where good governance exists. It is throwing money down the drain to give it to countries where it will be squandered and used least effectively for the very people whom we most

557
wish to help. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is on record as saying that European Union aid is "failing the poor". That is not the only area where the EU is failing.
We have a duty and a moral responsibility to restore the control of international development funds to our own Government, and to spend that money in a way that will help the poorest in the world. That means controlling the funds ourselves and co-operating with our friends in the Commonwealth, but not handing that power over to the European Union.
6.34 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: As this is my first and, quite possibly, only outing at the Dispatch Box, it is a great pleasure to be called on to summarise a debate on a subject that enjoys such general agreement on both sides of the House. The only significant clash has been, once again, over the former Commonwealth Development Corporation, and I hope to have time to return to that a little later.
I should like to think that some of the remarks from those on the Opposition Benches made during the Westminster Hall debate on the CDC on 10 April encouraged the Government to make more time available to debate international development, and all hon. Members present today have benefited from this debate.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) drew on his detailed knowledge of extremely primitive conditions in African villages. He made an excellent analogy between a snooker game and the way in which selfish protectionism can cost jobs at home on the rebound from blocking jobs abroad in poor countries.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, was in reflective mood. She posed some serious questions about whether giving aid is merely to fight a losing battle, but resolved such doubts by an overriding sense of moral obligation. Her fears that we are sometimes told that more is being done than really is being done, because debt repayments are left out of the equation, struck a chord on both sides of the House—if not her reference to "bounders" in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department of Trade and Industry.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) stressed fair trade, the provision of basic services via foreign investment and the need to reintegrate ex-militias into civil society in all too many damaged poor states.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, applied his encyclopaedic knowledge to many aspects of international development, not least the dumping of excess EU produce on poor countries as a result of the unreformed CAP, the scourge of AIDS, the long-term political goal of democratisation and the need to keep sight of what all the policies, pledges and statistics really mean in individual human terms.
AIDS was the main topic taken up by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra). He explained, with great seriousness, that arguments about patents for anti-AIDS drugs largely missed the point that it would often still be too expensive to distribute them, even if they
558
were given free to poor countries, and that interrupted courses of treatment help to cause the virus to mutate and become much more resistant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) painted a depressing portrait of squalor, disease, corruption and intimidation in major unsettled African states, and referred to the prospect of terrorist training camps in Sudan, the timebomb ticking in Nigeria and the decline in Zimbabwe caused primarily by the absence of anything approaching democracy and good governance. It was a powerful indictment of some of the problems that are largely beyond the reach of mere financial aid.
The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley)—another member of the Select Committee—showed his considerable expertise on the way in which trade trends adversely affect the welfare of the least developed countries. He made a plea for the liberalisation of economies on both sides of the development divide and mentioned the support for political extremism in France. He may be interested to know that Alois Brunner, the man who organised the war-time deportation of the French Jews to Auschwitz—a terrible event, to which the hon. Gentleman referred—was sheltered for many years by the Syrian regime and may still be alive in Damascus even today. That is a salutary reminder of the morality and values of some Governments with whom we still have to deal.
The theme of trade liberalisation was taken up by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), but I trust that he will forgive me for saying that my abiding memory of his speech will be what he told us about the role of Welsh enterprise and Welsh sheep in producing anti-snakebite serum for the developing world.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) stressed that sub-Saharan Africa is falling seriously behind and set out a worrying list of problems with his characteristic blend of thoughtfulness and thoroughness. As in Westminster Hall on 10 April, he expressed concern about the new direction of the CDC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) pointed out that what we used to call the "second world" countries of eastern Europe will inevitably rank high in the priorities of EU states. He highlighted the problems of ordinary business men in reaching potential markets in Africa.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) rightly praised the calibre of today's debate and spoke movingly about the privations that he witnessed in Angola and the need for an end to strife in the Sudan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who has shown a consistent interest in international development, brought his usual robust approach to the subject of international development and the European Union in general. The hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) made valuable contributions, although they were inevitably foreshortened by pressure of time. One of them previously intervened to ask whether the Opposition had ever committed themselves to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP to be devoted to aid and had ever given a timetable for achieving that. The answer is yes to the first and no to the second question. Neither the Government nor the Opposition have ever given a time frame for that great task to which we are all

559
committed. The Liberal Democrats would be foolish to try to do so in advance of taking power, which I hope will be long in coming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the shadow Secretary of State, covered six topics of primary concern. At the outset, she pressed powerfully the question of the CDC and brought out the problem, which was first aired when the Bill was going through in 1999, about the potential conflict between the CDC and DFID as providers of aid to underdeveloped countries. That conflict was denied at the time but, unfortunately, seems to exist now.
My hon. Friend drew attention to aid via the EU and the way in which distortion is taking place: even as the Government creditably put emphasis on providing aid to the right countries, the EU is falling massively behind and, indeed, reversing the priorities. In the report published yesterday, the Government proudly point out that their main donations are to sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and east Asia and the Pacific. The European Community, however, has been developing a strategy that has shown diminishing support for those priority areas and an ever-higher proportion of support going to what might be called the near abroad—the countries in the middle range of development, not the poorest countries, which should be our main concern.
My hon. Friend also touched on the BAE deal in Tanzania, her experiences in India, the problems of fair trade and, in particular, the question of debt. She is greatly concerned, as are others, that aid that is given with one hand should not be negated by the removal of a country's wealth in debt repayments by the other.
The Secretary of State gave what can be described only as a sombre review of life on a dollar a day, or at most two dollars a day. She said that terrible poverty in an age of excellent communications is a recipe for conflict, bitterness and hatred. She referred to the danger of Africa becoming a failed continent and pointed out that it was on the basis of failed states that terrorist regimes take root and prosper. That put me in mind of what was said in the first report from the Select Committee this Session about the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The report states:
"We hope the Government's response to this report will address the issue of failing states, how they are monitored and what level of preparedness the international system can maintain to respond to problems in these failing states."
The Government's response has merely been to acknowledge the importance of that and to say:
"DFID is working in the OECD Development Assistance Committee study to identify best practice in how to promote change and reduce poverty in failed states and how to ensure that the international community remains sufficiently engaged with such states."
When the Minister replies I hope that he will expand on that and explain a little more precisely what the Government are doing to head off the potential of failed states leading to terrorist development.
Finally, the CDC issue was examined in great depth in the Westminster Hall debate on 10 April. It has been pointed out that, apart from the Minister himself, everyone who spoke in that debate was unhappy, dissatisfied and seriously alarmed about the CDC's change in direction. In his closing remarks in that debate, the Minister said:
"The CDC plays an important role and it is right that there should be scrutiny, but we must crack the fundamental problem—private capital does not want to invest in the poorest countries."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 21WH.]
560
If that really is the Minister's view, he must admit that the Government have taken a wrong turning with the CDC. The sooner they revisit mistaken action in connection with that important organisation, the sooner we will achieve unanimity, not on almost all the issues that have been debated today, but on every one of them.
6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I welcome the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) to the Dispatch Box. I understand that he is taking a lead from the Government, who believe that Whips should be able to speak from the Front Bench, a view that has been subject to criticism. However, it is good to see at last bipartisan support for an erosion of the principle for which I might coin the phrase "the silence of the Whips".
The hon. Gentleman provoked me to make just one party political point, but I promise to make no more during my speech. He referred to the Conservatives' commitment to the 0.7 per cent. target; when the Conservative Government were elected in 1979, they inherited a figure of 0.55 per cent, but when they left office in 1997, they bequeathed to us a figure of 0.26 per cent. We must do better.
Dr. Lewis: The Minister should bear it in mind that figures given as percentages often have a lot do with the state of the economy rather than the amounts donated—[Interruption.]
Hilary Benn: I shall try again, but the House has indicated with its response that it is not persuaded by that argument.
Mr. Robathan rose—
Hilary Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me a moment?
We have had another excellent debate. Like almost every contributor, I, too, hope that it can become an annual event. If we have done nothing else today, we have at least honoured the prayer of the Speaker's Chaplain, who every day in the Chamber asks us all to keep in mind our responsibility
"to seek to improve the condition of all mankind."
Never in human history has it been more important that we should do so. I do not risk contradiction if I say that hon. Members on both sides of the House have all contributed something of value to our deliberations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) talked about the fair trade breakfast to which he invited my predecessor. If he made me an offer now, my stomach would command me to accept.
Clare Short: It is bacon and eggs.
Hilary Benn: As a vegetarian, I would not eat the bacon, but I would have the egg.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) described the Government as the usual suspects, which is rather unfair. However, there are more of the usual suspects attending and taking part in international development debates because more Members recognise

561
the importance of the subject. The hon. Gentleman kindly mentioned the international Commission on Intellectual Property Rights set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I also draw his attention to the committee chaired by my right hon. Friend which works with pharmaceutical companies and tries to address the question of access to medicines. I for one would certainly welcome a debate on GATS; crying wolf on GATS—I am referring more generally to people's comments—does not assist informed discussion.
A number of Members referred to the CDC. I do not propose to rehearse our recent debate in Westminster Hall, but I shall make a plea for some perspective on the CDC, which still holds 80 per cent. of its agricultural portfolio. In 1999 to 2000, it made £100 million worth of new investments in agribusiness. To listen to some Members this evening, one would think that it had stopped making such investments altogether. It remains a unique investment institution. As I said in our Westminster Hall debate, I defy any Member to name another worldwide investment institution 70 per cent. of whose new investments have to benefit poorer countries, and 50 per cent. of whose investments are made in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. The CDC fulfilled, indeed exceeded, both those targets in the year that has just ended.
On agriculture more generally, let us not forget that world food production has doubled in the past 40 years. Rural livelihoods remain extremely important to DFID. The CDC is not the sum total of the work that we do to support agriculture. The work of our rural livelihoods department is central. In terms of population growth, hon. Members will know that the biggest growth in the next generation in developing countries will be in the number of people living in towns and cities. Almost all the population growth will occur in that respect.
On the world summit for sustainable development, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) referred to water and sanitation. What we need now in relation to the world summit is practical outcomes. After the success of Doha and financing for development, we need to get beyond some of the jargon and deal with the practicalities. Issues on which we could make practical progress include illegal logging, in terms of which the link between forestry and livelihood is important, and improved water and sanitation, which is important not least because installing a water pump in a village is a very good way of enabling girls to go to school as it means that they will not have to spend a large part of the day fetching and carrying water—a burden that falls especially to girls. I was astonished to discover that in the past 10 years, more children have died of diarrhoeal diseases in the world than all the people who have died in conflicts worldwide since the end of the second world war. That statistic, if no other, shows the importance of making progress. It probably explains why Mahatma Gandhi said:
"Sanitation is more important than independence."
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) took us on a tour of Africa, which I greatly enjoyed. He asked some very sharp and pertinent questions about governance. I shall respond to his further letter about Nigeria. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) described the personal motivation that had brought him into politics—a motivation that is central to what has brought so many hon. Members into the debate.
562
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked a very important question about India, in relation to the visit that she has just made. She asked how we spread the reform that we can see in some states, and which DFID is supporting, to all the states. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) made the very important point that some countries need to do a lot more to tackle HIV/AIDS. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) spoke with passion about EU aid. I welcome the Select Committee report—another excellent report that is keeping the pressure up. We all share the view that we need to do better.
I can tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that in her opening contribution, as ever, she provided us with vision not only in the sense of inspiration, but in terms of urging us all the time to look ahead at the development challenge that is yet to come. If there is one quality in particular that I admire about her, it is her ability to make every opportunity in this House a chance to engage in a seminar about why international development matters and the steps that we need to take to enable progress to occur.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly said that we must not be complacent. I do not think that there has been any complacency in this debate. One of the features of DFID is the presence in the dialogue between Ministers and civil servants of a constant questioning in which we ask, "Have we got this right? Do we need to do more? Do we need to reflect and change our policy?"
If we can make this debate an annual state of the world debate, we will have an opportunity to return to the arguments that have been advanced today and see who was right and what progress has been made. What strikes me most forcibly about all the contributions is the extent to which the theme of interdependence has glued them all together. What we now choose to call globalisation is in truth a process that has been going on for hundreds of years, although it has been gathering pace in the past century. It is, after all, nothing more than human beings' astonishing capacity to interact with the physical resources of the earth to create technologies that have transformed the existence of some of the people who live on the planet and which have the capacity to do the same for many others if we get this challenge right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) made a plea, which I echo, for a more informed debate about globalisation. All the questions that it raises—its impact on the poor, its effect on people's sense of culture and identity, the pace of change and the feeling in some quarters that we can no longer influence events—lead to confusion in some areas. That is best exemplified in a banner that may be apocryphal, but was seen in a demonstration. Emblazoned on it were the following words: "Worldwide Coalition Against Globalisation." There is much to reflect on in those words. My hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), in his outstanding contribution, talked about a conversation at a snooker table. That exemplified perfectly the fact that these matters are not quite as simple as some people choose to present them on certain occasions.
The biggest danger we face is that cynicism, despair and hopelessness should overcome what we need to do. The most important thing is to reinforce our optimism, based on a sense of realism about the progress that we

563
have been able to make, and this debate has provided us with the opportunity to do that. That is why the UN human development report published last summer was able to state that
"the impressive gains of the past 30 years demonstrate the possibility of eradicating poverty".
That matters, but we need to redouble our efforts, for all the reasons to which hon. Members have referred. The question is—how?
Aid matters, because it makes a difference. It helps children to get into primary school, for example. The quantity of aid also matters, and the Government's record on that speaks for itself. The way in which aid is given matters, in terms of untying debt relief. I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) that Burkina Faso was the first HIPC country recently to receive additional relief to compensate for lower commodity prices, and representatives at the spring meetings agreed to review debt sustainability under HIPC at their next meeting in the autumn.
The quality of aid and of governance matter, not least because we have to show our electorate—when we are having the argument about aid—why it is worth putting these resources in. Also, we understand much better now that the governance and legal system of a country, the commitment of its Government to poverty reduction, the effectiveness of its civil service and its civil society, and the health of its democracy all have as great a contribution to make to creating the conditions in which poverty eradication can occur as all the aid that we are likely to give.
The local ownership of the process also matters. We cannot go in as the ex-colonial power and knock on the door, saying, "Hello, we've come to develop your country." There has to be a partnership. The question that the hon. Member for Meriden asked about how to match good donors with good recipients goes to the heart of the honest dialogue that we are trying to build in our relationship with the countries with which we work.
References have been made to trade and to economic development. It was the same process of economic development that enabled this country to move from where we were 300 years ago—with very poor life expectancy, lots of children unable to go to school, and people in very poor health—to where we are today, for all the arguments about the state of our public services. The countries that have not yet had that opportunity wish only to do what we have done, because they know what progress that development will be able to deliver.
My final comments relate to the point I made earlier about confidence, and the need to counter cynicism and despair. They relate, in essence, to the way in which our democracy works, and to what I said about the feeling that we lack influence. The reasons why we need to counter that cynicism and despair were put forward most forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York
564
(Hugh Bayley) when he referred to the French election result, which is very much in our minds. We can never drop our guard against an ideology that seeks to deny our interdependence and to despise what makes us different. We reject that ideology because we have to embrace that difference. We have no choice, but we do so willingly because we recognise our common humanity.
This is an argument that we have to win in people's minds. I am reminded of the wonderful words of the UNESCO declaration:
"Since wars began in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men …that…peace must be constructed."
That is the challenge. When people say to politicians that politics never make a difference, I say that that is not true. We can find no better illustration of that than the Government's achievements on international development. This is politics working, and there is no greater cause that politics can serve in the years to come than trying to rid the world of poverty.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Council Services (Dorset)
  7 pm
  Jim Knight: I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by almost 1,000 parents, grandparents and other residents of South Dorset. They express their concern about Government funding for local council services. In particular, they do not understand why the standard spending assessment values the education of a Dorset child at £100 less than that of a child in neighbouring Hampshire. They urge that the review of grant support by the Government address that imbalance.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The petition of residents of South Dorset
  Declares that the services provided by district councils affect the quality of life of local residents and deserve to be properly supported; that Dorset's schools in particular deserve to be fairly funded; that local authority funding has been based on a flawed system for far too long; that any new system of local authority funding should reflect the fixed costs which all councils have, and the particular needs of local residents; and that small shire districts risk being disadvantaged by the proposed new system of grant support to local authorities.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions to ensure that the new system of grant support to local authorities does not disadvantage small shire districts, and provides a fair funding settlement for Dorset's schools.
  And the Petitioners remain.
  To lie upon the Table.

Foot and Mouth
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
7.1 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: Northumberland was the first county to have a foot and mouth-infected farm, on 23 February 2001, and the last to be declared free of the disease, which did not happen until January 2002. Three quarters of the county's farms were put under restriction, more than 300 were culled out and 230,000 animals were slaughtered. More than 130,000 carcases were buried on one site at the village of Widdrington and 4,000 were burned beside the sand dunes at the nearby beach at Druridge bay.
Farm-related businesses, tourism businesses and other activities throughout much of Northumberland were severely damaged by the effects of the restrictions. It is therefore hardly surprising that there was a universal demand in Northumberland for a public inquiry into the outbreak and much anger when the Government refused to set one up. The county council, largely as a consequence of that refusal and the scale of the damage in Northumberland, set up its own inquiry under the thorough and effective chairmanship of Professor Michael Dower.
However, neither that inquiry nor the three informal ones set up by the Government could summon witnesses on oath so as to get at the truth of the many allegations made about the origins, spreading and handling of the outbreak. That remains a glaring omission. It is also a matter of great regret that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, although it submitted a memorandum to the inquiry and answered written questions, refused to attend or to allow either Ministers or officials to be questioned in person. Had it done so, the inquiry would have benefited and DEFRA would have learned something from the atmosphere of the proceedings that, at times, provided a moving and distressing testimony from those who suffered so badly from the outbreak.
So thorough is the inquiry's report and so numerous its conclusions that I can highlight only a limited number of key points. I intend to concentrate on the lessons to be learned and what still needs to be done to put right some of the damage. The Minister's reply must spell out action that will now he taken.
One lesson should have been learned from the Duke of Northumberland's report on the 1967 outbreak, but it was ignored. The recent inquiry concluded that there was no effective system of overall management for the first five weeks of the 2001 outbreak. It criticised the failure of the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to set up a command centre immediately and its refusal to join the Gold command centre set up initially by Northumbria police. We paid a high price for that failure.
Even after the control centre in Newcastle was set up, communications with farmers, agencies and the public remained poor, and the command structure is described as overcentralised and "apparently chaotic". There was a failure to communicate with local authorities, especially the environmental health authority, Castle Morpeth borough council. The report says that DEFRA
"cannot shelter behind its contractor"
566
on this matter. It continues:
"A government department should well know that District Councils have a leading statutory responsibility for the control of air pollution."
The inquiry also concludes that substantially more animals were slaughtered than was necessary, and that far more of the culled animals should have been buried on or near the farms. It calls on DEFRA to work with the industry and local authorities to ensure better arrangements for biosecurity. It also calls for contingency plans that are updated every three years, and a clear identification of who will do what in any future such situation, with the training of staff who are likely to be drafted in to do the work.
The report recommends that a handbook of guidance should be ready at any time, and accurate information about farms and available vets should be in the hands of the command centre from the beginning. A blue-box system, which was used effectively in the later stages of the outbreak in the Hexham area, should be developed and used from the beginning. As the report says:
"the outbreak provided, in its two phases, an object lesson in how not to achieve, and then how to achieve, the standards of security required during a FMD outbreak."
It says that the state veterinary service has been "dangerously reduced" and should be re-strengthened. That view will be echoed by many farmers.
The inquiry details how extensive the damage was to farms that were not culled out, but which could not move livestock. The report argues for compensation for farmers whose cattle lost value owing to movement restrictions and going over 30 months, and for recompense for damage caused in the course of handling the outbreak. It makes extensive recommendations about help for businesses and communities, including the extension of the rate relief scheme for businesses that have suffered loss. It calls for a range of measures to support the recovery of the livestock industry, and to assist farmers to diversify, including extending the countryside stewardship scheme to wider areas.
Tourism was badly damaged, and the report calls for a well-funded programme under the Tourism Development Act 1969. For businesses generally, the report calls for a stepping up of business link services, the enhancement of the IT infrastructure in the county, and the development of vocational and entrepreneurial skills. It points out that a way must be found to channel help to affected parts of the county that are outside the areas qualifying for regional assistance.
I want to refer in particular to the Widdrington and Cresswell areas, where the mass burning and burial were concentrated. They were chosen to suffer this devastating blow because they had already suffered industrial pollution. That is a terrible injustice, and a shocking admission by the Environment Agency representative who attended the inquiry. The report urges the Government, through their regional office and One NorthEast, to join the county council in the discussions with those communities aimed at agreeing a programme for early action to improve the environment and to advance the regeneration of the area.
At the moment, the area is being considered only for European-backed programmes for which it was already eligible before the foot and mouth outbreak. There is still no sign of the additional compensation that the people of

567
the area deserve because of what they have suffered, much of which could have been avoided. One project that could bring real community benefit and will need some Government support is a plan to bring natural gas to all the communities affected that do not have a gas supply. The total cost of that will be less than £0.5 million, and it will need some form of Government support.
I am not impressed by the way in which applications from small business in those areas are being dealt with. I want the Minister to give his personal attention to the case of my constituent, who opened a caf' near to the beach at Cresswell just before the cattle burning at Druridge bay began, when the road was closed. I put his case to the Minister in July 2001, and after a great deal of pressure—the Department was about six months behind with its correspondence—he replied in late September suggesting that my constituent put in a claim to the dedicated claims unit that the Department had established. That resulted in a letter from the largest firm of commercial solicitors in the country, saying that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had not closed the road—it had been closed by the county council.
I tabled a parliamentary question that established that the Department had asked the county council to close the road. The expensive firm of solicitors later pointed out that it had drafted the answer to my question—perhaps the Minister has been contracting out the drafting of answers to parliamentary questions. What he did not know when he answered that question was that, on the second occasion when the road was closed in August, a DEFRA official had put the tape across the road, and no member of the county council staff was present. Yet still the Department is using casuistry and expensive solicitors to insist that it had nothing to do with any of this, and to disclaim any responsibility at all. What kind of attitude is that? It is deplorable, and does not reflect the tone of the Minister's earlier reply to me, which suggested that the claims unit would be the appropriate means by which to examine the very serious damage that was done to that business.
In the time available, it is possible to touch on only some of the conclusions and very little of the detailed argument in the report. I recognise that extremely hard work was done in very difficult circumstances by many civil servants, Army personnel, local authority staff, police, contractors, farmers, farm workers and members of local communities. What a distressing time they had, and how grim some of that work was. They deserve a great deal of credit for the tremendous effort and long hours they put in.
The clear overall impression in the report, however, is that the situation could have been handled a lot better and more effectively, with less slaughter, less consequential damage, less spreading of infection, and less of a breakdown in tourism and other businesses. Do the Government accept all the recommendations in the report that are relevant to central Government? Do they reject any of the recommendations? Do they intend to ignore any of them? What are Ministers doing to bring help to those whom the report identifies as in need of and deserving help, including those in the Widdrington area?
568
I secured an initial response from the Minister by way of a written question, and this debate enables him to respond at greater length. In his short reply to my written question, he said:
"The Northumberland inquiry report also outlines a medium term recovery plan for rural Northumberland to be developed within the policy framework of the Rural Action Plan produced by One North East. We have assured the leader of Northumberland county council that DEFRA stands ready to play its part alongside the other players, public, private and voluntary, which need to work together if such a plan is to be successful."—[Official Report. 18 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 1061W.]
Well, the other players are getting their act together. One of our leading regional charities has offered funds to the village community near Widdrington to help it set up projects that will secure help for the area. One or two other charitable organisations are also involved. The county council is determinedly playing its part, as are the other local authorities.
Will the Secretary of State agree to meet a delegation from Northumberland county council to discuss the way forward? I welcome the Minister's interest, but in this case the Secretary of State should take a personal interest in the matter, given the severe damage and the need for a lead from DEFRA. I recognise that many other Government Departments are involved, but we need a lead. Northumberland is playing its part, and, as the report proposes, it is planning a major rural conference to take forward a recovery plan. Northumberland will be the feature county at this year's royal show, at Stoneleigh. Now, it is the Government's turn to offer their response. Many parts of government will be involved, but DEFRA must take the lead. It was the Department most fully involved, and it must bear the responsibility—including for most of the things that went wrong during the inquiry. Given that it is responsible for rural areas, we look to it to take the lead in helping the county to recover from that devastating blow.
7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and on raising issues that are of particular importance to Northumberland. Of course DEFRA recognises that Northumberland was hit very hard during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I shall try to respond to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, and as he requested I shall spell out the aspects of the report that we recognise and accept. However, there are one or two parts of the report that we do not accept, as I shall make clear.
One aspect that we do not accept is the invitation to join the Gold command centre. We have no record of any such invitation, and we are not aware to whom it was sent. That may be a small point, but it needs correcting. We also reject the argument that we did not respond immediately by setting up a command centre. A centre was set up in the early stages, and I shall give the details in a moment.
I am not quite clear about the claims of excessive slaughter, which do not seem to be backed up by evidence. There may have been a misunderstanding, and I shall deal with that in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly gave a number of examples of how elements of the rural economy—such as tourism and other rural businesses—have been hit by the

569
foot and mouth outbreak. A number of agencies and Government bodies were involved in the recovery operation, including the tourist board, Business Link, Northumberland county council, One NorthEast and the national parks. There is no doubt that the matter should be approached in a joined-up integrated manner. The strongest point of contact for that is the Government office for the north-east, where DEFRA is represented. The Department's role is to try to co-ordinate things.
I understand that the supply of natural gas is important to rural areas. I represent a rural area, and some years ago that question took on great importance in my constituency. However, gas supply is a matter not for DEFRA alone but for British Gas as well.
The right hon. Gentleman gave detailed examples of some of the cases that he has dealt with. I shall look carefully at those examples. I hope that he will give me details of the cases that he feels have not been addressed properly, and I shall ensure that they are investigated.
I now turn to the recovery programme. Obviously, I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's request that she meet a delegation, but it might be appropriate for his constituents if he were to seek a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs. My right hon. Friend is responsible for co-ordinating the rural recovery, and I should be pleased to speak to him to see whether such a meeting could be arranged. I am sure that he would be sympathetic to any such request.
I appreciate the tributes paid by the right hon. Gentleman to all those who worked during the foot and mouth epidemic in Northumberland. That includes the county council and other local authority employees involved, who worked very hard. DEFRA staff—the vets, office personnel and other workers—are also worthy of recognition. Many DEFRA staff had no connection with animal health or foot and mouth because they were working in other divisions, yet they responded to our calls for volunteers. They were transferred from all the different divisions of the Department, which used to be known as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and were allocated to Northumberland, where they were asked to fight and defeat the disease.
The logistical operation was enormous, and I freely confess that the Department paid a price for it. One problem was the disruption to correspondence, for which I apologise. That was not satisfactory, and I am glad that we are now back on track after rectifying the problem, and that hon. Members can again receive the service to which they are entitled. We certainly intend to provide it.
We agree that there is a need for lessons to be learned, and that local inquiries have a role to play in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have set up the Royal Society inquiry, under Professor Sir Brian Follett. He is looking at the question of disease control, although it is inevitable that the inquiry will concentrate on foot and mouth, because it is so topical and its consequences are so far reaching. The other inquiry is the "Lessons Learned" inquiry under Dr. Iain Anderson, who will make recommendations on how the Government should handle any major animal disease outbreak in the future.
570
We are committed to those inquiries, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the policy commission on farming and food has already reported. Local inquiries, such as that instituted by Northumberland county council, provide useful local perspective. Their efforts will feed into the work of the national inquiries, and I am sure that the experiences and evidence recounted by people will be very valuable.
We made it clear from the beginning that DEFRA was happy to assist Professor Dower by sending comments on issues that were likely to be of interest to the inquiry. We answered in detail two sets of questions from the inquiry team. However, given our commitment to assist the national inquiries and the need to finish the work of dealing with the disease, it is not possible for us to send staff and Ministers to all the local inquiries in the country.
There have been many county council inquiries. Ministers and staff are also involved in parliamentary inquiries such as the EU inquiry. In contrast with the previous Government, Ministers have attended the EU temporary committee and answered questions in a public forum. I have no objections to doing so; it is part of the democratic process. We have also had to deal with the National Audit Office inquiry and Select Committee inquiries. Those are part of the parliamentary process, as is this Adjournment debate. Ministers are open to public scrutiny all the time, but we cannot take on the whole range of local inquiries and give them the kind of attendance to which parliamentary inquiries, which have a prior claim, are entitled.
We do not accept all the report's findings. It was critical of the very hard work done by my Department and previously by MAFF. It should have been fairer in recognising the commitment and hard work that our people put into controlling the disease. The report also did not recognise that the disease control centre was created at Newcastle as soon as the first case was confirmed in Northumberland.
Mr. Beith: Confirmed.
Mr. Morley: Yes, confirmed. That gradually came online throughout March, not at the end of the month.
I had the opportunity to talk to Professor Dower in Strasbourg, so I am not saying anything behind his back or making an unfair criticism. Professor Dower knows my views on the issues. I made it clear to him that we disagreed that there had been greater scope for on-farm burial. We followed the advice of the Environment Agency very closely. Part of the problem of on-farm burial is that we have moved on from the original Duke of Northumberland inquiry because of taking into account water tables and potential pollution.
What we have now that we did not have in 1967 is BSE in cattle. We preferred older cattle not to be buried on farm but in properly managed, supervised and run disposal sites. Professor Dower said that we could line pits on farm, but the costs of digging properly lined pits on farm are enormous, not to mention the logistics. The delays that that would have caused for carcase disposal would have been unacceptable. It would have been unacceptable in Northumberland.
Mr. Beith: The Minister's argument might be slightly more compelling if there were any experience of

571
successfully running large-scale burials in a way that was not devastating to local communities. The Minister does not need the report to tell him that there were numerous examples of vehicles containing carcases leaking over large areas of countryside. After the animals were burned, the ash had to be removed at a later stage in a way that was not initially anticipated. There was not the experience to manage the two sites properly, and that became clear as things progressed.
Mr. Morley: Even with those examples there is a misunderstanding. People talk about the ash having to be cleared, but it was always intended that it would be removed later. It is not as if something went wrong; that was part of the disposal and recovery programme. It was already part of the proposals. I do not doubt that there were cases of leaking vehicles, because we pursued these complaints, but there were only a few. Generally speaking, the lorries were sealed. The sites are properly monitored and engineered and will continue to be monitored for some time to ensure that pollution is not a problem and that they are being managed like proper landfill sites. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that.
As for the claim that animals were killed unnecessarily, Professor Dower seemed to be under the impression that there was a 3 km cull in Northumberland. There was never a 3 km cull in Northumberland—he is mistaken. There was certainly a contiguous cull in the county, but that is not the same as 3 km cull. The only place where there was a 3 km cull was Cumbria. Professor Dower and his committee may have been labouring under a misapprehension. The most important issue is whether the disease was brought under control—and it was.
That is not to say that there may not be alternative ways of dealing with such an epidemic in the future. We certainly do not rule that out. We are not saying that a culling programme is the only way. We have already made it clear in our interim contingency plan that we would not consider pyres for the disposal of animals. Our top three priorities would he rendering, commercial incineration or landfill. We do not want to go back to using funeral pyres. We accept that.
We also accept the points made about blue-box biosecurity controls. Professor Dower's report strongly commended them, and I am pleased about that. However, we must remember that the outbreak was like no other outbreak; it was probably the world's worst outbreak of foot and mouth. No other country had experienced such a scale or spread. The original 1967 Duke of Northumberland report was not adequate to guide the response for a very different outbreak on a much larger scale and with a much wider spread.
One of the lessons that we learned in the course of dealing with the outbreak was that biosecurity was a key issue: 80 per cent. of the spread of foot and mouth disease was within 1 to 3 km of the original outbreak. Eighty per cent. of that spread was local; it involved animal-to-animal contact, movement of animals, movement of
572
machinery, movement of vehicles and movement of people. It became clear that biosecurity was crucial. We were pleased that members of the NFU and its president shared platforms with us to try to drive home the message that biosecurity was important.
The blue-box zones, successful though they were, were extremely resource-intensive, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge. At the height of the outbreak, when we were dealing with hundreds and hundreds of cases, it was simply not possible to make the resource commitment on blue boxes that we were able to give as the number of cases fell. There is no doubt that the strategy was successful and that we need to take that approach in future.
We have certainly already learned lessons. They guided our interim contingency plan. Indeed, many aspects of that plan coincide with the recommendations of the Northumberland county council report. We are already picking up those points and responding to them.
We realise that contingency planning will also include the provision of suitable facilities for the disposal of carcases in any future outbreak. It will need to take into account issues such as the effect on tourism of pyres, public health and nuisance problems in respect of burn and mass burial sites and the major environmental management tasks that need to be addressed in relation to those sites.
The arrangements will be subject to full consultation in advance to try to avoid the problems that arose at sites such as Widdrington—the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of those. It is very difficult to deal with all those problems in the middle of a major epidemic when time is everything. In those circumstances, it is not possible to hold the amount of consultation that would normally be desirable—we realise that.
We can certainly consult on the contingency plans, including the interim one, which is out for consultation now. There will also be responses to the Royal Society report and the Anderson report. Those responses will also guide our future contingency plans, which will be redrafted accordingly. We will make the plans available for public consultation, so that people are aware of our proposals and can have an input.
The Northumberland county council report is helpful in that it gives a local view, and it will be taken into account by Dr. Iain Anderson in his findings. We have already responded to some of the suggestions in the report that we agree with, and I have outlined some that we do not agree with. They are mistaken and do not take into account the changing circumstances. If there are particular points that the right hon. Gentleman would like me to consider regarding the impact on his constituents, I am willing to do so, and I shall carefully consider what he has said tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

British-US Relations
[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 200–02, HC 327, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5372.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]
2.30 pm
Donald Anderson: It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report on British-US relations. It was published in December 2001 and we received the Government response in February. It was the first substantive report of the new Parliament. Due to the importance that we attach to transatlantic relations and to the fact that there was a new Administration in Washington—that of President Bush we decided to focus on the subject as a matter of priority. Our decision was made last July, when we could not have envisaged the terrible events that took place only a couple of months later, which made our inquiry of even greater relevance and significance.
In the course of our inquiry, the Committee took oral evidence from senior academics, the former US Assistant Secretary of State, James Rubin, the Foreign Secretary, and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials. We also received a host of written evidence, which is published at the end of the report.
An important part of our inquiry was the Committee's visit to the United States in November 2001. At ground zero, I had the honour of laying a wreath in tribute to those who lost their lives, and the Committee spent some moments in sombre reflection. We were appalled by the scale of destruction and the horror of what had happened only a few weeks earlier. I repeat now the tribute paid in the Committee's report to the staff of our consulate-general in New York and other United Kingdom diplomatic posts there. We were able to meet some of the staff, who worked magnificently on and after 11 September in support of British victims and their families.
In Washington, we viewed the scene of destruction at the Pentagon. Again, it brought home to us the impact on the American people of those terrible events on 11 September. We went on to meet several senior officials at the Pentagon and the State Department, among others. We were highly impressed by the performance of our embassy in Washington DC: it is this country's most important diplomatic post, and the calibre of our diplomats there reflects that.
During our visit, we were struck by the respect shown for our diplomats by the key movers and shakers in the US political and military establishments. Ours is a most impressive operation, of which this House can be proud. Only last month, two colleagues from the Committee, both of whom are here today, and I were able to pay a further visit to New York and Washington to update our impressions.
138WH
Some scepticism has been expressed, especially in the media, about the value of overseas visits by Select Committees. To the sceptics I say that the Foreign Affairs Committee's visits to the United States have been enormously informative; in addition, they have allowed us to act in something of a representative capacity on behalf of the House. I believe that it is of the greatest importance that the Committee undertake further such visits to report to the House on America's conduct of the war against terrorism—we will publish an interim report and, I anticipate, further reports on that subject—on developments at the United Nations, and on our countries' bilateral relationship.
If we were left with one overriding impression from our visit and our inquiry, it was that the special relationship is as strong as ever. It is founded on shared history, shared values and shared interests, and that must be my starting point. There is no more important relationship for the United Kingdom. The United States is at one and the same time our foremost political and military ally, our single greatest trading partner and our largest source and recipient of inward investment. It is, of course, also the world's sole remaining superpower.
Since 11 September, we have witnessed an extraordinary time in transatlantic relations, and the United Kingdom has stood shoulder to shoulder with the US. The spontaneity of the British reaction was evidence of the instinctive nature of our bilateral relationship. Whether in the United Nations Security Council or NATO, in the field of intelligence or in coalition building, the British Government have taken swift action to support our key ally, and the US has greatly appreciated those signs of solidarity. That was made evident when the Senate issued a resolution on 15 November last year, expressing
"appreciation to the United Kingdom for its solidarity and leadership as an ally of the United States and reaffirming the special relationship between the two countries."
Yet, in recent months, many people have asked what is in it for us? What do we get out of the special relationship? People have heard that the United Kingdom has a seat at the table and that our Governments views are taken seriously, but how far and how deep does our influence really extend? Do we exert any significant influence on decision making, or does the special relationship allow the US merely to share, on its own terms, the burden of being the worlds policeman? Perhaps the Minister can set out the practical benefits of the relationship and tell us what we would lose if it became less special. In practical terms, what does this country gain that is not gained by France or Germany, which have been less supportive of the US in key areas?
I know that the Minister has a special interest in the steel industry. Trade policy is obviously not his responsibility or the Committees, but perhaps he can update us on the imposition of tariffs by the US on steel imports from the United Kingdom and other countries. Will he comment more generally on the trading relationship, including export subsidies? Will he also tell us how many US tourists are returning to this country to spend their dollars?

139WH
On more specific issues, our inquiry focused extensively on international security, encompassing missile defence and a range of multilateral agreements. We found considerable differences between our Government and that of the United States, particularly on the range of arms control treaties.
On missile defence, the Committee met the head of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation at the Pentagon, who made a strong case for the need to take countermeasures against the threat posed by what used to be called "rogue states". Whether missile defence is, as is suggested, the best counter-measure remains to be seen, but I am certain—I believe that the Committee is, too—that the United States is determined to proceed along that route. The arguments for and against have been well rehearsed in our previous debates and are based in part on the report by our predecessor Committee, so I shall not repeat them. Many key questions remain unanswered, however, and I anticipate that the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Select Committee on Defence will return to the issue.
On international arms control measures, the report of our predecessor Committee provided a solid foundation. We were concerned to establish whether the well-trailed decision of the United States Administration to give notice of their withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, their refusal to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty, and their rejection of a verification regime for the biological and toxin weapons convention revealed a pattern of unilateralist behaviour. United States officials gave us a robust defence of their position, which might be characterised as "Good treaties yes, bad treaties no." Senior members of the Administration told us that they are prepared to sign international agreements that they believe will be effective and fair, but they are not afraid to refuse to support treaties that, in their judgment, will not work.
The Administration have also refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court: when we were in Washington, we asked about the reports that the United States will de-sign the ICC treaty. The rejection of the Kyoto protocol is another regrettable example of lack of engagement on the part of the Administration. The US Administration do not see their position as unilateralist, but seen from this side of the Atlantic it is difficult to interpret it otherwise. I certainly would welcome an update from the Minister on where we stand on those treaties and on what Ministers are doing to persuade the United States to take a more value-based and less self-interested approach to international co-operation.
Since our initial report, we have heard the speech containing the phrase "axis of evil". Commissioner Patten has suggested that the speech showed that the United States had gone into what he called "unilateralist overdrive". The speech exposed differences between European and British views of the international situation. It is as Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister, said: it is simplistic to speak of an axis of evil. It is indeed difficult to perceive a key nexus between the three countries mentioned, but we should all recognise the concerns that underlay President Bush's use of that term. However, that Manichean view of the world—the world seen in absolutes—is potentially counter-
140WH
productive, and can cause great concern among key allies. My judgment is that our European partners and we have a more nuanced view of the world.
We must accept that Iraq is indeed a threat to regional and even world peace. Knowing of the US intention to act makes it easy for other countries to stand aside, shout from the sidelines and avoid taking responsibility for that serious problem. It requires greater courage to face up to Saddam Hussein, to insist that UN inspectors must return to counter Iraq's attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and to stand firm against any attempt on Saddam's part to withstand the UN regime. Indeed, recent developments have assisted him—the Beirut summit and the Palestine crisis have allowed him to divert attention to some extent from the pressure to have the weapons inspectors back. Saddam's tactic has been not only to seek to divide but to play for time.
Our tough line on Iraq gives us greater credibility when urging our American allies to exercise caution and to act only with consensus and in accordance with international law. It gives us influence that we should be prepared to use. In particular, Ministers should press the United States to adopt a demonstrably more evenhanded policy towards Israel and the Palestinians. The Foreign Affairs Committee has written to the Foreign Office to ask a series of questions about Iraq and the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence set out by Richard Haass of the State Department, for which I personally see no basis in international law and which suggests hesitation within the United States about the basis of international law.
In respect of Israel-Palestine, the rhetoric of our ambassador to the United Nations has been markedly different from that of the United States in the UN Security Council. For example, our ambassador stated that if the alleged massacre or gross human rights violations at Jenin were confirmed, it would reveal
"a callous disregard of civilian safety".
That is different from the US response. That difference gives us a degree of credibility in the Security Council, and an ability to play a bridging role between the US and other states. It may in turn have brought the US further along than it would otherwise have come, enabling the unanimous Security Council resolutions—with Syria alone abstaining on resolutions 1397, 1402, 1403 and 1405—to be passed. Finally, it shows that, even with our strong alliance, we differ from the US in key areas.
Iran is a different matter. As the Committee states in its report, the Government have sought constructively to engage with Iran. Progressive forces in that country are working hard to wrest effective power from the hard line Islamists. The question is whether engagement with Iran helps the cause of the moderates, or lends the fundamentalists a legitimacy that they do not deserve. We in the United Kingdom take one view, the US another.
From our perspective, it is difficult to say that the Iranians have an evil regime and then engage with them in matters of direct relevance to the United Kingdom, such as the drugs trade, on which we co-operate closely with Iran. A number of Iranian officials have been killed seeking to prevent the drugs trade from using routes across their country. However, the US cites the Karine

141WH
A arms shipment and Iran's long record of support for terrorist groups in the middle east, placing Iran firmly in the so-called axis of evil. Such activities cannot be overlooked and there are real causes for concern, but the UK notes the rise of democratic and pro-western elements in Iran, and values Iran's limited but significant contribution to the coalition in the war against terrorism. Notwithstanding Iran's wholly unreasonable rejection of David Reddaway as ambassador, the UK takes a different view.
Intriguingly, the Government's response to our report states that:
"The United States is interested in our policy of engagement"
with Iran. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain the nature of the US interest in our policy. I ask him to state clearly that the United Kingdom will continue to take a different line from the more absolutist one taken by the US Administration.
The Committee was pleased with the key role played by the UK in the war against terrorism through Sir Jeremy Greenstock's chairmanship of the counterterrorism committee set up under UN Security Council resolution 1373. The US cannot play that role because of its difficult history in the UN, but it is a role at which Sir Jeremy and his team excel. It has given even more credibility to our delegation to the UN, which was already held in high esteem. Our delegation's work is rightly held in the highest regard, and we should be proud of that, but no one should underestimate the considerable burden that the work places on our hardworking diplomatic team at the UK mission during our period of chairmanship.
In their response to the report, the Government undertook to ensure through a Whitehall interdepartmental committee that the counter-terrorism committee receives
"all the support it requires".
Can the Minister assure us that that remains the case? What plans are there for the United Kingdom to pass on its role to another member of the Security Council—or is it assumed that at the end of the six-month period, which has just been renewed. Sir Jeremy will continue, perhaps even until he retires next year?
Since the Committee produced its report, the US has opened its detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Let me express the Committee's gratitude that Ministers allowed us to see the reports made by UK officials who have visited the base but remain concerned both that the US might not be fully respecting international legal norms of behaviour towards detainees, and that the proposed military tribunals are an unacceptable way to proceed against the detainees. I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on the situation in respect of the detainees, particularly those who are British citizens.
Finally, as the Committee report concludes, the UK response to the events of 11 September demonstrated once again the special nature of this country's relationship with the most powerful nation on earth. Those of us who have observed the relationship at close quarters recognise the considerable influence at our disposal. We can never be the economic or military equals of the United States, but we can seek to match it in terms of political credibility and moral authority. In
142WH
my judgment, the transatlantic relationship is strong, and it is mature enough to accommodate differences such as the ones that have arisen in the United Nations Security Council on the middle east, and on the great range of arms control treaties. As James Rubin told the Foreign Affairs Committee,
"the special relationship is not about personalities; it is about policy,"
and those policies go very deep. Our US allies understand and appreciate that. So should we.
2.52 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. I do so from the Back Benches; the policy of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will be explained in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I hope that there will not be too much divergence between what he and I say. I have been warned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), the Opposition Whip, who was present for the early stages of the sitting, that on no account should I make any spending commitment.
I wanted to take part in this debate because the subject is enormously important. The relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is important and has far-reaching implications. It is important particularly because it is a subset, a critical element, of the relationship between north America and Europe, and that relationship is key to the resolution of many of the most serious problems faced by the world. So long as north America and Europe remain partners, great progress can be made in dealing with those problems, but if that partnership degenerates into rivalry, or perhaps something even worse, that would not only be a very bad thing for north America and Europe, but a very bad thing for the world.
Because I believe that that relationship is under serious threat, I founded and chair an organisation called Atlantic Partnership, which exists to try to counter those threats in an entirely non-partisan way—there should be no differences between the parties on these matters—and alert people to the dangers. There are several causes for concern, some fundamental, others visible on the surface. There are some fundamental trends at work in north America which, left unchecked, will weaken and undermine the partnership.
North America's centre of gravity has shifted westward. All the centres of new technology, such as Silicon Forest and Microsoft, are found on the west coast of the United States, and California overtook New York as the most populous state in the union long ago. Even before the events of 11 September, the focus of those in the US, was shifting: people were looking towards the Pacific and beyond, to Japan, still an immensely important economic power, and even further to China, which is both a huge potential market for the US and the only potential rival superpower on the horizon. Demographic trends reinforce that tendency. There are more and more Asiatic and Hispanic Americans. The Asiatics tend to look to the east, and the Hispanics to the south, to Latin America; they do not look across the Atlantic to Europe to anything like the extent that Americans used to.

143WH
On this side of the Atlantic, too, there are trends at work that are not entirely favourable to reinforcing the partnership. The movement towards political unity in Europe need not be an impediment to the partnership. Many of those who are in favour of greater political unity want that united Europe to be a partner of north America, but many do not, preferring a European entity that is set up as a rival centre of power to the US. It seems to me that several dangers attach to the latter view.
As well as those fundamental concerns, we see the problems that come to the surface and cause day-to-day irritation and difficulties: they include problems with trade, defence and the environment. This is not the time or the place to go into those matters in detail; the important thing—the point that I want to emphasise above all today—is that those dangers and difficulties should be managed in such a way that they do not impair, undermine or weaken the partnership as a whole. We will of course we will have disagreements with the United States on such matters from time to time, but we should take care not to allow those disagreements to threaten the relationship.
There is a real danger because people have a strong tendency to look at such problems in a compartmentalised fashion. Lots of people know what is happening in trade; to them, trade is the most important thing. The same is true of environment and defence matters. The danger is that people will not look at the picture as a whole and so will not take account of the dangers that can arise from such irritations growing.
What do I mean by saying that those problems should be managed in a way that does not impair the US-UK relationship? Let me give an example. Both parties to the current trade dispute over steel claim that they are acting within the rules of the World Trade Organisation. We are fortunate that the WTO exists, because it provides a rules-based framework for resolving such disagreements. Rather less fortunate is the fact that disputes take a long time to resolve. Although both sides say that the WTO will eventually rule, everyone knows that it will do so only in a couple of years' time. That is not an entirely happy situation.
I have a positive suggestion to make. A real effort should be made by both the European Union, which has jurisdiction in these matters, and the United States to get the WTO to streamline and accelerate its decision-making processes. Both sides to the dispute claim to be acting within the rules. If those claims are bona fide and sincere, there should be no reason for the two parties not to co-operate to shorten the time scale for WTO decisions.
Mr. David Chidgey: I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments closely. He makes an interesting point. Which party does he believe is right? Is the US or the EU right about the tariff barriers to steel?
Mr. Howard: I certainly regret the decision that the US Administration took. There is no question about that. However, I lack the expertise to say whether they were right or the EU was right in terms of the detailed
144WH
interpretation of the rules of the WTO. I do not know that, but I have no hesitation in saying that the decision of the US Administration is regrettable.
We must take these difficulties and dangers seriously. There is always a tendency for discussions of the transatlantic relationship to be bathed in a sea of complacency. I thought that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee was going to fall victim to that, but he proved me wrong in the second part of his speech, even though I did not agree with everything that he said then. We pretend that everything is wonderful, that our relationship with the US is special, and that nothing much needs to be done to attend to it. That is extremely dangerous. If the relationship between north America and Europe is not nurtured, there is a danger that it will be fractured. That would do immense harm, not only to the partners in that relationship, but to the world as whole.
Can anything else be done? There is merit in the idea of setting up a standing conference comprising representatives from the EU and north America—not just the US, but Canada and perhaps even Mexico—whose expertise would span a range of activities. The conference would have the task of examining, identifying and anticipating areas in which problems might arise. Anticipating the difficulties that have arisen over steel was not beyond the realm of human wisdom. Setting up a standing conference of that sort would provide no guarantee that such frictions will not arise and cause problems, but it would help.
It would help if potential difficulties were identified early and drawn to the attention of Governments on both sides of the Atlantic, so that discussions could take place and action could be taken to stop the issue becoming a real problem. If the body that I propose achieved that result in only a few cases, it would have earned its money. I am not sure whether that amounts to a spending commitment, but I doubt that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury would be too upset by that proposal.
Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be comforted to know that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is aware of the problems that can be caused by friction in different sectors and seeks to set up organisations within the Assembly to boost its operations. That is a positive development. Hopefully it will be possible to anticipate and manage the problems to which he refers in that more informal atmosphere.
Mr. Howard: I am aware of the work of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, to which I pay tribute. However, those of us who are not in government must face the fact that organisations of that sort have more clout if they are Government organisations and if the representatives are selected by and report to Government. If we could thus improve on the work of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the sort of body that I am suggesting would have more clout and would be likely to have a greater impact on the problems.
My intention in speaking in today's debate was to register the dangers to a critical relationship. We should be alert to those dangers and consider ways in which to minimise them. My modest suggestions might play some part in achieving that objective.
3.6 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to take part in this refreshing debate this afternoon. I sense that it will, unusually, be largely consensual and free of partisan point scoring, which is one of the vacuous and synthetic hallmarks of this place and diminishes it.
The debate allows us to show the broad agreement between and within the parties on several foreign policy objectives, especially on our unique relationship with the United States. I recently accompanied the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) to the United States. We were invited to a say a few words at a luncheon about the US-UK special relationship. I hope that they will bear with me as they have already heard what I am about to tell the Chamber.
I used the opportunity to show my lifelong commitment to the unique and important relationship between the United States and Britain. I describe myself as an Atlanticist and a proud European. In our chat at the lunch in Washington DC, I reminded people that during our darkest days, President Roosevelt wrote a letter of introduction to Winston Churchill for his defeated presidential election opponent—Wendell Wilkie. In it, he set out lines from Longfellow:
"….sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on the fate!"
I will complete the picture, as it has some resonance today. In a subsequent broadcast, Winston Churchill asked:
"What is the answer that I shall give in your name to this great man, the thrice-chosen head of a nation of 130,000,000? Here is the answer which I will give to President Roosevelt.
Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing, and under providence all will be well. We shall not weaken nor tire, neither the sudden shock of battle, nor the long, drawn-out trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job."
I have rehearsed that speech many times, because it is something that I am proud of. It calls on us to remember that we should never take for granted the great debt that the United Kingdom, and civilisation as we know it, owed to the people, the Congress and the President of the United States six decades ago and in respect of subsequent conflicts, and our special bond. It is reflected even as we speak by the fact that the Royal Marines are engaged in conflict now. They are buttressed, supported and supplied by the United States—"the tools" are being provided.
I was interested in what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, and I agreed with much of it. We need to nurture the relationship and constantly remind ourselves not to take it for granted. Above all, we need to remind others that it is a unique relationship and, as our report stated—it was published at such an extraordinary time for British-United States relations—the United Kingdom's status as a leading European member adds rather than detracts from its role as the premier ally of the United States. Our role is pivotal between north America, especially the United States, and our colleagues in western Europe, and we have carried out that role well.
146WH
Rightly or wrongly, I have a reputation, which I deny, of being a critic of the Prime Minister. I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate because I can show that in terms of the Prime Minister's international stewardship, especially since 11 September, I wholeheartedly endorse what he has done. I am unequivocal: I congratulate him on his skill, zeal, energy and dedication in trying to promote the best interests of the United Kingdom and in tempering what would have been the understandable but reckless hitting out by the United States in the critical hours and days following 11 September. As the Prime Minister showed, only a United Kingdom Prime Minister can have this relationship and he has dispatched his duties with considerable skill and success.
Only when the history of these times is written will we fully understand how extremely important were the initiatives of the Prime Minister and George Robertson, the Secretary-General of NATO, in getting article 5 of the NATO treaty invoked. That enabled us to say to the United States, "Look, we as a world community are wholeheartedly behind you, especially those of us in NATO, but implicit in that is some co-decision making."
People say that the United States goes off and does things and we read about them the following day, but I do not wholly subscribe to that view. That we have been able to ensure some co-decision making and consultation with our principal allies is due largely to the Prime Minister's—and George Robertson's—initiative in invoking article 5, to which I have just referred, and his skill and that of other players in the European Union in helping to bring the Russian Federation and China on board. Against that backdrop I unreservedly commend the Prime Minister's work.
From time to time, people criticise the Prime Minister for being abroad and involved in summitry, but there is no greater duty or burden on a British Prime Minister than ensuring, promoting and protecting our interests internationally. That is his number one duty. A British Prime Minister is somewhat disadvantaged because, unlike a President of the United States or a Chancellor of Germany, he has to deal with many domestic matters that elsewhere state governors or the presidents of the Lander deal with. He is obliged to know about some of the most obscure places and interests in the United Kingdom—as we sometimes hear at Prime Minister's questions. The British Prime Minister has been able to do that at the same time as fulfilling his principal duty. I say without cynicism that I would accept the second deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, fulfilling the role that Clem Attlee carried out between 1940 and 1945 in looking after the domestic situation, thereby allowing the Prime Minister to carry out other important tasks. However, while that might create a good relationship, it could involve a major constitutional change into which I do not want to go now.
When the tragedy of 11 September occurred, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were not greatly surprised. While none of us could foresee the horror that unfolded on our television sets, the Committee had, in a previous Parliament, examined the threat of weapons of mass destruction and had realised how bad it was. Another reason why I support the Prime Minister is because there is a race against time to prevent the delivery of weapons of mass destruction to other

147WH
cities of western Europe and north America. I believed that before 11 September and I believe it even more now. I am concerned by the degree of complacency and false sense of security among Members of Parliament and some journalists that somehow it cannot happen here.
I hope that I will continue to be proved wrong about that, but we have to regard the situation as extraordinarily grave. It is serious because we know that weapons of mass destruction exist and that despots and wicked people around the world have the capacity to deliver or develop these weapons of mass destruction. We look back almost with nostalgia to the days of mutually assured destruction, which worked, in a perilous way. The Soviet Union was not going to invade western Europe and the United States was not going to invade the Soviet Union and that terrible balance was relatively safe, compared with the dangerous situation now. We therefore need to engage with our United States partners in trying to prevent further outrages and in working doubly hard in our fragile and dangerous world.
Our report alludes to a number of points on which the Government should be engaged. Will the Minister amplify the reference on page 5 of the Government response in respect of the convention on biological and toxin weapons? The United States was unhappy about the draft protocol, which seems to have reached a deadlock. Can the Minister explain why, and tell us whether he sees any way around the problem? Will he also comment on the Government's undertaking to issue a detailed paper on containing the threat from biological weapons?
What further energies have the Government brought to bear in trying to reduce the volume of nuclear material languishing in the old Soviet Union? To what extent are the Government satisfied that that material is being audited, controlled and held? Also, what further measures would assist the Russian Federation in disposing of some of those dangerous materials?
The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has rightly referred to the skill and dedication of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our ambassador to the United Nations and his staff, and the work of our colleagues in the British embassy in Washington DC. I wholeheartedly associate myself with those remarks and express the hope that when Sir Jeremy moves on in his career, the United Kingdom can hold on to the chairmanship of the counter-terrorism committee of the United Nations. We have a special capacity to fulfil that role. It would take a successor from another country some time to acquire the skill, expertise, knowledge and relationships that have been built up under Sir Jeremy's stewardship. It would therefore be in the interest of the whole if the chairmanship remained with the UK ambassador.
I have a couple of points that express some reserve or disappointment. I regret that the US still fails to sign up to the International Criminal Court. None of us has any illusions that we are not at the beginning of an embryonic system of international law that may fail and have many deficiencies, and that many people will not recognise it. However, that is a case for trying harder rather than for not trying. I hope that we continue to
148WH
press the US Administration and our contacts on the Hill to persuade them that the US really should sign up, if only on a conditional basis.
One contributing factor to the dreadful position in the middle east was the policy paralysis immediately after the change of Administration in the US. While a mood of disengagement and lack of interest in the middle east was not the cause of the problems in that region, it certainly did not help to minimise the dangers. I welcome the fuller engagement of the US today.
The middle east is also relevant in the context of international war crimes. We have seen what happened in Jenin and, on the face of it, action way beyond proportionality was taken, which could amount to war crimes. What happened should be investigated. When the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), recently faced the Select Committee, he made it clear that the UK Government had expressed grave concern that the Israeli Government were not allowing UN inspectors and other agencies into Jenin. He hoped that access would be granted later, but after the Select Committee hearing finished, I understand that the Israeli Government continued to be stubborn, which I greatly deprecate. I should be pleased if the Minister would amplify on the current position.
Mr. John Maples: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the State Department and the National Security Council in Washington had watched the enormous effort that President Clinton had put into the middle east peace process, and that after Camp David and Taba, they came to the conclusion that Arafat had no intention of doing a deal, so they decided not waste so much time on it?
Andrew Mackinlay: I go along with the hon. Gentleman's recollection of the views expressed to us in Washington, but I depart from the conclusion that the US should not waste more time on it. We simply have to persist on the issue. The more difficult the problem, the more resolution is needed. That has been borne out by events and is accepted by the US, which is now demonstrably involved.
Mr. Chidgey: On that very point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that America feels that it has no influence on events in Israel, when Israel is the largest recipient of American aid? About a third of American aid goes to Israel. If that is not a lever of influence, what is?
Andrew Mackinlay: I do not want to digress from the debate's main subject matter. I do not mean it discourteously, as I too was tempted down the same road. Seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) is a constant reminder of what we should be discussing elsewhere. However, we are debating UK-US relations, so I did not want to depart from the subject, other than to refer to the US hiccup in using its good offices in the middle east.
Two days ago in the Select Committee I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member

149WH
for Exeter, about the director-general of the chemical weapons inspectorate, whom the UK Govt had not supported. Indeed, we voted against him and he was dispatched. In the public hearing, the Minister could not be candid about why the UK had taken the view that it held, so it became a tetchy area between myself, mainly supported by the rest of the Committee, and the Minister. It was inconclusive.
I still think that that matter needs to be resolved. I am concerned because my wife telephoned me earlier and said that there was a briefing note on the issue in the Labour party resource centre at Westminster. I said that it must be a blank sheet of paper, because the Minister had refused to tell the Committee why we voted against that man. However, I have discovered that the paper consists of two pages of A4. I do not want to labour the point, but if the Minister's special advisers can produce a note for Labour MPs on the issue, they should as a courtesy have ensured that members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were written to first. I think that the Minister will take the point.
Donald Anderson: The reply was received today, and the greater part of it will be put in the public domain.
Andrew Mackinlay: I would not pursue the point except for the fact that some see this as evidence of our being prepared to do the bidding of the US State Department. I also regret that the Minister did not feel that he could be more candid with Parliament through the machinery of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
That brings me to my final point, which involves an acknowledgement or credit. When the Foreign Affairs Committee goes to Washington, I find the remarkable candour of our colleagues in the US extraordinarily refreshing. That is the case whether there is a Democrat or Republican Administration and whoever speaks to us on the Hill. I only wish that they could export that candour to Ministers and officials in the UK. I do not say that flippantly. We might hear what we do not want to hear, or we might disagree with it, but our colleagues in the US tell it the way it is. When they say, "We're going to get this guy and cut his head off," I get the drift, and I find that refreshing.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman ever thought of offering "teach yourself' classes in candour to his Labour colleagues?
Andrew Mackinlay: I might have to find another job one day, so who knows?
Our relationship with the US is, to me, a sacred issue. I have referred to the events of five decades ago, and although I cannot recite it precisely, word for word, I, like others, find it profoundly moving to recall the words of Winston Churchill when Roosevelt died. He said that there was no greater friend that Britain had ever had and no greater champion of justice and freedom, whose arms had stretched across the oceans, than the President of the United States.
When we talk about the President, we also include the people and Congress of the United States. It is essential that we maintain that relationship. I am proud to be associated with it, and I believe that the UK Government's prosecution of foreign policy is in the spirit of and in line with that objective.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the official Opposition spokesman, I give notice that I intend to call the Liberal Democrat spokesman afterwards. I hope that those hon. Members who wish to catch my eye—all of whom are experienced and distinguished, and many of whom are members of the Foreign Affairs Committee—will apply some self-discipline so that everyone can speak. I intend to call the Minister at five minutes past 5, to enable him to respond to the debate fully. I call Mr. Alan Duncan.
3.28 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I approach the debate with what some might describe as uncharacteristic diffidence, following as I do the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson)—who is proving such a distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He has devoted an immense amount of time and energy to this topic over the past few years and, I am pleased to say, shares my views exactly.
I am also rather diffident because, although I am sometimes thought to be a bit of a mimic, I am afraid that I can hardly compete with the Churchillian tones of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I shall have to go off and brush up my Napoleon.
We welcome the report, and I am pleased that the Committee focused on our relationship with the United States, which is such an important aspect of foreign policy. I am impressed that the Committee remained undaunted by the scale of its task. The detail and content of its report is testimony to the hard work of its members, and I pay tribute to them for that. I am only sorry that the time allowed does not permit us to consider all the Committee's conclusions, so I shall focus on those that I consider to be especially important.
Much has changed in the world since 11 September, but it is as much a recognition of the process of change that began with the end of the cold war as a sea change in itself. The end of the cold war and the collapse of the bloc mentality, when two superpowers balanced one another, has led to a more fluid international situation. The threat is now the rogue state, or a terrorist organisation, rather than a state intent on waging a conventional war on its neighbour. Such new threats require new flexibility.
The ability to meet those challenges requires a recognition of the unique place that America occupies in the world today. America is the most powerful nation on the planet. It possesses unprecedented military, economic, technological and academic might, unrivalled by others, and we must recognise the exceptional nature of its position. That is the reality, and it is a reality that we must work with.
The contribution that America, often in partnership with Britain, has made to freedom and stability during the past century cannot be exaggerated. The second world war is merely the most obvious example—among many. Too frequently, however, we are asked to choose between two polarised views of America and its foreign policy. We are asked either to condemn and criticise its power and policy as arrogant and aggressive, or to take the view that, because of the special relationship—and

151WH
it is special—we must offer unquestioning and uncritical support. However—let me be clear about this—neither view is correct, or helpful, and I am pleased that the Committee did not feel tempted to fall into the trap of choosing between one and the other.
The reality is that we are the United States' closest ally, with a unique place in American thinking and a unique influence on its policy making. Most of the time, our interests coincide, and we co-operate on the basis of shared culture, outlook and interests—and intelligence. Our affinity with the US is greater than with any other country. However, there are, and there will be, times when our national interests or our perceptions do not precisely coincide. It is important that we recognise that being a true friend means being honest with each other. America deserves the truth from her closest ally, and Britain deserves to have its national interest put first. It is one of the great strengths of our relationship that we can be candid with one another and on occasion disagree, and agree to disagree, without undermining the basic strength and integrity of our relationship. That is the mark of true friendship.
I am pleased to see that recommendations 28 and 29 recognise the fact that Britain's relationship with the US is especially strong and useful because of our position as an active European nation, and because of our special transatlantic links. However, it is a shame that the Government should seem intent on choosing between US links and EU links, which suggests, through their policy of greater involvement in a European common foreign policy, that it is a case of either Europe or America, when in fact it should be both. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. That, in essence, was the main point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Essentially, the view of those favouring closer integration through a common EU foreign policy seems to be that we must forge European nations into a bloc in order to compete with or balance America in some way. We should focus on co-operation with both, not competition. In that context, flexibility is the key. I am glad that the Committee has recognised the value of all our partners.
We share the Government's, and the Committee's, support for our diplomatic staff in the United States and at the United Nations, and we pay tribute to their hard work in furthering British interests, trade and diplomatic links, and for their hard work in the aftermath of 11 September, as expressed in recommendations 24 to 26.
On questions of defence policy, raised in recommendations 3 to 9 and 17, we fully support the Committee's view of the importance of NATO. We recognise the need for reform of NATO, with the question of enlargement featuring highly, and we welcome the Government's support for NATO in their response to the Committee, hoping very much that they will heed our warnings and not continue to press for a European common foreign and security policy, which would risk undermining an excellent organisation that they otherwise fully support.
Our stance on missile defence has always been clear. We fully support the right of the US to take measures to protect itself from the threat of missile attack. Noting Committee conclusions 3 to 7, we hope that the British
152WH
and US Governments will continue to talk to all concerned parties, particularly Russia and China, and work to find a way forward that will lead to multilateral cuts in nuclear weapon stockpiles and a tightening of non-proliferation treaties and procedures.
In conclusions 19 and 20, the Committee comments on policy towards the Arab-Israel dispute and towards Iran. We fully support the Committee in its encouragement of the US to take an active role in the middle east. As we have said in other debates, that is crucial to any progress. We believe that the Americans have a vital role to play in bringing influence to bear on both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government to achieve a peaceful settlement recognising legitimate Israeli security needs and the need for an independent, viable Palestinian state that is equally secure in its own borders.
The issue, of course, is wider than that, and includes the whole middle east. We share the Committee's support for a policy of constructive engagement with Iran, although, as the report states, we should not proceed at the cost of existing friends. As the Government response states, we must be robust in discussions relating to areas of concern such as Iran's link to Hezbollah, but it is vital that we recognise the moves that Iran is making towards economic and social liberalisation and reform. Those moves are, necessarily, hesitant and slow, but we should not misinterpret them or adopt a shallow stance that might undermine the process of change. Such changes, hopefully leading to Iran's constructive participation in regional politics, and in a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, are as much in Britain's and America's interest as they are in those of countries in the region.
Both Britain and the US must adopt a subtle and regionally sensitive approach to diplomacy, aware of the nuances, and the fact that one basic policy cannot suit all circumstances and countries in this sensitive region. I am pleased to say that when I visited Washington with my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), last December we found US decision makers engaged in a mature, careful and wide-ranging analysis of all possible options for action and policy in Iraq, Israel, and the wider middle east.
We welcome the tenor of the report, emphasising as it does the closeness and importance of our relations with the US and with the nations of Europe. We very much hope that the Government will recognise, as they appear to in their response, that the most appropriate course is to adopt a stance that encompasses both Europe and America, rather than a Euro-integrationist approach. I welcome the fact that the Government, in their response, appear so much in agreement with the policy of flexibility and co-operation with America that we have been advocating for so long. I only hope that it is supported by their actions in the future.
3.38 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: This is a very important and useful debate. Like the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I pay tribute to the contributions that have been made this afternoon. It was very helpful of you to set out the guidelines for who would be called at what point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you

153WH
might have to make special arrangements for an encore for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) after a particularly fine contribution, which I will not seek to emulate in terms of drama or poetic value.
As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, the Foreign Affairs Committee is to be congratulated on an important piece of work. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and his colleagues on their wide-ranging report, which deals comprehensively with fundamental issues that affect the world and lie at the heart of the British-US relationship. Given the timing of the evidence gathering and of the drafting of the report, its tenor could easily have been absolutely dominated by the events of 11 September. It is particularly commendable that the Committee took a broader view and focused on the whole US-UK relationship.
Hon. Members' contributions so far have shown how that relationship works, and we have heard about everything from 11 September to steel. In his valuable contribution, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) rightly warned us of the dangers of being complacent about our relationship with the US.
I shall not go through the report line by line, or recommendation by recommendation, but focus on a couple of themes. We live in a fast-changing world—that is certainly true of the past few months—and it is a great credit to the Committee that much of the report remains valid.
The report characterises the US-UK relationship by saying:
"now is an extraordinary time in British-US relations."
That is a wonderful example of British understatement, of which the diplomats who feature prominently in the inquiry would be justly proud. It is also undoubtedly true of the relationship after 11 September, given the woes of the middle east and the uncertainty over Iraq.
Elsewhere, the report makes appropriate mention of the enduring special relationship between our two countries. Although I endorse that description, I would add another adjective—peculiar. Our relationship is peculiar not only because its form is exclusive to the United States and Britain, but because it is odd. On the one hand, historic ties, a common language and an overlap of culture have given rise to strong bilateral arrangements: the economy is an obvious example, and the current military action in response to 11 September also demonstrates the point. On the other hand, however, the relationship is not always as robust as we might like at the multilateral level of international organisations, treaties or conventions. Indeed, complex currents run between the US and the UK at all levels, which gives rise, as the Chairman of the Committee said, to an increasingly unilateral drift within the relationship. That is not in the interests of the United Kingdom or the United States of America.
At the heart of the report is 11 September. Although it features other issues, it rightly pays much attention to the appalling events of that day and to the response to them, which Parliament has discussed on many occasions. The international war against terrorism and the coalition behind it have enjoyed firm UK support from the outset, and the Liberal Democrats have been happy to back it. It is an enduring and ongoing joint
154WH
commitment, and we support its aims, not least now that our troops are spending more time in Afghanistan. Even as we demonstrate our closest ties with America, however, as a previous speaker highlighted, there are difficult issues for us, and I hope that the Minister can update us on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
The recent tensions over Iraq postdate those developments, but Iraq has been a feature of relations between the UK and the US for a decade or more. As that develops during the next few months, it will be a real test of our relationship. The war against terrorism has been very successfully founded on multilateralism. We receive regular signals from our Government that Britain may back US moves to deal with Iraq—which are currently unspecified—perhaps indicating that the bilateral involvement will continue. If not, will the United States act unilaterally? Does Britain count?
There is a confusion of issues here. Evidence of Saddam Hussein's involvement in the events of 11 September has not been provided. There has been a long-running and very real dispute over Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction. We would be fools to underestimate the dangers. In dealing with that difficulty, we must consider the global context. Any action taken in Iraq must be based on incontrovertible evidence. It must be backed by a United Nations mandate, and for our own purposes, a House of Commons debate and vote. If we do not follow those steps, any action will carry no favour in this country and, more importantly, will corrode the strong links forged internationally in the war against terrorism. The dangers of a spillover into the ever sensitive events in the middle east is perhaps too horrific to contemplate.
Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman has set out what he thinks should happen before there could be any intervention in Iraq. However, if there were incontrovertible evidence of the development of weapons of mass destruction, does he, unlike the Chairman of the Committee, think that there is a preemptive right of self-defence, or does he think that we would have to wait until Saddam Hussein actually launched one of those weapons at us or one of our allies before we took any action?
Mr. Moore: I doubt that the hon. Gentleman will care for my reply, but I would say that we should wait and follow the process through much more thoroughly. I would certainly not—as I hope I have conveyed—support pre-emptive action without having seen the evidence. He argues that if we have it, we should go ahead, but I believe that the nature of the action should be determined through and legitimised by the United Nations and the weapons inspectors. I do not believe that we have developed the evidence or the arguments sufficiently to be able to follow the course that he suggests. Instinctively, I would not wish us to follow that course.
The middle east cocktail is explosive and provides a key test for the special relationship. Like the hon. Member for Thurrock, I commend the Prime Minister for the close personal links that he has developed with President Bush. There has been much talk the clich' are rife—of standing shoulder to shoulder and the need for us to support America. I hope that that means that

155WH
we have the right to a candid word in the President's ear. The principle of "My ally, right or wrong" is flawed. If the special relationship means anything, it must allow the United Kingdom's caution to influence the United States.
I would like briefly to highlight a number of international conventions and agreements over which there is some difficulty between America and us. This is not a uniquely British phenomenon—sometimes it occurs in a European Union context. I do not share the confidence of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about the development of national missile defence. Such are the long-standing positions of our respective parties. Regardless of that development, the American decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty without putting alternative mechanisms in place to police any missile defence systems that might be developed or allow people to have some confidence about them is worrying. In the meantime, the potential developments in China and Russia in reaction to missile defence are a cause for concern to us all.
The comprehensive test ban treaty, which was signed by the United States in 1996, was rejected by Congress in 1999, as the report reminds us. We have been told that it is unverifiable and incompatible with American security and that there are no plans to submit the treaty to Congress. I argue that those two factors—the development of national missile defence and the failure to ratify that treaty—will have a serious impact on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Committee was right to emphasise the weakening of the treaty and the contribution of US action or inaction to that.
The hon. Member for Thurrock briefly referred to the issue of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. While not party or witness to the recent discussions in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I share the concerns of those who wondered at the motivation for the removal of Mr. Bustani, who was the leader of that organisation. Some have suggested that he did not fulfil his obligations and that the organisation was weakly led. Part of the reason for that may be that the US is not up to date with its payment dues to the organisation. Will the Minister offer us a perspective on the suggestion that the prospect of inspections in the US made it reluctant to continue to support the leadership of that organisation?
Hon. Members have referred to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto protocol, which are part of a catalogue of issues that tend to be influenced by the growing unilateralism of the US, as the Chairman said. An encouraging sign is the fact that the US is prepared to pay past dues to the UN. We must hope, therefore, that that spirit begins to infuse its other international diplomatic efforts.
I support the Committee's recommendation that the Government must do all they can to resolve outstanding trade issues between our countries. Trade has become not simply a matter of occasional dispute between the two countries but a problem that may affect the core of our future relationship. The EU-US disputes over steel, over the foreign sales corporation tax treatment, which gave rise to huge potential retaliation from the EU, and over bananas are all examples of the increasingly large and frequent trade disputes between the two blocs.
156WH
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe made some welcome comments. We have a different philosophical approach and I would rather see an enhanced WTO than the streamlined WTO that he proposed. Anyone who has visited the organization, as I was lucky enough to do in Geneva, will see that there are some talented and hard-working individuals there who are completely swamped by their work load. Unless they are geared up to cope with the legal power of the US Government, the EU Commission and the various corporations that are often behind the corporate challenges, the organisation cannot succeed. It is important for America and Britain to show some leadership and help the WTO to develop the skills, expertise and capability to cope with increasing technical and important trade disputes.
The report is wide-ranging and welcome and highlights the complexity of the our relationship with the US. We are crucial to each other, and the relationship itself is crucial to the wider world. Not to put too fine a point on it, our prosperity and security depend on our continuing relationship, so we must do all we can on this side of the Atlantic to ensure that it is fostered and grows.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call Sir John Stanley, I ask colleagues to use self-discipline. This is an important debate and many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members want to participate, but we must give the Minister time to reply fully.
3.54 pm
Sir John Stanley: Having done a quick division sum with the number of those who are seeking to catch your eye, I shall observe your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Paragraph 168 of the Foreign Affairs Committee's report says:
"Iraq remains the greatest threat to a wider peace in the region"—
that is, in the middle east. I wish to devote my remarks to US-UK policy on Iraq. Statements by the American President that the policy of his Government is to achieve a regime change in Iraq have been greeted with much negative comment and predictions of military disaster. I remind the House that similar negative predictions were made when the British and American Governments made earlier commitments to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to take Milosevic's forces out of Kosovo, and to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
On each of those three occasions, the predictions were not fulfilled. The removal of the Iraqi forces from Kuwait was achieved with, happily, very few casualties; if I remember correctly, the removal of Milosevic's forces from Kosovo involved not a single battlefield casualty in the period of the conflict; and relatively few battlefield casualties resulted from the operation to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan. I acknowledge that on each of those occasions there were, regrettably, a number of innocent civilian casualties, but the predictions of military disaster were wholly unfulfilled.
In the light of that experience, and given the fact that the American people and Administration are still scarred—indeed, traumatised—by the recollection of

157WH
the American miscalculation over Vietnam, I would expect the American Government to proceed with great care, responsibility and calculation in relation to the Iraqi regime before embarking on further military activities.
I want to put some important policy points to the Minister. There appears to be a significant difference in policy between the American and British Governments about regime change in Iraq. One does not need to read between the lines, but merely to read the lines. I am referring to the words spoken at the joint press conference that President Bush and our Prime Minister gave in Texas on 6 April. President Bush said:
"I explained to the Prime Minister that the policy of my government is the removal of Saddam and that all options are on the table."
The British Prime Minister replied immediately with these words:
"I can say that any sensible person looking at the position of Saddam Hussein and asking the question, would the region, the world, and not least the ordinary Iraqi people, be better off without the regime of Saddam Hussein? The only answer anyone could give to that question would by yes."
There is a substantial difference between what President Bush said, which was a statement of American Government policy, and what the Prime Minister said, which is a posture or attitude. It is not a policy commitment. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that it remains the posture of the British Government that a change of regime in Iraq would be desirable but that as of now it is not a policy commitment of the British Government that the Iraqi regime should be changed.
My next point, which also raises a big issue of policy, arises out of the leaking of the nuclear posture review document that the Pentagon submitted to Congress, as it was required to do. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, confirmed in an interview on CNN on 10 March that it was a Pentagon policy document about future US nuclear weapons policy. That document postulates as an option the first use of nuclear weapons against seven named countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Of those seven countries, only two are declared nuclear weapon states: China and Russia. The significance of the document lies in relation to the position of the British Government on first use of nuclear weapons.
The British Government set out their policy in the strategic defence review of 1998. The carefully worded key sentence in paragraph 31 of chapter 5 states:
"Britain has repeatedly made it clear that we will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapon State not in material breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, unless it attacks us, our Allies or a State to which we have a security commitment, in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State."
The Defence Secretary was questioned on the subject in the Defence Committee on March 20. At paragraph 234, in reply to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), he said:
"In terms of deterrence, clearly, our nuclear capability deters those who might threaten the United Kingdom with a weapon of mass destruction."
At paragraph 237, referring to what he described as "states of concern", with which he coupled Iraq, he concluded:
158WH
"They can be absolutely confident that in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons. What I cannot be absolutely confident about is whether that would be sufficient to deter them from using a weapon of mass destruction in the first place."
The key point that I want to put to the Minister is that the US Government appear to have widened their nuclear policy posture to the possibility of nuclear weapon use, not only against nuclear weapon states but against states that hold weapons of mass destruction: in other words, chemical and biological weapons. Such a state might not possess a nuclear capability. As the Minister knows, there has been some speculation in the press about the key issue of whether the Government are also altering their first use policy, as stated in the 1998 strategic defence review. There has been particular speculation about whether the Government are widening the policy to encompass not only states that possess nuclear weapons but those that possess any weapon of mass destruction.
There may be a compelling case for such a change of policy, but the change would be significant. It should be announced and debated, and the Government would need to justify it fully.
Mr. Maples: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an important matter if the Government have changed their policy in such a way? I presume that part of the purpose would be to deter a non-nuclear state in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Such a state has to know about it, if it is going to be deterred by it.
Sir John Stanley: I agree. As deterrence is so important, I was concerned about the answer that the Secretary of State for Defence gave to the hon. Member for South Dorset in a public forum:
"What I cannot be absolutely confident about is whether that would be sufficient to deter them from using a weapon of mass destruction in the first place."
A binding obligation on Defence Ministers is to say nothing that would weaken the deterrence posture of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does not that also undermine the negative security assurance that all the nuclear weapons states gave in the 1995 nuclear non-proliferation treaty? On the Dimbleby programme, the Defence Secretary also spoke about the possibility of pre-emptive strike, as well as first use.
Sir John Stanley: I will leave the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The substantial reduction of tactical nuclear weapons is one of the most significant arms control achievements that have been secured since the end of the cold war. The Conservative Government began that process in this country, and the Government have continued it. There are now no tactical nuclear delivery systems, as far as the British Government are concerned. However, the House will have seen that the United States Government appear to be contemplating a reversal of that policy as part of the nuclear posture review. On 19 March, The Independent published an article under the headline, "US starts work on nuclear bunker buster bomb", which said that the United States was developing a new

159WH
generation of smaller super-hardened and nuclear weapons to smash through rock and concrete and attack underground bunkers where enemy states could build weapons of mass destruction.
It is for the United States Government to argue the defence case for changing their policy. If they have concluded that they need to develop a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons, what is the British Government's view? Are they participating in the American programme? The Minister works in the Department responsible for arms control, so what is the British Government's view of the arms control implications of major nuclear powers developing a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons? Those weapons will all require testing, with obvious implications for the nuclear test ban.
4.10 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I join the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) in commending the report. Once again, the Foreign Affairs Committee has produced an admirably balanced report. It balances two key elements. First, there is the special relationship with the United States, which has been movingly apparent since 11 September and was ably invoked in the Chairman's introductory remarks. Secondly, that has to be balanced with aspects of the Bush Administration's policies—either adopted or advocated from within—that are a matter of grave concern to many people across the political spectrum in Britain.
As the report states, after 11 September our support for the US was unconditional—and rightly so. We did not expect any payback. It was an international obligation to contend against terrorism and we recognised that that might mean a cost to our armed forces, and perhaps even to our civilian population if it led to terrorist attacks on the mainland.
The Prime Minister adopted a high profile in consolidating global support and has been widely seen as exerting a moderating influence when certain people in the Bush Administration— the hawks—had advocated major military actions against a range of countries not necessarily associated with 11 September. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to be a bridge between Europe and the United States. It is important that part of being that bridge consists in expressing the concerns of Europe and the rest of the world to the Bush Administration.
The Leader of the Opposition has been strongly bipartisan in his support for the Government. However, he has always had a close relationship with the hard right in the United States, and I am worried that the preoccupation of both leaders with maintaining close relations with the US might end up with a Dutch auction that could sell out British interests, or even British lives and moral principles, to the whims of the more ideological wing of the current US Administration.
Mr. Alan Duncan: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but will he confirm what is evident in everything that the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed all Front-Bench foreign affairs spokesmen, have
160WH
said in debates on the middle east and Iraq: that we are adopting a balanced and thoughtful view? Will he confirm that we have not realised the fears that he identifies?
Mr. Savidge: Yes. I carefully worded my comments with reassurance about a bipartisan approach. However, I still believe that we should be conscious of the potential risk that I identified, and my comment was intended as a warning to both party leaders.
Support for the US after 11 September was rightly unconditional, but that does not mean that we should give unconditional support to all aspects of the Bush Administration's policies. Similarly, our support for the campaign against terror in response to 11 September should not imply unconditional support for unrelated military adventures, which could endanger the lives of our forces abroad or, through terrorism, our civilians at home. We should recognise that counteracting terror involves many forms of operation, and not only the full-scale military operations that were right for Afghanistan. I want to concentrate on matters of concern between ourselves and the US, which will obviously require careful diplomacy. Whereas before 11 September President Bush was regarded as a controversially elected president by many people in US, they have naturally tended to unite behind him and are particularly sensitive to criticism at present, whether domestic or international. These matters need to be treated with caution.
Several hon. Members have mentioned treaties and multilateralism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale spoke of the range of issues on which we are concerned about where the US is going, such as the International Criminal Court, small arms, land mines and Kyoto. We are concerned about the US moving away from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, its attitude to the biological weapons convention and the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the nuclear posture review referred to by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John. Stanley). There is concern about the effects that that review document could have on the most basic treaty of all, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I was at the preparatory committee meeting for that treaty—PrepCom—a fortnight ago. I am relieved that it ended up better than was feared but there is still grave danger to the treaty.
There is a section within the US hard right that is so concerned to protect national sovereignty that at times it sounds awfully like a desire for complete national supremacy. All parties in the UK have always backed the concept of multilateralism. It is important that we should unitedly express our concern that the voices of moderation and multilateralism should prevail over what in some areas of the US is now being called the imperial view. In that context, I should like briefly to express concern about missile defence, which in the view of some in the US has been associated with seeking full spectrum dominance. I notice that the report says that it was argued by some that 11 September made a greater justification for missile defence.
It is interesting to note that the national intelligence estimate to the Senate from the 14 intelligence agencies of the US came to an opposite conclusion. It said that if

161WH
states or terrorists wished to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction, they were more likely to use a smuggled weapon because that would be less expensive. It could be covertly developed and employed and the source could be masked to avoid retaliation. I would add that it could also be used more accurately and more devastatingly because it could be used without warning. That is the far more major threat on which we should concentrate.
It worries me that with many of these things I get the feeling that ideology, rather than intelligence in either sense, has tended to be the driving force in the US. It is noticeable that the recommendation for missile defence came from a commission chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, who, as the person who had been advocating it for the previous 20 years, would not be an obvious choice as the chair of a committee if one wanted a totally neutral opinion.
The Committee expresses the concern that missile defence could lead to a greater increase in China's nuclear arsenal. That certainly seems to be in line with what the Chinese Government themselves state. There must obviously be a concern that that could lead to an increase in weapons production by India and Pakistan. The report is utterly right to say that the worries over Kashmir and the relations between India and Pakistan need to be stressed. It looked as if there was a tendency for the present Administration to disengage from that, and we should totally encourage the actions of Colin Powell and others in trying to reduce the risks of a conflict there, which could end in disaster. The Administration has also been disengaging in Israel and Palestine.
We must give our full support to what Colin Powell is trying to do. I wish that I could have felt that the US Administration, too, were giving more support to what he is trying to do. I support what the United States has done from the start in trying to advance the Saudi peace proposals, and I recognise the problems in US domestic politics. There is pressure not just from people such as Netanyahu working with the Jewish lobby, but, especially in the Republican party, influence from another fundamentalist wing—the fundamentalist Christian right, whose adherents have a range of curious views about the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, and are very strongly pro-Israel. I hope that they never bring about armageddon as a result.
We recognise the stresses that the US is under, but it should consider whether this President can follow his father's example in using financial pressure on Sharon if necessary. He should, for example, avoid describing Sharon as "a man of peace" when Jenin is being investigated. That is not helpful to our relations with the Islamic world.
The US must play a vital role in the peace process but because it is in such a partisan position it must involve other players such as the European Union, Russia or the United Nations if Palestine is to have confidence that mediation is even and fair.
The Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), also mentioned the "axis of evil" speech, which caused some anxiety that there is almost a political fundamentalism in some of the United States thinking. Iraq, especially, is at present a focus of its concern. A related concern was mentioned
162WH
by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale: the dismissal of Mr. Bustani from his post as director general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
I am aware of some of the criticisms put out by the Government and by other European Governments to justify their decisions, and I am worried about the dismissal of the chair of the climate change discussions when he did not suit the United States. There is evidence, too, that Paul Wolfowitz has been busily trying to undermine Hans Blix as head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission—UN MOVIC. That causes concern about whether international diplomats will be subject to United States bullying and whether the US will accept chemical weapons inspectors being free to inspect in all countries, including the United States itself. After what has been happening with anthrax, it is in its own interests to have such inspections. Whatever happens, there should be an inspection regime for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to try to achieve a peaceful resolution in Iraq, if that is possible.
Saddam Hussein is a vile dictator who has developed chemical and biological weapons, and used them against his own people. He has denied his people human rights in many terrible ways. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, in a typically trenchant and thoughtful speech, a change of regime is desirable. However, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said in a debate on the middle east last week, what exactly is new? Why should we be talking about having a war now, rather than a year or two ago, or when some of the US hawks who now advocate war were selling weapons to Saddam Hussein?
On weapons of mass destruction, the US National Academy of Sciences is absolutely right: we should be careful to distinguish between nuclear weapons, which are of a totally different qualitative power, and others. What is the position on nuclear weapons? We are simply told that if all controls were off Saddam Hussein, he might develop them in five years. No one is proposing that the controls be taken off him. He does not have missiles that could reach anywhere near the United States or even the United Kingdom. It was suggested that he might be providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. The CIA was asked to investigate, but said that it found no evidence of any such involvement. Once again, one worries that the information that we are receiving tends to come not so much from intelligence sources as from the ideologues in the United States. One understands that the Pentagon's military advice is that war against Iraq could be dangerous. However, it claims that the politicians are not listening to it.
According to the almost religious theory of missile defence, Saddam Hussein is so insane that he is impervious to nuclear deterrence. I do not believe that. He has a murderous obsession with his own preservation. With someone as evil as him, however, if we had a war whose sole purpose was his destruction, we would be withdrawing the only block against his decision to use biological and chemical weapons against Israel. If he were to use them, what is the danger that a Prime Minister such as Sharon would respond with nuclear weapons, and what disaster could that cause? I

163WH
leave aside the bizarre suggestions of the nuclear posture review, and the comments made by our own Defence Secretary to the Defence Committee and on the Dimbleby programme that seemed to imply the possibility of considering pre-emptive nuclear first strikes against non-nuclear weapons states. I admit that I found his comments slightly incoherent, so I am not certain what he meant. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling made those points well.
There is a grave danger in believing that gung-ho militarism can give simple Rambo-style solutions in our relations with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya or other countries. There is a graver danger that such solutions could lead to disaster. The US hawks tend to hold Sharon up as an example. It is worth remembering what Sharon has actually achieved, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out. In the year in which he came to power, the number of deaths of Israeli citizens was four times what it was in the previous year, and the number of deaths of Palestinians four times as great again. We must learn from all that—which was before this month's terrible carnage.
In this month's issue of the New Yorker, someone said that the hawks, imperialists and unilateralists tend to win their way with the US Administration through determination and persistence. We must work together with diplomacy, subtlety and firmness to encourage the more cautious and multilateralist counsels in the United States to prevail.
4.28 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I will endeavour to obey your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) can also address the Chamber. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. However, this is my maiden speech here, and I still have grave misgivings about this forum. It is a pity that the authorities who decide such matters have allowed a debate on international development to take place on the Floor of the House at the same time. Many of us here would also like to have taken part in that debate. I remain unpersuaded that having this Chamber and putting on debates of this importance in it is the best way to serve the House. That is not criticism of anyone who has spoken, and still less of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was something I needed to say.
I will discuss two of the report's recommendations. The report was unanimous, and I was pleased to be part of it. Our visit to Washington and New York was fascinating, and we shall all remember it. The Chairman referred to ground zero; no one could forget that experience, which was moving and sombre in the extreme. I felt a sense of solidarity such as I have never felt with any other people at any time. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), in his inimitable way, spoke most movingly of the special relationship, quoting Longfellow and Churchill—indeed, he not only quoted but acted Churchill. I hope that he never approaches my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) when he is asleep, or he will think that he is being haunted.
164WH
We enjoyed a wonderful visit and were extremely well received. Not only was the experience of ground zero moving, it was extremely moving to be approached spontaneously by so many Americans who wanted to shake our hands and say how much they appreciated what Britain was doing. While we were there, the Prime Minister paid one of his flying visits, and we all basked in reflected glory. It would be churlish to deny that he is held in the highest regard by Americans of all political persuasions for the way in which he spoke out so uncompromisingly and bravely immediately after 11 September. One felt a sense not only of solidarity with the American people, but of bipartisanship within the Committee. It is the done thing to support one's Government when one is abroad, regardless of who is in government, but on this occasion it was not difficult, and I was glad of that.
I want to talk about recommendations 19 and 23. A great deal has happened in the middle east since we visited the US. A desperate situation has gone from bad to worse and the middle east is on the brink of what could be the greatest conflagration that the world has seen since the second world war. I hope that our American friends and allies carefully consider their approach to the middle east. In that spirit of candour which was so refreshingly extolled by my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Thurrock, one has to say that the Americans have not displayed the acumen and even-handedness that one would expect of a superpower that is seeking to bring peace to a troubled area of the world.
I regret having to say that, but I regret even more the enormous power that the Jewish lobby has in the US. I do not say that as one who is in any sense anti-Jewish. I am proud to have worked for Jewish causes for example, I was the first chairman of the Campaign for the Release of Soviet Jewry. When I look back on my 30 or more years in this House, that is one of the things of which I am most proud. I yield to no one in my admiration of those who have run the state of Israel for most of its history, but I am deeply troubled by the actions of the present regime. It is important that the US adopt a policy that is more demonstrably and visibly even-handed.
No one can condone the acts of terrorism and ghastly atrocities perpetrated by suicide bombers in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel. They are dastardly acts and deserve to be condemned, although the desperation that drives a 16-year-old girl to blow herself up and take many fellow human beings with her is something on which one has to reflect.
I spoke briefly of those things in the House last week, but I will repeat one point. The Committee refers, in another recommendation, to the UK having relationships in certain parts of the world that are perhaps complementary to those that the Americans enjoy. Just as British Prime Ministers did not consider it wrong to use the services of former Senator Mitchell in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Americans would not disparage the notion of using those who are not American to help to bring peace to the middle east.
I have already put forward the name of John Major, who has some time on his hands and has a wonderful record as a negotiator. He laid the foundations, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, for the settlement in Northern Ireland which, although not perfect, is a great

165WH
achievement. Furthermore, at Maastricht he negotiated a most skilful series of deals. As a travelling envoy, John Major could bring the sides that are now so far apart at least close enough together to talk again. Any sensible person accepts that the conflict can be resolved only by negotiation. We do not want there to be nothing but destruction and more destruction before a proper attempt is made to achieve peace.
As there is now an international consensus that the conflict will be resolved only when there is both an independent Israel and an independent Palestine within mutually agreed and internationally guaranteed borders, we need someone who can take the parties towards the point at which both readily accept that. It is a tragedy that after coming so close at Camp David and Taba, everything all fell apart, but it did. Although we cannot live in the past, we have to try to recreate the former basis for negotiation, and I can think of no one better able to do that than John Major. Were he to play such a role, that would underline the bipartisan nature of this country's politics in respect of international affairs in general, and the middle east in particular.
Recommendation 23 is very important. It states:
"We recommend that the Government, with the United States Government, do all it can to resolve outstanding trade issues between our countries, and to encourage US citizens not to be deterred from travelling to the United Kingdom for their vacations."
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, a special relationship is a multi-faceted relationship. It is not merely a question of being close together on issues of foreign policy and defence; a true special relationship must run deep, and of course it does with our American friends and allies. However, it was, to put it mildly, insensitive of the Americans to do what they did or to threaten what they threatened in respect of steel.
When I raised this point in the House, the Secretary of State said rightly that we would never be so petty as to retaliate by withdrawing our support in the war on international terrorism—that would be imbecilic. Nevertheless, the Americans ought to realise that with a staunch and true ally one should behave in all departments as a staunch and true ally. I hope that they will realise that—and something else, too. I have some experience of dealing with companies seeking to sell in the United States; it is not an easy task. I hope that the US will realise that trade, in its widest sense, must always be reciprocal and free between great nations.
That brings me to the second part of the recommendation, to
"encourage US citizens not to be deterred from travelling to the United Kingdom for their vacations."
They still are being deterred. I spoke recently to a great friend who owns a hotel in London. It is a good hotel—not enormous, but small and special—that has been patronised over the years by many American visitors. However, its American bookings have almost completely dried up. I have many friends and a son who are involved peripherally in the tourist industry. We find it sad that many Americans seem to confuse "over here" with anywhere that might be bombed, and they are not willing to travel here to enjoy what we can offer.
I hope that one of the messages to go out from this debate—it will be a test of the efficacy of Westminster Hall if Americans read the reports of it—is that we
166WH
welcome them here; we want them here. Just as it is right to encourage British citizens to travel in the United States and enjoy their vacations there, so we want American visitors to come here in the same numbers as before the dreadful events of 11 September. By being together, we can increase our friendship and strengthen it. Travel is a great educator and a great builder of friendships. Let us hope that that message will strike home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—I call him my hon. Friend deliberately—talked about candour. I have tried to be candid about friends whom I hold in the highest affection and regard. There is no country in which I would rather travel than the United States, and no people in whose company I would rather relax than Americans. However, they must bear in mind that we too have feelings and sensitivities. We rate them by how they rate us, and we assess that to some degree by whether they come to this country and how they behave here—and by whether they are frightened away. This year, summer in this country will be wonderful—the summer of the golden jubilee.
I am going to obey your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if necessary by ensuring that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has even longer to speak than I have had. This has been a useful debate on a good report, and I am delighted that the Government have responded so positively to it. However, there are more matters on which to reflect, and I would welcome the Minister's comments on my points about the two recommendations.
4.43 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I would not want you to think that I had become stuck to my seat in weary anticipation of contributing to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the contrary, I was reflecting on the points made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and almost—but not quite—lost my concentration. Mine will probably be the last speech before the Minister either responds or sums up—both would be good.
Let me take us back a couple of hours. When the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee introduced his report, he mentioned that it was the second report on British-US relations within quite a short period, mainly because of the change of Administration. I was privileged to serve on both of the Committees and, therefore, to take part in both investigations. It is a terrible act of fate that, between the two investigations, the appalling events of 11 September took place. However, that allowed us to witness the impact of those events on relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. It was clear to me that there was a step change between our previous relationship and that post-11 September. Colleagues who shared the experience found that too.
Throughout our long history, our relationship with the United States has invariably been good. However, it appeared from our meetings to have become remarkably more influential in the sphere of military strategy and action, particularly with regard to the war against terrorism, as well as in terms of intelligence gathering, diplomacy and foreign policy. I should like to dwell briefly on each of those areas.

167WH
In military terms, one of the most fascinating aspects of our investigation was to discover that in the war against terrorism, particularly immediately following 11 September, the United States—the great superpower the like of which has never before been seen—needed help from the United Kingdom's resources, not only in terms of bodies on the ground, but in terms of our ability at the highest and middle levels of military service to integrate with its strategic command operations. We were an integral part of the United States' response to terrorism in the early days. Furthermore, unlike almost every other western country, we had the ability to operate globally in the military sense. France, too, has a global capability, but France does not have the relationship that we have with the United States, and consequently could not build on it at that stage.
In the realm of gathering and analysing intelligence, our special relationship enabled us to contribute to the war against terrorism in a major way in the days immediately following the terrorist attack. A strange result of the collapse of the Soviet empire, and the ensuing peace dividend, was that the US decided, as a matter of policy, dramatically to reduce the number of CIA field officers around the world. However, it is apparent that the UK's network remained almost intact; I have no knowledge of the reasons for that. Immediately after the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York, the United States found itself relying on the United Kingdom's assets to help it to launch the war against terrorism.
In the sphere of diplomacy and foreign policy, we discovered in our discussions in New York that the United States relied to a marked extent on the formidable expertise of the United Kingdom mission to the United Nations. When the United States was drafting resolutions for approval by the UN Security Council, it used our mission to play devil's advocate with its draftspeople; our wisdom and expertise helped it to agree the text that had the best chance of gaining the Security Council's support. Furthermore, our delegation used its best endeavours and was instrumental in securing the agreement of the other members—something that, because of the unfortunate situation in which America finds itself vis-à-vis the UN, the US could not do.
I, too, pay tribute to Sir Jeremy Greenstock for the work that he and his mission have done, especially in the counter-terrorism committee, of which Sir Jeremy is chairman. Excellent progress has been made under his stewardship. As other hon. Members have said, Sir Jeremy and his team have played a vital role during the past six months in making the committee work. Is it not vital, and in Britain's interests, that we continue to provide the resources to make the committee a powerful voice for introducing anti-terrorism measures? That is what I want, and I would like the Minister to respond to that point. There is undoubtedly a great will and a great desire in the Security Council to ensure that we continue to chair the committee and that our mission has sufficient resources to do so effectively. That is the desire of Security Council members around the world, and it is our responsibility to ensure that we can make that contribution.
168WH
Since 11 September, we have been in a unique position in our relations with America. It is as though we have a unique window of influence on how the United States pursues its strategy and policy in international affairs. That interesting fact is well appreciated by our allies and enemies alike. It is recognised on the world stage that following the strange and appalling acts of fate of 11 September, Britain has developed the special relationship to a degree never before seen, and that has put us in a special place in terms of our influence on world affairs. Those events have given us a massively enhanced role, and we have a window of opportunity, but we cannot guarantee that it will remain open for the foreseeable future. The challenge for our Government is to grasp and build on that opportunity and pursue Britain's interests in the present climate of the special UK-US relationship.
Hon. Members have mentioned key issues, including rogue states such as Iraq and Iran. Britain must not stand back just because America is the superpower; we must reflect on and understand what is happening in the United States. It is obvious from our investigations and from discussions with hawks in the Bush Administration that they still bear the scars of previous policy failures. We should not forget that some advisers served in the Administration of George Bush Sr., and consider Iraq to be unfinished business. Some were involved in even earlier American Administrations, such as that of Jimmy Carter, which met with disaster in Iran. That, too, is unfinished business. Those influential politicians and political advisers are determined to ensure that the debt of honour is repaid.
At a Foreign Affairs Committee sitting earlier this week, a Foreign Office Minister who was giving evidence made it very clear that he had seen nothing to link Iraq to 11 September. The Government need a strong voice if they are to rein in the right wing in the Senate and in Congress.
A pre-emptive strike on Iraq could well cause the collapse of the coalition against terrorism, which we have worked hard to build through Government offices and diplomatic channels. A strike could threaten the stability of Turkey, which is our strongest ally in the region. It hopes to become a member of the European Union: if it were, we would be talking about a regional war on Europe's doorstep, not in another part of the world. We must understand the importance of such a strike and what its results could be.
To refer again to this week's sitting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Minister who was giving evidence said that in some circumstances, a pre-emptive strike in self-defence could be carried out within international law. As a Government representative, the Minister here today has a duty to tell this Chamber what those circumstances are. It is not good enough to pursue British foreign policy—to launch a war against a country that has made no attack on us—on the basis that it would be legal in some circumstances. We have a right to know. We should bear in mind that it was made clear during our investigations that the United States takes the view that it will act first with a pre-emptive strike and compile its legal justification afterwards. Is that also the UK Government's policy? I would like the Minister to respond to that question.

169WH
It is clear to me that any action against Iraq or any other rogue state must be sanctioned by international law and come under the auspices of the United Nations, and it must be appropriate and proportionate. In that context, the excellent work that our mission has done at the United Nations under Sir Jeremy Greenstock has been recognised throughout the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly. Our team's success has brought the burden of extra work, but we should build on our good work and make absolutely sure that that mission has all the resources that are needed to keep Britain's voice and influence at the centre of international affairs in the war against terrorism.
Several hon. Members have talked about America's policy on missile defence—star wars 2. I want to make a few comments about that. I am conscious of the time, but with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, four minutes should see me out. Your nod of approval is gratefully received.
Let us be realistic about star wars 2. It is all very well for us to pontificate, on a sunny Thursday afternoon, about how right or wrong it is of America to pursue a policy of missile defence. The bald fact is that it is doing so. British influence, British foreign policy and the way we use our special relationship should reflect the facts. The fact is that the Americans are spending billions of dollars on getting the technology right. To allow themselves to carry out tests that are essential to their development work, they have already agreed—at least, they told Mr. Putin in advance—that they are going to abandon the ABM treaty. Unless some unforeseen technical glitch occurs, that is what will happen.
Surely, therefore, it is time for the Government to come off the fence. When they are questioned about their policy, the Government can no longer get away with saying, "We don't have a view, because we haven't yet been asked to take part." I am sorry; that just will not do. Within the next six to 18 months, these things will happen, and we in Parliament have a right to know what our Government's view is on that American policy, which has ramifications for foreign policy, diplomacy and military strategy throughout the world, not just our little corner of it.
I turn to the middle east. One of the most interesting things to emerge from our investigations and subsequent discussions is that many Arab nations, which are the nations most directly affected by and concerned about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, innately distrust the United States, presumably because of its history of unquestioning support for Israel. It is also interesting to discover that many Arab nations, especially the Gulf states, are well aware of the special relationship that we have with the United States, and they hope that we have some influence in that respect. They seem to acknowledge the long history and involvement of the United Kingdom in the Gulf region. Perhaps based on the principle "better the devil you know", they are pressing us to take a more active involvement in leading the search for peace in the middle east, helping organise emergency aid, seeking reparations for the destruction that has taken place under the Israeli incursions, rebuilding the shattered infrastructure, and bringing America in with us. That is an interesting point to which I hope the Minister will respond.
170WH
It was a kick in the teeth for many people in this country—not least people in the Minister's constituency—when the United States introduced the tariff affecting the steel industry. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made an interesting point about having a standing conference composed of members from the European Union and the Americas to anticipate such eventualities. How is it that even with our enhanced relationship with the United States, the Government did not anticipate the steel tariff and the embargo? How is it that we could not use our influence to deflect or mitigate those actions? Did the Government not get any advice or advance notice, or was it just a matter of failing to act? There are many facets to a special relationship, of which trading terms are one. We seek answers to those questions.
5.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been an enjoyable debate, particularly because it has allowed a wide range of comments on our most important relationship, with the United States. Mention was made of the venue for our proceedings. We would all rather have the debate in the Chamber, but the Liaison Committee decides these matters and allocates the dates. We are having more debates on foreign policy because of Westminster Hall and, as I shall announce shortly, we will have another debate on the United Nations, which may allow right hon. and hon. Members to develop some themes that have been raised in this debate. Many subjects have been covered and speeches have ranged far and wide—well beyond the report, which is our ostensible subject. I shall try to address most of the points raised. If I fail to do so in the course of my speech, I shall be happy to write to hon. Members.
The Government welcome the Committee's careful and considered examination of the major multilateral issues that dominate the UK-US relationship. The Foreign Affairs Committee's visits to the United States played their part in demonstrating Britain's willingness to work closely with the United States at a unique time. The Government appreciate the Committee's recognition of the work and the role of our diplomatic posts in the US, and in particular their words of congratulation to the staff in New York for their exemplary action on behalf of the victims of the terrorist atrocities of 11 September.
A few weeks ago, I answered a question in the House on whether the Government would raise the question of oil drilling in Alaska with the US Administration. I said no, because the matter was one for the US Congress. I also said that parliamentarians needed to engage with all the sources of policy making in the United States, including the elected members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, whose decisions, laws or reaction to international treaties weigh heavily in deciding US policy. Our media—and some hon. Members in their remarks in our debate—tend to focus exclusively on the White House and the Administration, but the United States is a vigorous, debating and self-correcting democracy. We need to increase our parliamentary contacts with the lawmakers of the US as well as engaging with the influential pressure groups—

171WH
such as the labour unions, which played a big role in President Bush's decision on steel, and the Churches, which wield a great deal of influence in deciding US policy and interventions.
I welcome the report and the comments that have been made in the debate. I also urge all my fellow Members of Parliament to go west regularly and engage with our friends and fellow legislators not only in Washington, but in the powerful regional political networks that make up the state assemblies.
Each year, 4 million to 5 million visitors go both ways across the Atlantic. Obviously, I regret any drop-off in the number of visitors from the US. Quite a lot were influenced by the slightly over-excited political debate that surrounded foot and mouth. We knew that we had an epidemic and that it would last for a certain period. On the basis of experience, we also knew that it would be contained and dealt with, yet international reporting made it appear as if Britain was closed. We all bear some responsibility for presenting to the rest of the world the calm and welcoming nature of our country.
In this debate, and in other discussions about the US and the UK since 11 September and in articles in our newspapers, we seem to be engaged in our own private discussion with ourselves, as well as in a public debate about the meaning of America. Almost all the speeches in this debate have been pro-America, but given some of the recent speeches in this Hall on aspects of US policy, I have been rather surprised at the support for the US that hon. Members have expressed.,
Whatever position we start from, we all want more, not less, engagement with and by the US. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this month in Crawford, Texas, the way forward must be based on engagement, not isolationism. We need to engage with America.
Of course we all have a certain idea of the US, and mine is the America that saved freedom on this continent twice in the last century. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was very eloquent in his wholly inimitable contribution. In the words of the ancient Greeks, young Americans gave their tomorrow so that Europe could enjoy its today.
My America is the one that stood up to communist tyranny when many sought to do business with the Stalins, Brezhnevs and other dictators. It is the America that stopped its own war in Vietnam because the people said no to the elite. It is the America that, from President Truman through to John F. Kennedy and President Bush the first, has always supported the construction and unity of Europe and, in the last case, the creation of the single currency.
My America imposed sanctions on South Africa in the 1980s and sent an African-American to be ambassador in Pretoria at a time when some political leaders—I mention no names—were rolling out the red carpet for the white supremacists of apartheid. It is the America that each year opens its doors to millions of legal and what are called undocumented immigrants, who immensely enrich that nation, in contrast to the fear and loathing of the anti-foreigner political class in Europe and our rabid and racial press campaigns against immigrants. Some 20 million legal immigrants,
172WH
and as many, if not more, undocumented immigrants, have entered the US since 1980, each of whom has found a new life and new hope for their families and children.
My America runs a massive deficit in trade and services with the rest of the world—$750 billion of imports each year. Economists roll their eyes at that deficit, so I am delighted that the shadow Chancellor has joined us at the end of the debate. However, each import represents a job in a poorer country, not least our own. It is up to us in Europe to discover the same capacity for job creation, productivity and economic dynamism. It is an America where a black man born in poverty in the Bronx can hold the mightiest office in the greatest democracy, although he has to sit in the State Department and listen to patronising and simplistic attacks from the all-white technocrats of a European elite. It is an America that launched civil rights and women's rights as great campaigns that changed our continent.
There is another America, whose policies the Government do not agree with, and I shall outline some of those disagreements. However, as hon. Members from all sides have pointed out, we want a better America that engages with the world, and the policy of the Government and of our partners in Europe seeks to lead us in that direction.
We agree too that our relationship with the United States should remain forward-looking, and that it is just as important—if not more—in the 21st century as in the 20th century. The relationship will continue to be strong, particularly now, when our national interests coincide as much as they ever did. Britain's strategic partnership with the United States remains fundamental to the national security of this country. Yet, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) pointed out, we are part of Europe and our role in the European Union enhances rather than detracts from our relationship with the US. The anti-Americanism of some on the European left—I speak as a man of the left—is as tiresome as the anti- Europeanism of many on the British right. We can play a pivotal role, but by no means an exclusive one, in drawing the US and our European partners closer together and in helping to articulate their views to each other.
We should not be arrogant. Yesterday I was in Sweden, where I found a determination to support Israel's right to exist and an understanding from the Swedish Government of the threat that Iraq poses that would not be out of place in Washington. It was Le Monde that headlined its front page editorial a few days after 11 September with the words "Nous sommes tous americains"—we are all Americans—and Chancellor Schroder who wrote an article last year in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung under the heading "Germany: America's Best Friend in Europe". The peoples and Governments of the Netherlands or Poland, to name but two European nations—one could add others—are as proud of their friendship with the United States as we are. When Britain speaks to America we are part of the Europe, which I believe forms the majority of the continent, that wants more engagement with and by America.

173WH
The international coalition against terrorism has demonstrated what can be achieved when we and our European partners work with the US. The Prime Minister and President Bush are committed to taking forward the fight against terrorism in a measured, calm way that has been carefully thought through. The debate between the Governments is an intense one and it does not help to portray it in hysterical language—we have not heard any in the debate but one encounters it in some of our press and in speeches by other hon. Members. Since the tragic events of 11 September, the value of our relationship to each other has been reinforced. It was an attack on us all, with more than 67 British citizens murdered by the terrorist atrocities. It was an attack on our shared values and a test of our integrity. Together we have met the challenge.
We are not always in agreement with the United States, but we engage as close friends and allies in an open, frank and positive manner. The US is in no doubt of our position on areas where we do not agree. Today's debate has shown many examples of that. We shall always fight for Britain's interests and beliefs and so we will, for example, continue to make clear our opposition to the use of the death penalty, which hon. Members have not mentioned but which is an issue of concern to British people, lobbying on it with our EU partners or bilaterally at state and federal level.
The trading relationship between the US and the EU is the biggest in the world—it represented about a fifth of all world trade in 2000. Some of that two-way trade is subject to disputes.
Mr. Howard: Why is the death penalty in the United States a matter on which the Government and the European Union intervene, while oil in Alaska is not? The Minister said that oil in Alaska is a matter for the Americans, so why is not an appropriate punishment in their own judicial system?
Mr. MacShane: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not mix up an economic decision with what many people around the world regard as a cruel and inhuman punishment. It is right to raise our concerns about such moral issues.
Some disputes over trade are inevitable, but the rule-based WTO system offers the best mechanism for dealing with such disputes and, through our membership of the EU, it is the forum in which to settle our trade differences. Real progress has been made on the trade agenda between Europe and the US—for example, the resolution of the banana dispute last April and the launch of a new WTO round in Doha last November. However, big differences still exist and President Bush' s recent announcement on steel import restrictions came as a great disappointment.
I can inform the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that, having been alerted to it more than a year ago by US steel union comments, I raised my concern about that matter with the US trade representative, Mr. Zelig, last August. My noble Friend, Baroness Symons, the Minister for Trade and Investment, also raised it, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We believe that the US action breaches WTO rules and has no economic justification. The Prime Minister,
174WH
addressing UK steelworkers in an article in the current issue of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation journal, said:
"I can promise ISTC members that Britain's outright opposition to the American steel industry's demands for tariffs was made directly to President Bush by me. I informed President Bush personally, by letter, and by phone about Britain's hostility to any move to restrict unfairly steel imports…I also told him that if the US did impose tariffs, Britain and the EU would have no choice but to ask the WTO to declare the move illegal. In the meantime, we have to take steps to protect our own steel industry and the people who make these plants amongst the most productive in the world."
As a constituency Member, I know that those remarks were warmly appreciated in the steel communities of the UK, as were statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in south Yorkshire last Friday in an effort to get the US to change its mind on UK steel exports. That discussion is continuing.
Climate change, or more commonly the Kyoto protocol, is another area where we do not share the US policy approach. We believe that the Kyoto protocol, with its legally binding targets and timetables, is the most effective way of reducing emissions and tackling climate change. The agreement reached on the protocol in Bonn and Marrakesh last year demonstrated the international community's commitment to Kyoto. As a result, Kyoto is alive and well and I am delighted to hear the news that Russia has initiated its ratification procedure.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I hate to introduce an acrimonious note into a constructive afternoon, but the Minister is reading a prepared speech and not dealing with the issues raised in the debate.
Mr. MacShane: I do not have the ability of other hon. Members to speak spontaneously for hour after hour without a note in my hand. After many more years service in the House I may reach that nirvana. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall attempt to deal with all the specific points that have been raised. If I fail to do so, I shall happily write to hon. Members.
We hope to complete ratification procedures for Kyoto and to allow the protocol to come into force before the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg. We also believe that we should continue a discussion with the US in order to benefit from each other's experiences and continue to seek opportunities to share information.
The International Criminal Court was mentioned. We worked hard to get the International Criminal Court Acts of 2001 through Westminster and Edinburgh in good time for ours to be among the first six ratifications. We want other countries to sign up to the ICC. It is disappointing that the US has been impervious to persuasion that its objections to the International Criminal Court are unfounded. We do not see much chance of a change of heart under the present Administration. We hope that the US—a nation based on the rule of law, not of men—will understand in time that creating the court will help human rights and democracy.
A Green Paper will be published next week on the biological and toxin weapons convention, about which we have also have disagreements with the US, as hon. Members mentioned.

175WH
Hon. Members discussed the middle east in some depth. We had a full debate last week, and I do not propose to repeat those arguments. We welcome President Bush's statement, "Enough is enough," and the efforts made by Secretary of State Colin Powell in person to show US engagement. In his Mansion House speech a fortnight ago, the Foreign Secretary said:
"The world has to get behind US Secretary of State Colin Powell as he works to stop the violence and persuade both parties to re-engage in the process of peace. Yes, negotiation inevitably involves compromise: but compromise, a readiness to see and to accommodate the other side, can be a great and honourable thing."
Mr. Chidgey: Will the Minister respond to my comments about the interesting reaction from Gulf and other middle east states calling for more direct involvement by the British Government in the middle east peace process?
Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman checks the visits, statements and interventions made by Ministers and Members about British involvement, we shall not be found wanting. We must decide that the way forward should be based on a viable Palestinian state, the end to illegal settlements and a guarantee that Israel will have normal, peaceful, state-to-state relations in the region. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) suggested the deployment of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Major, as a peace envoy—a suggestion, which I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
There has been considerable speculation about military action against Iraq, which I have read with interest. However, I can assure the House that no decision has yet been taken, and no military action is imminent. We are looking at Iraq from the wrong end of the telescope. Instead of focusing on Washington, we should surely be mobilising public opinion to support the UN, and uniting to apply pressure on Saddam Hussein to get him to comply with UN resolutions. He can help to solve the problem tomorrow by agreeing to let in an effective team of weapons inspectors. However, we should be clear that the Iraqi regime has these weapons of mass destruction, and it has shown on several occasions that it is prepared to use them. Faced with that threat, the international community's most pressing demand is that the weapons inspectors be allowed to return and finish their work.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) sought to find some difference between President Bush and the Prime Minister on the desirability of a regime change. I have the full text of the press conference from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. The Prime Minister said that the world and the Iraqi people would be better off without the regime of Saddam Hussein, and that doing nothing in these circumstances is not an option. It is clear that we identify with the United States' view.
Sir John Stanley: Is it the British Government's policy to bring about a regime change in Iraq?
Mr. MacShane: The Prime Minister made it clear that it is the will of the British Government to see a regime
176WH
change in Iraq. I also made that clear in the House of Commons in answer to a similar question in Foreign Office questions earlier in this Session. I am not sure whether I declare policy—I am too modest and novice a Minister to do so—but we are splitting hairs. The Prime Minister's statement in Texas is perfectly clear.
Mr. Savidge: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: I want to make progress, as there are other issues that hon. Members want me to deal with. I will give way to my hon. Friend, but the price is that in six minutes' time, at the end of the debate, we will not have discussed all the issues that have been raised.
Mr. Savidge: We may think that there are many countries in the world where a change of regime would be desirable, but I trust that we would not consider war in every case in order to effect it.
Mr. MacShane: Iraq represents a threat to regional peace, as many hon. Members have pointed out. It has used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and it is next to a member state of the United Nations. To debate whether a change of regime is desirable in Iraq—it certainly is, in my view—is a mistake. Our discussion on Iraq should focus on trying to press, and if necessary force Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolutions on weapons inspections. The Foreign Affairs Committee endorsed the Government's policy of engagement with the Iranians based on supporting the reformers in Iran while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern.
I shall now deal with some of the specific issues raised by hon. Members, and thus avoid having to write to them. Reference was made to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and its change of director. The decision was taken this week by a vote of 48:7 that the gentleman in question had not shown sufficient drive in management or policy to deliver the organisation that the international community wanted. The votes deciding his removal from office came from Asia, Africa and nearly all the east and west European countries. We must be careful not to allow every decision taken around the world to be refracted into the issue of Iraq.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing asked about the nuclear posture review paper in the United States. As statements about that leak made clear at the time—I echo the right hon. Gentleman's words—it was not a new policy but a contribution to a debate, part of which we welcomed. It was an affirmation of scaling down the level of nuclear warheads that the United States holds, and at the time a commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons. I will refresh my memory on the matter and write to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants.
Other hon. Members have debated whether any nation is able to use any of the weapons that it possesses in the manner best designed to maintain its security. I am not going to announce that Britain, faced with what it would perceive to be a direct threat, would not use all the necessary means at its disposal to maintain the nation's security. That would be of the highest irresponsibility and I am surprised that I was asked to comment on it.

177WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) asked about help for Russia in disposing of nuclear weapons and material. The Government have taken an active lead in that matter and I will be happy to write to him about it.
I was asked about Guantanamo Bay and the status of the British citizens who are prisoners there. They have had visits—the most recent was last month—and we are seeking another. We have been assured that their
178WH
treatment is in accordance with international humanitarian norms. The International Committee of the Red Cross has a permanent presence there. The United States and all countries that have citizens there are still discussing their legal status. It is a conundrum and it is right that we engage with the United States on the matter. If—
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Cleansing Services Group Ltd.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she expects to receive the Environment Agency's third report on the explosion at Cleansing Services Group Ltd., in Sandhurst, Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement; [26655]

  (2) when she will make a decision on holding a public inquiry into the explosion at Cleansing Services Group Ltd., Sandhurst, Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement. [26654]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: The joint Environment Agency and HSE investigation surrounding the fire of October 2000 is principally complete. However, the agency is undertaking excavations beneath concreted areas at the site to investigate allegations that hazardous waste was buried below the transfer station in the early 1990s. Excavations at the site commenced in mid March. Given the co-operation of the company, the agency expect to complete the excavations and associated investigations next month. In the light of which we will make a decision on whether or not to hold a public inquiry.

  Household Waste Recycling
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to increase the UK's recycling of household waste; and what funds the Government plan to make available for this purpose. [34657]

  Mr. Meacher
  "Waste Strategy 2000" announced challenging targets to increase the amount of municipal waste recycled and composted in England and Wales. These targets are:To recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005
  To recycle or compost at least 30 per cent. of household waste by 2010.
  To ensure that local authorities contribute to achieving these targets, the Government have set Statutory Performance Standards for recycling and composting for individual authorities. These can be found in the Government's "Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies", published in March 2001. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library and from the DEFRA website: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/guidance/mwms/index.htm

  The Government have increased funding for the Environmental Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) block, which includes waste management, by £1.1 billion over the SR2000 period. There is also a ring-fenced fund
  378W
  of £140 million for local authority recycling and £220 million for waste Private Finance Initiative projects over the same period. Councils will also benefit from the £40 million to the Waste and Resources Action Programme to overcome market barriers to reuse and recycling of waste.

  Following a recent consultation on the £140 million fund, DEFRA has opted for a selective distribution. At the end of March this year we issued guidelines and formally invited applications from local authorities. These guidelines can be downloaded from the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/wastefund/index.htm.

  Advertising
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of media advertising in each of the past five parliamentary Sessions including the current session, for her Department in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland; and for the last two parliamentary Sessions and the current parliamentary Session, what the media advertising expenditure was per month in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Northern Ireland. [37402]

  Mr. Morley
  As DEFRA was created in June 2001 annual retrospective media expenditure analysis by territory location does not exist.

  Since the formation of DEFRA our records show a total for centralised media publicity expenditure of £2,589,289. This excludes expenditure relating to foot and mouth disease.

  The expenditure analysis set out in the table identifies three territorial areas: England, England and Wales and the United Kingdom.

  De-centralised expenditure incurred by non-departmental public bodies, agencies and DEFRA directorates has not been included as obtaining this information could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  DEFRA centrally funded media publicity expenditure

  £thousand

  England

  England and Wales

  United Kingdom

  Total

  June 2001

  33,585

  37,078

  21,512

  92,175

  July 2001

  11,983

  72,676

  —

  84,659

  August 2001

  24,570

  33,373

  131,229

  189,172

  September 2001

  62,801

  44,180

  126,895

  233,876

  October 2001

  45,343

  41,630

  236,786

  323,759

  November 2001

  14,358

  37,664

  144,688

  196,710

  December 2001

  115,698

  16,019

  64,664

  196,381

  January 2002

  12,774

  96,722

  224,856

  334,352

  February 2002

  33,812

  37,357

  238,502

  309,671

  March 2002

  60,896

  117,229

  450,404

  628,529

  Total

  415,820

  533,928

  1,639,536

  2,589,284

  Rio Earth Summit (Implementation)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to(a) set goals on environmental protection and (b) improve eco-efficiency and resource productivity relating to health and the environment issues; and what these (i) goals and (ii) improvements have been. [44346]
  379W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government set out its targets for safeguarding people's health and protecting the environment from air pollution in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and revised in January 2000. It includes health-based standards for eight pollutants of main concern and objectives for their achievement between 2003 and 2008 together with objectives to be met by 2000 for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems. Good progress has been made towards achieving most of the targets as a result of the measures put in place by central Government and local authorities. We are, for example, broadly on track to meet our policy objectives for carbon monoxide. benzene, 1,3 butadiene, lead and sulphur dioxide, but we will need to do more to meet our targets for nitrogen dioxide, particles and ozone. We have met the objectives for vegetation and ecosystems. The strategy is kept under continuous review and last year we consulted on proposals to tighten several of the current objectives and to add a further objective.

  The Government have successfully negotiated and adopted various agreements, both with our partners in Europe and internationally, which will reduce emissions of harmful substances to the air. We are committed to meeting all of the mandatory limit values prescribed by EU legislation. To comply with the EC Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) the UK Government passed the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) regulations which came into force on 1 August 2000, under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. Separate arrangements apply the IPPC Directive to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the offshore oil and gas industries.

  IPPC applies an integrated environmental approach to the regulation of industrial activities. Emissions to aid, water (including discharge to sewer) and land, plus a range of other environmental effects (including noise, vibration and odour) must be considered together. IPPC aims to conserve energy, prevent emissions and waste production and, where not practicable, reduce them to acceptable levels. IPPC also takes the integrated approach beyond the initial task of permitting, through to the restoration of sites when industrial activities cease.

  On resource productivity the Government commissioned a major study headed by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit. Its recent report, "Resource Productivity: Making more with less", identifies the scope for significant environmental and business benefits. We are committed to following up the report, which includes recommendations on establishing a long-term strategy with indicative targets, policy to encourage innovation in sustainable technologies, and action to integrate sustainable development objectives with the business of Government procurement.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures have been introduced since 1997 to combat car dumping and increase removal of deserted vehicles. [46166]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have supported pilot schemes in the London boroughs of Newham and Lewisham in which the local authority was given DVLA's powers to wheelclamp and remove unlicensed vehicles after 24 hours. The 380W
  London borough of Wandsworth joined the scheme on 23 April. We announced the extension of the scheme nationally on 10 April.

  In October 2001 we published a consultation document on measures to remove abandoned and untaxed vehicles from the streets more quickly and, for the longer term, bring forward changes to vehicle registration and licensing procedures to ensure greater accuracy of DVLA's vehicle record.

  Regulations to reduce the statutory notice periods after which local authorities can remove abandoned vehicles and the storage periods for unlicensed vehicles were laid before the House on 19 March and came into force on 9 April.

  Kent police piloted a "blitz" approach (Operation Cubit) on abandoned vehicles in the Medway area in co-operation with Kent county council, Medway council, DVLA and the Kent Fire Brigade for eight weeks in early 2001 and the Home Office has commissioned a detailed evaluation of the pilot which has been academically assessed and circulated to other stakeholders for comments, including the Kent police and Kent county council. It is hoped that it will be published in the near future.

  Since the original pilot, similar operations have taken place and are shown in the table.

  Operation Cubit

  Area

  Date

  Swanley

  June 2001

  Dartford

  October 2001

  Gravesend

  October 2001

  Maidstone

  January 2002

  Swale

  January 2002

  Hastings

  February 2002

  Brighton

  February 2002

  Liverpool

  March 2002

  To date the operations have removed almost 3,000 abandoned unlicensed vehicles from the streets of Kent and Hastings.

  The response to the consultation paper is now available at www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/abandon/response/index.htm.

  Pesticide Residues
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to encourage children to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables; and if she will make a statement on her policy towards pesticide residues found in these foods. [48323]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: DEFRA works closely with the Department of Health on its initiatives to encourage increased consumption of fruit and vegetables, including the National School Fruit Scheme. The Pesticide Residues Committee advises the Secretary of State on a monitoring programme for pesticide residues in food and drink, including fruit and vegetables. The monitoring programme and its results are described in the annual report of the committee and are available on the Internet at http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/prc/prc per cent.5Fannual per cent.5Frep per cent.5F2000.pdf.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the target has been in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and if the target was met. [49644]

  Mr. Morley
  Chapter 2 of the Treasury's guidance "Non Departmental Public Bodies: Annual Reports and Accounts Guidance" requires executive NDPBs to provide, as part of their annual reports, information about the performance and efficiency targets agreed with their sponsor Departments and performance against those targets.

  The annual reports and accounts of the Department's executive self-accounting NDPBs are laid before Parliament each year and copies placed in the House Library.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [49609]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) for which DEFRA is responsible, only one employs staff under the New Deal for Young People. Since 1998 that body has appointed 14 people on to the scheme, nine of whom have subsequently found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks. Information on those returning to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits is not available.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50282]

  Mr. Morley
  One Private Finance Initiative project, Brooklands Avenue Cambridge, has been subject to refinancing after the contract had been signed. The financial effect was to achieve a net present value saving to the Department of around £515,000 over 15 years, which represents a broadly equitable share of the potential refinancing gain. No other departmental PFI projects have been subject to refinancing.

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the services of her Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50322]

  Mr. Morley
  The Better Quality Services (BQS) programme was launched in 1998 and adopted by the Cabinet Office in the Modernising Government White 382W
  Paper of 1999 as a means of delivering continuous improvements in the quality and effectiveness of Government activities and services. It requires all Government Departments to review every activity and service over a five year period starting in October 1999. The scheme covers all activities in Departments, agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies, and is similar in remit to the Best Value programme in local government.

  Following the creation of DEFRA in June 2001, we intend to launch a value for money programme that will review every major function in the Department at least once every five years.

  Two major BQS reviews, of the DEFRA Estate and Personnel, are scheduled to take place during the current financial year.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has received of the change in energy efficiency since 1997 of(a) processing in the industrial sector, (b) heating and lighting in the industrial sector, (c) heating and lighting in the commercial sector, (d) business machinery and information control technology in the commercial sector and (e) heating and lighting in the domestic sector; and if she will make a statement. [50445]

  Mr. Meacher
  In the domestic sector our most up to date estimate of the change in overall energy efficiency is that it improved by 1 per cent. per annum over the period 1995–2000.

  For industry and commerce, energy consumption statistics are collected by fuel but not by end use, so indicators are available only for overall energy consumption. No direct measure exists of "energy efficiency" changes for industry as a whole. However, changes in "energy intensity" (ie energy per unit of output) are routinely published by DTI1. These are the result of both efficiency changes and structural ones (eg from changing product mix within an industry). Estimates of changes in energy efficiency can be derived from these data and have been calculated up to 1998 for industry. Over the period 1990 to 1998, we estimate an average annual improvement in energy efficiency of about 0.6 per cent. per annum was achieved in industry.

  As part of the Government response to the recent PIU Energy Review, we will consider its recommendation to establish energy efficiency indicators for each sector of the economy.
  1 Energy intensity indicators for industry, commerce and a number of individual industries are given in the DTI publication "UK Energy Sector Indicators".

  GM Crops
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who was responsible for the crop management of the Farm Scale Evaluation at Sunnymead Farm, Wivenhoe in 2000; when the GM maize, planted at Sunnymead Farm, was sprayed with herbicide; and when the crop was sprayed with glufosinate ammonium. [50920]
  383W
  Mr. Meacher
  Management of the crops in the Farm Scale Evaluations is undertaken by the farmer hosting each individual trial, with SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops) providing advice in relation to the GM crops. As herbicide use is the key factor in the research, this aspect of the crop management is covered by the following protocol:

  Protocol on herbicide use for the Farm Scale Evaluations
  1. SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops) will not offer advice to farmers on management of the non-GM part of experimental fields. This will be carried out by the farmer's own adviser and recorded in detail, as is required under pesticide usage regulations.
  2. SCIMAC will provide advice through an agronomist to farmers about herbicide and related management for the GM herbicide-tolerant crops. The agronomist will make a recommendation about the application rate and timing of the herbicide to provide cost-effective weed control. SCIMAC will provide draft detailed herbicide application information in addition to the label on the herbicide container, and provide the necessary amount of the herbicide to the farmers.
  3. Farmers will provide their rationale for recommended herbicide usage in the non-GM part of each study field. SCIMAC's agronomist will provide their rationale for recommended herbicide usage in the GM part of each study field. Farmers will provide a report of actual herbicide use in both the GM and non-GM parts of each study field. All this information will be submitted to the independent research consortium carrying out the FSE study, thereby allowing a comparison of the agronomist's advice with actual herbicide usage and thus substantiating whether or not cost-effective weed control has been met.

  The independent Scientific Steering Committee overseeing the FSE programme has approved this protocol as being appropriate for cost-effective weed control. The independent team carry out the FSE research audit as to whether cost-effective weed control has been practised by analysing herbicide application records, the weed burden at each trial site and records of crop yield. My Department does not have this management data, but it is planned to make relevant details publicly available at the end of the FSE programme when the research results are published. I can confirm that glufosinate ammonium is the only herbicide being used on the GM maize in the FSE trials.

  Sea Wall Defences
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total expenditure on sea wall defences in the county of Essex and the unitary boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea was in each year from 1990 to 2001. [50985]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is readily available only for expenditure incurred by the Environment Agency. The table details capital expenditure by the agency on sea walls in Essex (including Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea) and maintenance expenditure on sea walls and tidal defences:

  £ million

  Capital expenditure

  Maintenance expenditure

  Total

  1990–91

  3.8

  1.6

  5.4

  1991–92

  8.9

  2.0

  10.9

  1992–93

  9.4

  2.2

  11.6

  1993–94

  9.1

  2.2

  11.3

  1994–95

  6.1

  2.2

  8.3

  1995–96

  6.3

  2.4

  8.7

  384W

  £ million

  Capital expenditure

  Maintenance expenditure

  Total

  1996–97

  4.2

  2.4

  6.6

  1997–98

  5.2

  2.0

  7.2

  1998–99

  6.9

  2.2

  9.1

  1999–2000

  4.8

  2.0

  6.8

  Note:

  Capital expenditure will vary year to year depending upon schemes in progress.

  Illegal Wildlife Trade
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what action the Government are taking to tackle global illegal trade in wildlife; [51270]

  (2) what assessment the Government have made of the impact illegal wildlife trade is having on endangered species; and if she will make a statement. [51269]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK was one of the first countries to ratify the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The convention is implemented throughout the European Community through EU regulations by means of a system of licensing, to ensure that any trade is carried out at levels which species populations can sustain. Populations of endangered species and levels of trade are under continuous review, and the degree of protection afforded to particular species (which can include a complete ban on all trade) can be changed as a result.

  Specimens of some endangered species command high prices on the illegal market. There is a huge incentive to evade trade controls and examples of illegal imports which have been intercepted by HM Customs and Excise are well-documented. It is difficult to assess the full scale of the illegal wildlife trade and thus the impact on species conservation, but reports published by the CITES Secretariat, Interpol, and by respected scientists and other conservation experts show that these are matters which we must continue to take very seriously indeed.

  The UK has a good record of CITES enforcement. HM Customs and Excise Wildlife and Endangered Species Officers (including the internationally respected CITES Enforcement Team at Heathrow airport) and Police Wildlife Liaison Officers are at the sharp end of wildlife law enforcement and work with great commitment and determination. This has led to a number of successful prosecutions, including one resulting in a custodial sentence of six and a half years for the illegal import of certain birds. The Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime—a multi agency organisation comprising the main Government Departments, statutory enforcement agencies and voluntary organisations with an interest in wildlife law enforcement issues—works hard to support the networks of police and customs officers at the strategic level. In addition, our major information campaign "Souvenir Alert" increases awareness of CITES controls among the general public. The campaign is aimed at tourists who may unwittingly bring back from their travels souvenirs made from endangered species. Over the past six months we have distributed a quarter of a million leaflets publicising the campaign, which has attracted considerable media and public interest.
  385W
  Our work to combat the illegal wildlife trade took a significant step forward on 22 April, when I announced the establishment of the National Wildlife Criminal Intelligence Unit. The unit, which will be part of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, is well placed to make a real difference in countering organised wildlife crime at a national and international level.

  Wildlife criminals are finding ever more sophisticated ways of avoiding detection. The unit will be using equally sophisticated techniques to track down, prosecute and punish these criminals.

  Agriculture (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes the Budget of 17 April will make to agriculture in Herefordshire. [51652]

  Mr. Morley
  Agriculture in Herefordshire, as elsewhere, is made up of a large number of different types of businesses, many of them small businesses. Depending on their individual circumstances, many may benefit from the budget measures offering help to small firms. The freeze in fuel duty and vehicle excise duty levels will also benefit agricultural businesses, as may the reduction in duty on cider. Many agricultural workers and farming families will benefit from the working tax credit and the child tax credit.

  Agriculture Council
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason no devolved Adminstration Minister attended the 2419 European Union Council of Ministers (Agriculture) meeting on 18 March; which suggestions and matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation; and what information and evidence was provided by her Department to enable effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [51728]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: No Ministers from the devolved Administrations attended the March Agriculture Council as there was nothing on the agenda of specific interest to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the UK Government are well briefed on their interests in more general matters. There was no need for the UK Government to raise any issues of particular concern to the Scottish Executive. On the third point, it is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in preparations for EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the Committee and the Scottish Executive. The Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  International Environmental Conventions
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which international conventions on the environment(a) her Department and (b) the Government have signed since 1997; what the timetable for implementation is in each case; and what steps her Department is taking to monitor implementation. [51924]
  386W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: Since 1997 the United Kingdom has signed the following international conventions on the environment:

  (i) The Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Signed: September 1997

  (ii) The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto—Annexe VI: Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. Signed: September 1997

  (iii) The Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed: April 1998

  (iv) The Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Signed: June 1998

  (v) The Protocol on Heavy Metals to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Signed: June 1998

  (vi) The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. Signed: September 1998

  (vii) The Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Signed: December 1999

  (viii) The Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Signed: December 1999

  (ix) The Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Signed: May 2000

  (x) The Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. Signed: December 2000

  (xi) The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels under the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Signed: June 2001

  (xii) The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships. Signed: October 2001

  (xiii) The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Signed: December 2001.

  With respect to the timetable for implementation of these conventions, the United Kingdom must have all measures in force to give effect to a convention before ratification. The timetable for ratification will take into account the need for action by the European Union. Where conventions include specific timetables for action the United Kingdom will comply with those provisions. Reporting requirements on implementation are determined by each instrument on a case by case basis.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made since 1997 in cutting UK emissions of carbon dioxide. [51610]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 April 2002]: The UK Climate Change Programme and Third National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change were published in November 2000 and October 2001 respectively. These set out the policies by which the UK will meet its Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. relative 1990 levels over the period 2008–2012, and move towards our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide relative to 1990 by 2010.
  387W
  Actual emissions in 1997 were estimated to be 152.5 million tonnes of carbon (MtC), or about 7 per cent. below the level in 1990. In 2000 (the most recent year for which final data are available) carbon dioxide had fallen by a further 0.4 MtC, but provisional 2001 data show an increase of 1.9 MtC. This increase reflects higher power station emissions (plus 4.1 MtC relative to 1997), colder outside temperatures (plus 2.1 MtC) and trends elsewhere in the economy (minus 4.2 MtC). The increase in power station emissions is due to gas price fluctuations, and colder outside temperatures increased demand on space heating requirements. We do not expect longer term trends to be affected, particularly since trends elsewhere in the economy are tending to reduce emissions. Our estimated reductions set out in the UK Climate Change Programme and the Third National Communication are therefore unchanged.

  Noise
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what grants are available for noise insulation. [45750]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply

  No such grants are available centrally.

  There are statutory requirements for the provision of noise insulation in specified circumstances, in respect of noise from various sources. Under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 the appropriate highway authority will provide insulation in the form of secondary glazing to the windows and glazed doors, of dwellings and other buildings used for residential purposes, or payment of grants for this purpose, where such properties are not more than 300 m from the nearest point of a new highway, including an additional carriageway added to an existing highway, or an alteration affecting the line or level of an existing highway. The provision of insulation or grant is subject to there being an increase, or expected increase, in noise on the fa"ade of the property attributable to the traffic on the new or altered highway from that prevailing before construction started, provided this is above a prescribed level.

  Under the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 an authority responsible for constructing a new railway, tramway or other guided transport system, or for adding to an existing system, has a similar duty to provide insulation for dwellings and other buildings used for residential purposes, or to pay grant for that purpose.

  Similar statutory schemes have been made under s79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, and previous powers, requiring provision of noise insulation in respect of aircraft noise at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. At other airports, noise insulation may be provided on a voluntary basis or in accordance with planning conditions.

  Noise insulation schemes under any of these statutory provisions are subject to qualifying dates: they are not open-ended.

  Local housing authorities could consider whether it would be appropriate to award a discretionary Home Repair Assistance grant to private home owners and tenants for noise insulation. The Regulatory Reform
  388W
  (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, if enacted, will provide authorities with a new general power which they could also use to this end.

  Heathrow (Bird Strikes)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment has been made of potential bird strikes at Heathrow airport; and what measures are being taken to deal with this. [52259]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Heathrow Airport Ltd. carries out a continuing assessment of the bird strike risk at the airport and takes remedial action as part of its operating licence obligations. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has also established a working group, involving Heathrow Airport Ltd., the Civil Aviation Authority and other interested parties, to look at a broader range of issues connected with the bird strike hazard in the Heathrow area.

  Climate Change
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what work her Department is doing on the impact of climate change. [53303]

  Margaret Beckett
  The UK Climate Change Programme outlines the Government's approach on adaptation to climate change. An important component of this is the ability to assess possible impacts and adaptation options. To address this, my Department has provided a further three years of funding for the UK Climate Impacts Programme to help the public and private sector carry out studies to assess what climate change may mean for them and how to prepare for it.

  To help such assessments, new climate change scenarios for the UK will be published on 26 April 2002. These contain important information on how the UK's climate may change in future as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. Copies of the scenario reports will be placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

  In addition, the Government have recently begun an inter-departmental process to consider the implications of climate change. My Department is participating in this activity and has also commissioned a survey of the implications of climate change for its policies and operational responsibilities. The study should be completed this year.

  Timber
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning recent shipments of Brazilian mahogany to the UK; and if she will make a statement. [44703]
  389W
  Mr. Morley
  Pursuant to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 272W, the final sentence of the second paragraph did not contain the most up-to-date information. Paragraph two should read as follows:
  Greenpeace sought permission to take the Department to Judicial Review in order to compel DEFRA and HM Customs and Excise to seize a recent importation of Brazilian Mahogany. The initial judgment refused Greenpeace's application but they have now successfully appealed against this.

  The rest of the answer remains correct.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Transport and Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 379W, on the Transport and Telecommunications Council, what the status of the general orientations reached by the Council is; and whether issues covered by these general orientations could be reopened by the UK. [51722]

  Mr. Alexander
  A "general orientation", now more often known as a "general approach", is an indication of the formal position the Council might take at a later stage. The term is used when a formal position of the Council cannot be reached because the legislative pre-conditions of the decision-making process have not yet been met, for example because the European Parliament has not yet delivered its opinion.

  There were two general approaches reached at the 25 March Telecommunications Council relating to decisions on electronic interchange of data between administrations (IDA) (Council number 11983–01) and Trans-European Telecommunications Networks (Council number 15324–01). Both proposals had cleared parliamentary scrutiny in advance of the Council, so we signalled that there were no outstanding UK issues to raise for the moment. It does however remain open to use to raise additional issues if the European Parliament proposes significant amendments. We will keep the Committees informed of developments.

  Data Protection Registrar
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to ensure that businesses are not misled by companies purporting to be acting on behalf of the Data Protection Registrar. [51790]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department is cooperating with relevant enforcement authorities over this issue. We advise those who wish to complain about such an approach to contact their local Trading Standards Office. This is in line with advice issued by the Information Commissioner.

  Pubs
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she plans to investigate the effects on competition and the potential monopolies created by the growth of pub chains. [51512]
  390W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In his review of the Beer Orders in 2000, the Director-General of Fair Trading found no evidence to warrant a monopoly reference of the pub chains to the Competition Commission. The Director-General has pledged that he will continue to be vigilant in his pursuit of anti-competitive practices in the industry.

  Faulty Products
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Directive 1999/44/EC (Refunds on Faulty Products) will be implemented. [52237]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department is currently consulting on draft regulations to transpose EC Directive 1999/44/EC (on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) into UK law. The consultation ends on 23 May 2002 and regulations will be laid before Parliament.

  Temporary Workers
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to consult the recruitment industry on the content of the proposed European directive on working conditions for temporary workers. [52297]

  Alan Johnson
  Officials have been discussing the effects of the proposed European directive on working conditions for temporary workers with the recruitment industry, and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she has conducted into the average length of temporary work assignments in the UK. [52295]

  Alan Johnson
  We are aware of existing research on the nature of temporary work. Should further information be needed in light of the Commission's proposals, we will consider the case for further research.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to meet the European Commission to discuss the proposed European directive on working conditions for temporary workers. [52298]

  Alan Johnson
  I have discussed it with Commissioner Diamantopoulou, and others, and expect to have further contacts.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to safeguard labour market flexibility, with particular reference to the proposed European directive on working conditions for temporary workers. [52316]

  Alan Johnson
  We are studying the proposal to ensure that it provides adequate protection for agency workers without unnecessarily reducing labour market flexibility.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she has asked the European Commission to withdraw the proposed European directive on working conditions for temporary workers. [52315]
  391W
  Alan Johnson
  We are studying the proposal to establish whether it protects agency workers without damaging the important contribution agency workers and agencies make to the labour market and to maintaining high levels of employment.

  LOTIS Committee
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the LOTIS Committee. [51667]

  Ms Hewitt
  The LOTIS Committee is part of International Financial Service, London, an independent private sector trade association (formerly known as British Invisibles) representing business interests in the City of London. Government officials are invited to attend the Committee's meetings as observers, as they are with many other trade associations and non-governmental organisations.

  Chemical Weapons Act
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement about the operation of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. [53193]

  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with the Act, I have laid a report on its implementation during 2001 before the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to reply to the letter dated 4 March from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding Mr. R. Roxburgh. [50073]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 16 April 2002.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Public Services (Access)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he collates on the accessibility of residents of wards in England to(a) higher education, (b) further education, (c) general hospitals, (d) specialist hospitals, (e) nearest towns and cities and (f) other services. [52446]

  Ms Keeble
  Information on access to services by residents of wards is not generally collected. The exception is that access to some(f) "other services" (post office, food shops, GP, primary school) has been assembled at ward level as the "Geographic Access to Services" Domain of the Index of Deprivation 2000. My Department is undertaking a major new project this year to develop methods for local authorities to measure accessibility to key services at ward level.

  Elected Mayors
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many towns and 392W
  cities have elected mayors; what the turnout was in each election; and if he will make a statement on the powers of elected mayors. [52152]

  Dr. Whitehead
  To date, only London has a directly elected mayor, first elected in May 2000 with a turnout of 34.4 per cent. The mayor has wide powers with regard to setting the strategic direction for London and in particular with regards to transport, economic development and regeneration.

  Referendum results have supported the introduction of directly elected executive mayors in eight English local authorities and on 2 May 2002 there will be a further five mayoral referendums. Of those eight local authorities, seven are holding their first mayoral election on 2 May 2002 and one on 17 October 2002. These executive mayors will lead their councils and, to the extent each local authority's constitution provides, will be in charge of their council's services.

  National Insurance Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the cost in the next 12 months of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to(a) his Department, (b) agencies of his Department and (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of his Department. [52075]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The changes to both employee and employers' national insurance contributions, announced in the Budget, will come into effect in April 2003. There will be no additional costs in the present financial year.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason no devolved Administration Minister attended the 2420 European Union Council of Ministers (Transport) meeting on 26 March; which suggestions and matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the UK Government delegation; and what information and evidence was provided by his Department to enable effective post-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [51731]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The UK, as the member state, is represented by a member of the UK Government. It is not normal practice for a Minister from a devolved Administration to join the delegation, nor were there any from any other EU country on this occasion. The devolved Administrations are involved before Council meetings in developing the UK position, which will as necessary reflect matters of particular concern to one or all of the devolved Administrations.

  I reported on the outcome of the Council to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Union in the House of Lords. A written report prepared by the UK Permanent Representation in Brussels was given wide distribution among officials.

  Arrangements for post-Council scrutiny in Scotland are a matter for the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. My Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Council Tax
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the levels of Band D council tax were in each local authority in(a) London, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Scotland, in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1997–98, and (iii) will be in 2002–03. [52065]

  Mr. Byers
  Tables giving the equivalent figures for the financial years 1993–94, 1997–98 and 2002–03 are available in "Regional Trends 29", Table 15.2; Department of the Environment Information Bulletin on "Council Taxes in England in 1997–98" (Bulletin 164, 20 March 1997); and the DTLR News Release on "Council Taxes in England—2002/03" (2002–0124, 21 March 2002) respectively. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The tables provide information on the Band D council tax in each local authority area. The figures are based on two adults and include amounts funded by council tax benefit and transitional relief.

  In practice, only a minority of properties in each local authority area are in Band D, with the percentage in Bands A to C varying widely between authorities, from 10.7 per cent. to 96.8 per cent. The average Band D council tax does not therefore allow a comparison to be made of the average amounts of council tax payable by people in different areas.

  Regeneration spending in Islington

  £

  Type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 1

  Community Empowerment Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150,261

  150,261

  Community Chest Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  137,956

  206,934

  Community Learning Chest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55,182

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,136,000

  4,703,000

  Single Regeneration Budget

  —

  —

  410,000

  11,203,000

  13,519,000

  —

  New Deal for Communities

  —

  —

  10,000

  575,660

  483,000

  —

  1 Allocations

  Notes:

  1. Grants under Community Empowerment Fund, Community Chest Fund, Community Learning Chest and Neighbourhood Renewal Fund only commenced in 2001.

  2. The London Development Agency is unable to provide a breakdown of SRB expenditure by London borough in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 2002–03.

  3. The allocation for new deal for communities for 2002–03 is not yet decided.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list, by project, the total investment in housing capital improvements in Islington(a) for each of the past five years and (b) expected for 2002–03. [52272]

  Ms Keeble
  Since May 1997, the London borough of Islington has been allocated the following amounts of funding for specific housing capital improvement projects:

  £

  Capital Challenge (Marquess Estate)

  1997–98

  1,500,000

  1998–99

  4,500,000

  1999–2000

  3,500,000

  394W
  In contrast, the average council tax per dwelling reflects the wide variation between authorities in the distribution of properties across bands. It is therefore a helpful measure to use when comparing the amounts payable in different areas.

  Information on Wales and Scotland is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Executive respectively.

  Mobile Home Parks
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to publish his report on the economics of running a mobile home park. [52357]

  Ms Keeble
  The researchers' work on the study into the economics of the park homes industry is nearing completion. We anticipate publication of the final report in early summer.

  Investment (Islington)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list, by project, the total Government support for regeneration projects in the Borough of Islington(a) for each of the last five years and (b) expected for 2002–03. [52273]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  £

  Estate Action (Harvist Estate)

  1997–98

  1,303,000

  1998–99

  1,693,000

  1999–2000

  1,119,100

  2000–01

  777,900

  2001–02

  500,000

  Single Regeneration Budget:

  Kings Cross Partnership (housing projects)

  1997–98

  380,000

  1998–99

  1,962,000

  1999–2000

  1,301,000

  2000–01

  846,000

  2001–02

  577,000

  Finsbury Park (Tollington Estate)

  1999–2000

  45,000

  2000–01

  293,000

  395W

  £

  2001–02

  600,000

  2002–03

  450,000

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Housing Investment Programme

  9.255

  7.468

  9.075

  28.415

  12.651

  14.970

  Major Repairs Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25.434

  25.030

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  2.848

  9.168

  8.334

  —

  —

  —

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  0.136

  0.124

  0.131

  0.142

  0.212

  0.237

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  2.240

  1.524

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fire Service Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the review of tire service pension arrangements to be concluded; when the review commenced; and which Government Departments and agencies are engaged in the review. [52114]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In 1998 the Home Office published a consultation document on options for changes to the Firefighters' Pension Scheme. There was no consensus among Fire Service interests on the costs and benefits which might be included in any new pension scheme. We have no immediate plans to introduce a new scheme but continue to discuss amendments to the current scheme with the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils which include representatives of the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Administration, Fire Service employers, unions and staff associations.

  Number and percentage of properties in each council tax band

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  Total

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Number

  73,125

  17,252

  16,508

  7,249

  3,538

  1,654

  1,291

  115

  120,732

  Percentage

  60.6

  14.3

  13.7

  6.0

  2.9

  1.4

  1.1

  0.1

  100.0

  Wandsworth

  Number

  5,995

  11,758

  34,363

  28,792

  17,800

  11,845

  10,751

  1,881

  123,185

  Percentage

  4.9

  9.5

  27.9

  23.4

  14.4

  9.6

  8.7

  1.5

  100.0

  Richmond

  Number

  596

  1,917

  11,361

  19,250

  19,484

  11,082

  11,692

  2,661

  78,043

  Percentage

  0.8

  2.5

  14.6

  24.7

  25.0

  14.2

  15.0

  3.4

  100.0

  Government Office Region North East

  Number

  667,963

  157,421

  157,846

  80,695

  40,190

  17,627

  10,298

  1,173

  1,133,213

  Percentage

  58.9

  13.9

  13.9

  7.1

  3.5

  1.6

  0.9

  O.1

  100.0

  North West

  Number

  1,322,421

  563,533

  514,026

  285,914

  167,010

  82,021

  56,127

  5,612

  2,996,664

  Percentage

  44.1

  18.8

  17.2

  9.5

  5.6

  2.7

  1.9

  0.2

  100.0

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Number

  1,007,232

  422,759

  351,695

  187,306

  119,051

  57,371

  33,834

  2,943

  2,182,191

  Percentage

  46.2

  19.4

  16.1

  8.6

  5.5

  2.6

  1.6

  0.1

  100.0

  East Midlands

  Number

  708,205

  406,075

  320,954

  184,684

  108,634

  52,261

  30,941

  2,812

  1,814,566

  Percentage

  39.0

  22.4

  17.7

  10.2

  6.0

  2.9

  1.7

  0.2

  100.0

  396W
  The following has also been allocated to the borough. However, it is a matter for the local authority to decide how this funding is allocated between their priorities.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out the distribution of properties, by council tax band, in(a) Newcastle upon Tyne, (b) the London borough of Wandsworth and (c) the London borough of Richmond; and what the average distribution by band is in each Government office region of England. [52116]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on the number of properties in each council tax band is shown on the valuation list, compiled by the Valuation Office Agency. The latest information available is at 26 March 2002. The number of properties in each council tax band, and the distribution of properties by council tax band, for Newcastle upon Tyne, the London borough of Wandsworth and the London borough of Richmond are shown in the table. The table also gives information for each Government office region of England.
  397W

  Number and percentage of properties in each council tax band

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  Total

  West Midlands

  Number

  732,699

  559,441

  427,208

  238,448

  149,545

  81,514

  49,742

  5,017

  2,243,614

  Percentage

  32.7

  24.9

  19

  10.6

  6.7

  3.6

  2.2

  0.2

  100.0

  East

  Number

  338,768

  497,471

  617,989

  402,793

  243,008

  132,541

  90,901

  10,783

  2,334,254

  Percentage

  14.5

  21.3

  26.5

  17.3

  10.4

  5.7

  3.9

  0.5

  100.0

  London

  Number

  109,217

  424,581

  832,400

  794,520

  478,877

  237,732

  195,448

  52,909

  3,125,684

  Percentage

  3.5

  13.6

  26.6

  25.4

  15.3

  7.6

  6.3

  1.7

  100.0

  South East

  Number

  297,106

  561,367

  883,401

  681,627

  459,244

  276,049

  223,648

  30,091

  3,412,533

  Percentage

  8.7

  16.5

  25.9

  20

  13.5

  8.1

  6.6

  0.9

  100.0

  South West

  Number

  378,657

  538,373

  508,093

  343,986

  232,043

  117,013

  69,361

  6,596

  2,194,122

  Percentage

  17.3

  24.5

  23.2

  15.7

  10.6

  5.3

  3.2

  0.3

  100.0

  England

  Number

  5,562,268

  4,131,021

  4,613,612

  3,199,973

  1,997,602

  1,054,129

  760,300

  117,936

  21,436,841

  Percentage

  25.9

  19.3

  21.5

  14.9

  9.3

  4.9

  3.5

  0.6

  100.0

  Note:

  Percentage figures are subject to rounding.

  School Run
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research he has commissioned into the psychosocial impact on children of parents taking them to school by car. [51980]

  Mr. Byers
  In October 2000 my Department commissioned a scoping study and literature review to establish what was already known about the effect of travel mode on children's mental health and cognitive and social development. The study reported in April 2001. The executive summary is on the DTLR website at www.local-transport.dtlr.gov.uk/schooltravel/ cogdev/ index.htm and has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire of 25 January 2002,Official Report, columns 1183–85W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, if he will list the grant schemes and other mechanisms by which (a) his Department, (b) the housing action trusts, (c) English Partnerships and (d) the regional development agencies distribute funding to voluntary sector organisations. [51409]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions does not hold information centrally on the grant schemes and other mechanisms by which it distributes funding to voluntary sector bodies. However, information in respect of the bodies specifically mentioned in the hon. Member's question is as follows:
  (b) Housing Action Trusts give grants to support a wide range of local community groups and projects. Details are published in each Housing Action Trust's annual report and accounts. In 2000–01 the five trusts gave grants totalling approximately £1.1 million to support over 100 local initiatives.
  398W
  (c) English Partnerships is not a significant contributor of funds to the voluntary sector.
  (d) Regional development agencies currently provide Single Regeneration Budget funding to various regeneration partnerships who support projects that benefit the voluntary sector. Regional development agencies may also choose to provide support to the voluntary sector through their new single programme that started on 1 April 2002.

  Housing (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consideration he has given to the proposals submitted to him by local authorities in East Lancashire to tackle the problem of run-down and abandoned housing in the region. [50684]

  Ms Keeble
  The East Lancashire Housing Forum submitted in December 2001 a proposed programme to tackle the problem of low demand and abandoned housing in the area. The Government is considering the proposal in the context of the spending review, along with the proposal from various northern housing bodies for a housing market renewal fund.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 10 April that nine areas where the problems of low demand housing are most acute, of which East Lancashire is one, were being invited to work with Government to establish pathfinder projects to tackle low demand. Their aim will be to provide lasting solutions for communities blighted by derelict homes through investment and innovation. They will do this by developing a strategic approach for regenerating their sub-regional housing markets that will bring together key stakeholders, inform future investment, and test out new and innovative approaches to combating low demand.

  A key element of the pathfinder projects' approach will be a unified agenda. Experience shows that it is not sufficient to tackle the housing problem alone. Local authorities must work closely together with their

  399W
  partners—the police, the health authority, the Regional Development Agency, Housing Corporation and private sector—to rejuvenate our towns and cities.

  Low demand and abandoned housing is a major problem. But it also provides a unique opportunity to restructure and rebuild our cities for the twenty-first century. We must now seize that opportunity. The Government will work with local people to deliver the change necessary and bring hope to those communities.

  Blue Badge Scheme
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to extend the blue badge scheme of parking concessions for disabled people to people who are only temporarily disabled. [52294]

  Ms Keeble
  The administration of the Blue Badge Scheme is the responsibility of individual local authorities. When they have received the information they require to process an application they should he expected to do so without delay.

  A comprehensive review of the Blue Badge Scheme is currently being undertaken by my Department, which will look at the administration of the Scheme and will also consider the case for temporary badges. Consultation on a discussion paper, which was issued to the main stakeholders, including disability organisations and local authorities, ended recently. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC- our statutory advisers on the transport and mobility needs of disabled people) are considering responses and are due to report their recommendations to the Secretary of State around the end of this month. In the light of those recommendations we aim to decide on the way forward with the scheme over the summer.

  Helicopter Rescue Services
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the contract for the supply of Maritime and Coastguard Agency helicopter rescue services at(a) Portland and (b) Lee on Solent will expire; whether the MCA intends to keep the arrangements as they are now; and when the MCA will sign a new contract. [51642]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current contracts for the supply of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) civilian search and rescue helicopter services at Portland and Lee on Solent both expire on 13 May 2003.

  The agency is considering future contracts and discussions about the detail are continuing.

  Any new contracts should be signed by 12 May 2003 to ensure no break in the provision of the service.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has to upgrade facilities at(a) Lee on Solent and (b) Portland for the Maritime Rescue Helicopter Service. [51641]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is currently in discussion with relevant organisations regarding improvements at Lee on Solent and Portland but no firm decisions have been made.
  400W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which locations for helicopter rescue services the Maritime and Coastguard Agency funds; and if he will make a statement about the MCA's future plans for helicopter rescue services. [51640]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) funds contracted civilian search and rescue helicopter services at Stornoway, Sumburgh, Lee on Solent and Portland.

  The MCA is currently engaged with the Ministry of Defence about the future provision of UK search and rescue helicopters with a view to harmonising the service in the future.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps have been taken by his Department and the SRA to introduce piggyback freight carriers on Britain's railways. [50906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ms Walley) on 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1274W.

  Railways
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 959W, on railways, how the figures in the baseline period compared to (a) the previous quarter, (b) the average for the previous year and (c) the average for the previous five years. [49837]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures on punctuality are available in "National Rail Trends", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  The Department's rail performance indicators publication of 18 February contained information on serious Signals Passed at Danger (SPAD) in the first, second and third quarters of 2001–02 plus the rolling annual total at the end of each of these quarters. Information on serious SPADs for earlier periods is provided in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) SPAD reports available on the HSE website.

  Information on average age of rolling stock at the end of the first, second and third quarters of 2001–02 was published in the second rail performance indicators report on 18 March. Average age of rolling stock is a new measure and information for earlier periods is not available.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has received a completed report from Mercer on the proposed future structure of regulation in the rail industry. [49872]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Mercer Management Consulting have been commissioned, to carry out a wide-ranging consultation of the rail industry stakeholders to gather views about all aspects of the UK railways. This work is not yet completed.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new railway stations have been opened since rail privatisation; how many new stations were planned at the time Railtrack went into administration; whether, in administration, Railtrack is continuing to plan to open those stations; when work will commence on the new station at Corsham; and if he will make a statement. [52338]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that 24 new stations have been opened since the privatisation of Railtrack. A number of potential new stations are at various stages of feasibility evaluation and planning. During railway administration, the administrators are keeping the network operational and running Railtrack plc on a "business as usual" basis. This process includes the consideration of potential new stations.

  I also understand that commercial agreements between all the parties involved in the project to build a new station at Corsham are close to being finalised, with a view to securing delivery of the station by May 2003.

  Windoff
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on Railtrack and its successor body of the German manufacturer Windoff going into receivership. [51981]

  Study

  Date expected to report

  West Midlands to North West (M6)

  May 2002

  London to South West and South Wales (A303, M4)

  May 2002

  A1 (North of Newcastle)

  May 2002

  North/South movements in the East Midlands (M1 Junctions 21 to 30)

  May 2002

  Hull (East/West) corridor (A63 and A1033 to Port of Hull)

  May 2002

  A453 (M1 to J24 (Nottingham)

  June 2002

  South and West Yorkshire motorway box (M1 J30 to A1 West Yorks/M18/M62 and A1(M)

  June 2002

  Tyneside area (A1/A19)

  June 2002

  London to Ipswich (A12)

  July 2002

  South Coast (Southampton to Folkestone coastal corridor)—(M27, A27 & A259)

  August 2002

  M60 Junction 12–18 (West to North Manchester)

  November 2002

  Thames Valley (London to Reading—M4)

  November 2002

  ORBIT—Transport solutions around London (M25)

  Autumn 2002

  London to South Midlands (A1, M1, M11, A5 and A421)

  December 2002

  Norwich to Peterborough (A47)

  February 2003

  West Midlands to East Midlands (A42/M42 to M6 corridor and M69 and A38)

  April 2003

  The final two multi-modal studies have yet to commence. Dates have yet to be confirmed although we would expect these to report by end of 2003/early 2004.

  Multi-modal study and location

  A52 (clifton Bridge to Bingham, Nottinghamshire)

  A34 (North from Southampton).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the titles of the officials from DTLR, the Government Offices for the Regions and the Highways Agency who attended the DTLR multi-modal study infrastructure charging seminar on 1 February; [52088]

  (2) when the summary papers for the DTLR multi-modal study infrastructure charging seminar on 1 February were produced. [52087]
  402W
  Mr. Byers
  Such matters are for the company to consider.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) the SRA, (b) Railtrack plc, (c) Newtrack Rail and (d) the Office of the Rail Regulator regarding the potential repercussions resulting from Windoff going into receivership. [51982]

  Mr. Byers
  None.

  Multi-Modal Studies
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when each of the modal studies proposed in the 10-year transport plan will be(a) completed and (b) published. [50041]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The multi-modal studies that have been completed and a final report published are as follows.

  Multi-modal study and location

  Reported

  Access to Hastings

  December 2000

  Cambridge to Huntingdon (A14)

  August 2001

  South East Manchester (Stockport, Manchester Airport Link West, Poynton)

  September 2001

  West Midlands area (M5/M6 and M42 between M40 and M6)

  October 2001

  The following table shows expected completion/final report dates of the multi-modal studies that are currently in progress:

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: The summary papers were produced at the end of January and early February. The titles of those attending are Director, Divisional Manager, Branch Head, Senior Executive Officer, Higher Executive Officer, Network Strategy Manager, MMS Project Manager, Assistant Project Manager, MMS Technical Director.

  NATS
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made by his Department of the changes which have taken place within National Air Traffic Services since the beginning of the PPP; and if he will make a statement. [46339]
  403W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department, as a major shareholder in NATS, is in regular contact with the company itself and other interested parties regarding the development of NATS since the inception of the PPP. We are confident that the new NATS management will secure the necessary improvements in efficiency and project management.

  UK Port Security
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what arrangements have been made for co-ordinating security measures for UK ports with the Royal Navy since 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement; [52104]

  (2) what assessment has been made of security risks regarding maritime container traffic since 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement; [52105]

  (3) what proportion of UK ports were not in receipt of TRANSEC advice prior to 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement; [52108]

  (4) what recent assessment has been made of measures required in respect of protective security for UK ports; and if he will make a statement. [52107]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under paragraph 1 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information, it is not the practice to disclose details of security matters.

  Roads (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what resources he will make available to Gloucestershire county council to upgrade the A436 prior to de-trunking the A40; and if he will make a statement. [52935]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The A436 is a local road for which Gloucestershire county council is the local highway authority. The Government have allocated £16,489,000 to the county council to maintain and improve the local transport infrastructure within the county in the 2002–03 financial year. It is for the county council to decide if it wishes to use part of this allocation to fund improvements to the A436.

  Road Accidents
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries have resulted from road accidents involving (i) the Fire Service and (ii) police cars; and how much compensation has been paid, in each of the last five years. [52249]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on deaths, serious injuries and compensation, resulting from road accidents involving the fire service is not held centrally. Chief Fire Officers may be able to provide this information relative to their own brigades

  Information relating to the police is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road accident casualties involving(a) fatal injuries, (b) serious injuries and (c) slight injuries there were in
  404W
  (i)St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council area, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the Northwest in each year from 1992 to 2001. [51619]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of people killed and injured in road accidents in (i) St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council area, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the Northwest are shown in the following table.

  Road accident casualties: 1999–2000

  Year of accident

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  St. Helens

  1992

  10

  105

  943

  1993

  10

  99

  961

  1994

  14

  90

  1,105

  1995

  8

  89

  952

  1996

  8

  102

  1,053

  1997

  6

  99

  1,107

  1998

  10

  94

  1,035

  1999

  13

  98

  1,192

  2000

  14

  72

  1,099

  Merseyside

  1992

  77

  993

  9,071

  1993

  71

  927

  9,439

  1994

  76

  847

  9,228

  1995

  60

  763

  8,350

  1996

  66

  792

  8,793

  1997

  55

  783

  9,143

  1998

  50

  713

  9,051

  1999

  55

  633

  9,271

  2000

  71

  688

  9,139

  North-West 1

  1992

  501

  4,875

  37,602

  1993

  440

  4,753

  37,935

  1994

  426

  5,389

  39,421

  1995

  418

  5,280

  37,922

  1996

  389

  5,110

  39,318

  1997

  376

  4,875

  41,261

  1998

  355

  4,237

  41,223

  1999

  360

  4,045

  40,345

  2000

  370

  3,931

  40,213

  1 Government Office Region (including Merseyside)

  Note:

  Figures are not yet available for 2001.

  Rural Bus Challenge Fund
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will redesignate the Rural Bus Challenge Fund to include(a) taxis and (b) ferries. [52445]

  Ms Keeble
  The guidance issued to local authorities on the Rural Bus Challenge scheme already makes clear that the term "bus" will be broadly interpreted to cover a broad range of road-based public transport. It can include for example projects involving taxi buses or shared taxis and a number of such schemes have been supported with Challenge funding.

  We however have no plans to extend the scheme to include non-road transport.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she last met the Association of Colleges to discuss further education funding and delivery. [50354]
  405W
  Margaret Hodge
  DFES Ministers have met representatives of the Association of Colleges (AoC) on a number of occasions in recent months. The Secretary of State met David Gibson and other representatives from the AoC on 11 February where a wide range of issues relating to FE was discussed. I last met the AoC on 11 April to discuss issues including FE pay and funding.

  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for increasing funding to further education colleges; and if she will make a statement. [50358]

  John Healey
  We are making available over £4.2 billion for further education in 2002–03, a 3 per cent. real terms increase. We are looking to the current spending review to deliver the resources we need to meet the Government's ambitions for further education in 2003–04 and beyond.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action her Department is taking to widen participation in further education in this financial year. [50362]

  John Healey
  Further education plays a key role in driving forward growth in participation and achievement, by providing high quality vocational and academic routes. This year we are investing over £4.2 billion in further education, a 3 per cent. real terms increase on last year and this will enable the Learning and Skills Council to fund a 2.9 per cent. growth in full-time equivalent students in the sector. The Council has recently submitted a report to the Government on its plans for widening participation and we will be working jointly with the LSC to implement this.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what priority she gives to 16 to 18 education in(a) schools and (b) colleges of further education. [50353]

  Mr. Timms
  We assign an equally high priority to education in schools and colleges. My hon. and learned Friend will know that the 14–19 Green Paper sets out our aim that schools and colleges should collaborate to provide all young people with an extended range of opportunities from age 14.

  School Funding
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received about Government funding for schools. [50356]

  Mr. Timms
  We have received a number of representations about education funding. We are currently working up a new funding system for introduction in 2003–04. Our aim is not only to make funding fairer, justified by the education needs of children, but to make it clearer as well. In the meantime, we are continuing to make significant increases in education funding overall.

  Literacy and Numeracy Skills
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress is being made to reduce the number of adults lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills. [50357]
  406W
  John Healey
  This Government recognise the vital importance of improving adult basic skills. Since Skills for Life, our national strategy, was launched last year, we have made significant progress. This includes piloting a number of new initiatives, including one in my hon. Friend's constituency, to determine what works best in helping adults improve their skills. Participation by adults in basic skills courses is increasing and from April to October 2001 over 91,000 adults improved their skills.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment her Department has made of recent trends in higher education take-up, particularly in areas of low take-up. [50359]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England has consulted on its plans to ensure sufficient supply and demand for higher education over the rest of the decade, based on a through analysis of trends over the past 20 years. The latest data from the University and Colleges Admissions Service indicate an increase in applications in 2002 compared with last year, a welcome step towards our 50 per cent. target by 2010.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she will take to improve full time applications for higher education from mature students since 1996. [49807]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: We are determined to widen access as we expand numbers. The latest UCAS figures show a 9.5 per cent. increase in the number of mature students from the UK who entered higher education in September 2001 and UCAS has reported a 4.6 per cent. increase in the number of mature applicants from the UK for September 2002.

  We have put a number of initiatives in place, including foundation degrees which are new vocational qualifications to address the skills gap, as well as New Technology Institutes which are being set up in each English region. They are partnerships between higher education (HE), further education (FE) and business to provide specialist information and communication technology (ICT) and other high technology learning programmes. We are also developing new ways to access higher education through the "e-Universities" project, which will provide the flexibility many mature students need.

  In addition we have provided substantial extra resources for mature students including a child care grant, travel, books and equipment grant and access bursaries for student parents. A single parent with two young children can now get over £16,000 with full student loan and other grants. Our measures have contributed towards the welcome increase in mature student numbers.

  Institutions receive a funding premium for all students aged 25 and over in recognition of the additional cost of supporting such students. We are also encouraging the important role that FE has to play in delivering HE, where FE colleges are already significant providers. They offer degree and other provision to wider groups, many of whom are mature students who may not be able to attend a university but can attend the local college.

  Teachers (Early Leavers)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the recent research she has commissioned into the reasons for teachers leaving the profession. [50360]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend has commissioned Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson, from the University of Liverpool Centre for Education and Employment Research to undertake research into the factors affecting teachers' decisions to leave the profession. The research commenced in December 2001 and we expect the report to be published in March 2003.

  School Spending (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent per(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil in Wiltshire in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 2001–02. [50363]

  Mr. Timms
  Wiltshire spent £1,690 per primary pupil and £2,260 per secondary pupil in 1997–98. Information for 2001–02 is not yet available.

  GCSE Performance Targets
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to ensure all schools in selective education authority areas achieve their GCSE performance targets. [50364]

  Mr. Timms
  We have put in place a support programme targeted at all mainstream secondary schools where fewer than 25 per cent. of pupils gain at least 5 A'-C grades at GCSE including: financial support through the school improvement grant; Excellence in Cities or Education Action Zones; Ofsted monitoring visits; advice and guidance on good practice; a pilot project for trainee head teachers and an Action Research Project involving eight schools facing extremely challenging circumstances.

  School Grants
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about the system of distributing grants to schools in 2003–04. [50365]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently working up proposals for a reformed system of school and LEA funding for introduction in 2003–04. We aim to create a simpler, more transparent and fairer formula that reflects fairly, on the basis of up to date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country. We expect to consult on proposals for the new system in the summer.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to ensure that the results of the research assessment exercise do not lead to a lowering of the resources devoted to scientific research. [50366]

  Margaret Hodge
  The funding distributed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England using the outcome of the research assessment exercise in science, engineering and medical subjects increased from 408W
  £583.2 million in 2001–02 to £613.1 million in 2002–03. This funding is passed to higher education institutions as part of a block grant and it is for them to determine their spending priorities.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with the teachers' unions regarding the role of teaching assistants. [50367]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg).

  Mentoring
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for extending mentoring in schools. [50368]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  By the end of this school year some 3,800 Learning Mentors will be working in over 1,000 primary pilot schools and 1,000 secondary schools as part of the Excellence in Cities initiative. An extra £19 million is being made available to existing Excellence in Cities areas to extend their Learning Mentor provision from September; and a further 12 Excellence Clusters will operate from September, serving smaller pockets of deprivation and bringing Learning Mentors to more schools. My Department also funds the National Mentoring Network to promote and develop high quality volunteer mentoring for young people, including support for peer mentoring in 150 secondary schools from October 2002. Together with the Home Office Active Community Unit, we are funding seven Mentor Points—one stop shops for those wishing to become or access a volunteer mentor—three of which focus on provision in schools.

  Teacher Recruitment (London)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the support she offers for recruitment of teachers in London, with special reference to allowing for the cost of living. [50369]

  Mr. Timms
  London allowances for teachers increased by 30 per cent. last year, and by a further 3.5 per cent. this April. The allowance for a teacher in inner London is now £3,105. London teachers will also benefit from shortening of the main pay scale from 9 points to 6, which will mean more rapid progression to the threshold. Assimilation to this new scale will mean significant benefits for many teachers from 1 September this year. For example, an inner London teacher now on £25,911 will receive £28,818 on the new scale—a basic pay increase of over 11 per cent., in addition to the 3.5 per cent, received on 1 April this year.

  For post-threshold classroom teachers in inner London, salaries are now at £30,966 before any additions for management responsibilities or recruitment and retention allowances. Schools may pay recruitment and retention allowances of up to £5,262 per annum, both for threshold and main scale teachers.
  409W
  It is open to local authorities to help teachers with housing, relocation or travel costs. We are helping with more than £42 million available direct to London schools in 2001–02 and 2002–03 through our Recruitment and Retention Fund. We also expect that more than 1,500 teachers in the London area will have benefited from our new Starter Homes Initiative by 2004. We have also recently funded the establishment of a teacher recruitment and retention Unit within the Government Office for London, which will focus initially on affordable housing for teachers.

  Teacher Work Load
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reduce the amount of centrally produced work load for teachers. [50370]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg).

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions she has had on the reduction of teachers' work loads with teaching unions; and if she will make a statement. [50372]

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to ease the burden of teachers' work loads. [50375]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg).

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she next expects to meet representatives of teachers' organisations to discuss plans to reduce burdens on teachers; and if she will make a statement. [50378]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg).

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to reduce paperwork for teachers. [50361]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg).

  Vocational Subjects
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for GCSEs in vocational subjects. [50371]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Eight new GCSEs in vocational subjects will be introduced in September 2002. Beyond this our proposals for their development are contained in the Green Paper "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards". Our plans for the new qualifications will depend on the findings of the consultation.

  School Sports Facilities
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of sports facilities in secondary schools. [50373]

  John Healey
  The Department has not carried out its own assessment of sports facilities in secondary schools, but as part of the data collected from local education authorities' asset management plans, the Department has some information on the suitability of internal PE spaces. It also has some information on external sports areas and school playing fields, which is currently being appraised. Depending on the reliability of the information, we plan to publish analyses later in the year to provide a basis for benchmarking.

  Teachers' Pay
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to change the system of performance-related pay for teachers in England and Wales. [50374]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no plans to change the statutory arrangements for awarding performance pay points to teachers set out in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, which applies to England and Wales. However, the funding arrangements for England have recently been modified. The revised arrangements are set out in a statement made on 5 April, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Funding in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly.

  Tertiary Education (Eastern Region)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department is taking to increase participation in tertiary education in the eastern region. [50376]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are investing substantially in a wide range of policies to raise participation among 16 to l8-year-olds. The Learning and Skills Council has a statutory duty to promote the participation of individuals in post-16 education and training and have allocated it national budget of £3,932 million for 2002–03 for this.

  We have put in place measures that provide the support and incentives young people need to take up and succeed in learning. The Connexions Service provides impartial information, advice and guidance to young people on the full range of learning options open to them up to 19 and beyond. We are addressing the financial barriers to participation through piloting education maintenance allowances; providing discretionary funding targeted at specific learning needs and the Connexions card, which will offer discounts on transport and learning materials.

  We have also recently published the 14–19 Green Paper: "Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards", which proposes giving young people a range of high quality, general, mixed and vocational options to support our aim to end the culture of leaving education for good at age 16.

  Educational Performance
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to raise standards at key stage 3. [50377]

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on initiatives to improve educational performance among 11 to 14-years-olds. [50379]

  Mr. Timms
  Our plans to transform secondary education include a major programme to help schools improve the attainment of all 11 to 14-year-olds, as confirmed by the Secretary of State in her recent DEMOS speech. The key stage 3 strategy sets high expectations and challenging targets. It aims to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom by investing in teachers' professional development. We are supporting expenditure on the strategy of around £500 million from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33866]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1266W.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the special schools in each county in England and the numbers of children with special needs attending each school in(a) 2001, (b) 1996 and (c) 1991. [37420]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Tables containing the available information have been placed in the Library. These relate to information published in performance tables for 1996 and 2001. Performance tables were not produced in 1991.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what targets she sets for(a) measuring and (b) improving teaching standards in schools for children with special needs, with particular regard to children with autistic spectrum disorders. [51200]

  (2) what steps she is taking to improve the collation of data in respect of children with autistic spectrum disorders; what she is doing to increase resources for their education; and if she will make a statement. [51201]

  (3) what steps are being taken to improve autism awareness among teachers. [51202]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Our target is for all children with special educational needs (SEN) to receive excellent provision which meets their needs. Maintained schools are under a duty to use their best endeavours to make the special educational provision children's learning difficulties call for, including children with autistic spectrum disorders. Teachers have a crucial role in 412W
  meeting this duty. As part of the continuous improvement we seek in teaching standards, we want to see the support given by teachers to children with special educational needs (SEN), including those with autistic spectrum disorder, brought up to the standards of the best throughout the country and in all schools. Ofsted has a regular cycle of inspection of maintained schools, non-maintained special schools and independent schools which cater wholly or mainly for children with SEN, including schools which make provision for children with autistic spectrum disorders. In determining their judgments Ofsted inspectors have to consider the extent to which pupils with SEN are making progress and how well the teaching meets pupils' diverse needs.

  As part of their initial teacher training, all student teachers must show that they understand their responsibilities under the SEN Code of Practice, and know how to seek advice. During induction teachers must demonstrate that they can plan effectively to meet the needs of pupils with SEN. £91 million of supported expenditure is available under the SEN category of the Department's Standards Fund. Training is an important sub-head under this category and training in autism is specifically mentioned in guidance on the SEN category as something which local education authorities (LEAs) may wish to support. Grant support has also been made available to voluntary organisations and higher education training providers to create new training opportunities and, again, autistic spectrum disorders are mentioned in the bidding criteria.

  The forthcoming publication of guidance from the Department's Autism Working Group will further raise teachers' awareness of the disorder. The guidance will emphasise the benefits of staff who come into contact with children with autistic spectrum disorders having an understanding of the condition. The guidance will help schools and LEAs to make best use of the increasing resources available annually for the education of school children when making provision for children with autistic spectrum disorders. Currently more than £23 billion is available for the education of children in school of which over £1 billion is used by LEAs to provide additional support for children with SEN and some £1.9 billion is identified by LEAs as notionally allocated in schools' budgets towards meeting children's SEN. The guidance will emphasise the benefits of LEAs collecting data on the numbers of children with autistic spectrum disorders. The Department is also examining whether data on different types of SEN could be collected, probably from January 2004. At present there are 12 commonly used categories of SEN. These categories include pupils with autistic spectrum disorders and this would be one of the categories we are likely to collect.

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by her Department in each of the last four years. [38933]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department's cost for(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services in each of the last four years is as follows:

  413W

  £

  In-house

  2000–01

  119,541

  1999–2000

  130,437

  1998–99

  111,766

  1997–98

  1—

  Other catering services

  2000–01

  535,188

  1999–2000

  408,026

  1998–99

  337,961

  1997–98

  273,291

  1 No figures available

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the job advertisements placed by her Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39056]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department placed approximately 65 job advertisements in a wide variety of national, local and specialist media in the last 12 months. The media used most regularly included the Guardian, the Sunday Times, the Times Educational Supplement, the Evening Standard, The Voice, the Ethnic Media Group of Newspapers and the Pink Paper

  A more complete answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she has to provide resources to recruit more teachers of modern foreign languages to adult learners. [48234]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: We propose to provide additional resources to assist further education colleges and other post-16 learning institutions to recruit and retain teachers in shortage subjects. The resources will cover the introduction of 'Golden Hello' payments and, subject to the passing of legislation by Parliament, help to pay off, over time, the student loans of newly appointed teachers in shortage subjects. We are currently consulting on the list of shortage subjects which includes modern foreign languages.

  Engineering Ambassadors Scheme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the terms of reference are of the engineering ambassadors scheme; and if she will make a statement. [49848]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Science and engineering ambassadors will build on, strengthen and expand existing work around the country bringing young people and teachers together with people who use science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills in their careers. It aims to show young people the links between what they learn at school and the world of work, and to give them an understanding of science/engineering career opportunities.

  Science and engineering ambassadors (SEAs) has been jointly developed by this Department and DTI colleagues. It was launched jointly by my noble Friends the Minister
  414W
  for Early Years and School Standards and the Minister for Science on 31 January, initially as part of Science Year but is expected to become a permanent activity—a legacy of Science Year. A copy of the SEAs brochure will be placed in the Libraries and more information is available on www.setnet.org.uk.

  Trainee Doctors
  Mr. Mole
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she intends to take in co-operation with the Department of Health to rationalise student finance for trainee doctors. [49907]

  Margaret Hodge
  It has been agreed with the Department of Health that, from academic year 2002–03, undergraduate medical and dental students should in year five and any subsequent year of their course become eligible for a means-tested NHS bursary of up to £2,640 a year in London and £2,148 elsewhere and a reduced-rate student loan of up to £2,365 a year in London and £1,915 elsewhere.

  For the first four years of their course, medical and dental students will be entitled to loans from the Student Loans Company like other higher education students and they are assessed for a contribution to tuition fees. However, from year five they will not pay any contribution to tuition fees.

  In addition, they will also continue to receive extra weeks allowances throughout the course to take account of their longer academic year.

  This enhanced package of support recognises that medical and dental training programmes are longer than average; and it should help to guarantee the supply of newly qualified staff.

  Tuition Fees
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether figures are available which indicate the number of students who are eligible to pay tuition fees and who do not receive the required contribution from their parents. [49803]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: In England and Wales students on undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards their tuition fees only if they can afford to do so.

  In academic year 1999–2000, the latest year for which data are available, the number of higher education students (both dependent and independent) eligible for support was 479,000.

  The only data available on parental contributions to tuition fees come from the Student Income and Expenditure Survey in 1998–99 when only first-year students were liable to pay tuition fees. In that survey four in five students, whose parents had been assessed for a contribution, said that they had received the full amount. However, the survey also showed that the parental contribution to students' maintenance was on average £348 more than the assessed amount.

  Graduate Debt
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the average level of graduate debt, broken down by social class. [49808]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The average debt of a borrower with a mortgage-style student loan taken out under the previous Government's student support arrangements starting repayment status in 1999–2000 was £3,210. The amount available to students through student loans has increased under the loan-based support system introduced in August 1998. So the average debt of a borrower with a new income-contingent loan entering repayment status in April 2002 has increased and is estimated to be some £6,100. Repayments of income-contingent loans will be linked to graduates' income after leaving higher education so they repay only when their income exceeds the threshold of £10,000 per annum. Interest on student loans is linked to inflation so that borrowers repay, in real terms, only the amount borrowed. The data are not available by social class.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many contracts her Department has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether she can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity insurance; and what recent discussions she has had with other Government Departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50827]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The information on the number of contracts my Department has with consultants could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

  With regard to professional indemnity insurance, my Department's model contract for purchases asks for `unlimited liability'. As developed by HM Treasury my officials are, however, always prepared to negotiate with contractors and agree a limit of professional indemnity appropriate to the level of risk associated with each individual contract.

  It is not the Government's practice to provide details of discussions which form part of the process of policy development and analysis, therefore I am unable to answer your final question.

  Specialist Status Schools
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the targets agreed by Sir Thomas Rich's school, Gloucestershire LEA, at the time of its acquisition of specialist status, identifying those not yet achieved. [52144]

  Mr. Timms
  Sir Thomas Rich's school has been operating as a language college since September 2000. The information requested is being collated. I will therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible giving a full reply to the question raised.
  416W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the targets agreed by Our Lady's Convent high school, London borough of Hackney LEA, at the time of its acquisition of specialist status, identifying those not achieved. [52143]

  Mr. Timms
  Our Lady's Convent high school has been operating as a language college since September 1999. The information requested is being collated. I will therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible giving a full reply to the question raised.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills it she will list the targets agreed by Bournemouth school, Bournemouth LEA, at the time of its acquisition of specialist status, identifying those which are not yet achieved. [52142]

  Mr. Timms
  Bournemouth school has been operating as a language college since September 2000. The information requested is being collated. I will therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible giving a full reply to the question raised.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the targets agreed by Katharine Lady Berkeley's school, Gloucestershire LEA, at the time of its acquisition of specialist status, identifying those not yet achieved. [52405]

  Mr. Timms
  Katharine Lady Berkeley's school has been operating as a language college since September 1996. The information requested is being collated. I will therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible giving a full reply to the question raised.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the targets agreed by Pate's Grammar School, Gloucestershire LEA, at the time of its acquisition of specialist status, identifying those not yet achieved. [52404]

  Mr. Timms
  Pate's Grammar School has been operating as a language college since September 2001. The information requested is being collated. I will therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible giving a full reply to the question raised.

  Employers' NI Contributions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional costs she estimates Ofsted will incur as a result of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions in 2003–04. [52520]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools and I have therefore asked Mike Tomlinson to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the teachers brought into the profession since 1997 had no teacher training qualifications. [50936]

  Mr. Timms
  7.2 per cent. of the teachers who joined the teachers pension scheme and taught for the first time in the English maintained schools sector between
  417W
  31 March 1997 and 31 March 2000 did not have qualified teacher status (QTS) at 31 March 2000. These figures are the most recent available and are provisional.

  Some teachers gain QTS after entering the profession.

  IT Skills
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she has to improve IT skills among mature students. [50349]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills is committed to enabling people to learn later in life and to widening access to ICT skills. By the end of 2002 there will be over 6,000 UK online centres throughout England with access points in public libraries, colleges, local community centres and elsewhere. Older people are one of the key client groups for this initiative. In addition there are over 1,600 learndirect centres, which along with FE colleges and adult and community learning centres, offer opportunities for older learners to improve their ICT skills.

  Sixth Forms and Colleges
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the direct payments made to secondary schools announced in the Budget will be made to sixth form colleges. [52344]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget an additional £85 million investment in 2002–03 in school and college buildings in England. Sixth form colleges will receive a proportionate share.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Road Deaths
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make it a requirement in court cases involving a road fatality that this fact is made known to the court prior to the sentence being made. [50383]

  The Solicitor-General
  Where a person is prosecuted for a road traffic offence, such as causing death by dangerous driving, in which the causing of a death is an essential ingredient of the offence, evidence of the death will always be presented to the court.

  Where a driver is convicted of some other road traffic offence, such as careless driving, where evidence of a death does not need to be proved in order to secure a conviction, the Crown Prosecution Service will, none the less, bring the death to the notice of the court because they will follow the Court of Appeal guidance which requires them to set out all the relevant facts, including the fact that a death occurred, when presenting their case to the court.

  Young Offenders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many young people under 17 appeared before the courts in relation to more than three different matters in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [50385]
  418W
  Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not hold this information centrally. However, what I can say is that in relation to persistent young offenders annual figures for 2001 show that the pledge, to halve the time from arrest to sentence, was met, including the last three consecutive months. In 1997 it took 142 days from arrest to sentence. Overall, over the last 12 months the figures went from 91 days arrest to sentence down to 67 days.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of the number of young offenders who offended while on bail over the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [50388]

  Solicitor-General
  My hon. Friend will know that the Home Secretary is working with the police to ensure that young offenders do not commit further offences while on bail. The information that he requests is not available in the form he asks for.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Solicitor-General what her policy is on the prosecution of young offenders for car-related crimes. [50389]

  Solicitor-General
  The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young people. The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for most youth prosecutions in England and Wales and prosecutes all youth cases according to the aim and principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  A youth will be prosecuted if a Crown Prosecutor is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that the public interest requires a prosecution, irrespective of the type of offence that has been committed. Crown Prosecutors must consider the interests of a child or young person when deciding whether the public interest requires a prosecution but should not avoid prosecuting simply on the basis of the age of the offender. The seriousness and prevalence of the offence and the youth's past behaviour are recognised factors in favour of prosecution.

  Youths who admit an offence and have not previously been convicted of an offence will usually not be prosecuted but will be reprimanded or warned by the police. This system of reprimands and final warnings was introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and is designed to stop offending at an early stage and enables a young person to take part in a rehabilitation programme. The police have issued a matrix of "gravity factors" which is used to assess the appropriate action to be taken with reference to the seriousness of the offence under consideration and the offender's previous record.

  "Car related crime" is a wide term that covers a range of offences of varying seriousness. Therefore, offences of car related crime will be graded at different levels of seriousness within the police guidelines, leading to different decisions concerning the appropriate way to proceed depending on the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the youth offender involved.

  Rape
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to increase the percentage of reported rapes that are referred to the CPS and result in a court appearance. [50386]
  419W
  Solicitor-General
  The key to reporting rape is the confidence that the victim has that the criminal justice system will take the allegation seriously. That involves concerted action by the criminal justice system as a whole in the investigation and prosecution of rape. One of the important issues in the appropriate referral of cases by police to the CPS is early legal advice to police preferably before charge.

  Incitement to Racial Hatred
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria the CPS adopts in prosecuting individuals for incitement to racial hatred. [50387]

  Solicitor-General
  Each case which the police send to the Crown Prosecution Service—involving an allegation of incitement to racial hatred—is reviewed by a Crown Prosecutor. All cases are carefully considered to make sure that they meet the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  There are two stages in the decision to prosecute. The first stage is the evidential test. The Crown Prosecutor must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction". He must consider objectively whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. The Crown Prosecutor must also consider what the defence case may be and how it is likely to affect the prosecution case. A "realistic prospect of conviction" means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged.

  If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be. Ordinarily, if the case does pass the evidential test, the Crown Prosecutor must then consider the second stage test to decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest. In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. The Crown Prosecution Service will start or continue a prosecution only when the case has passed both tests.

  However, offences brought under Part III of the Public Order Act require the Attorney General's consent to prosecute—so whether or not the public interest requires a prosecution is a matter for the Attorney-General.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the United Kingdom's policy is with regard to the possible use of Britain's nuclear weapons to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction against British territory, armed forces or civilians; [51139]

  (2) whether it is his Department's policy to rule out the use of Britain's nuclear weapons in response to the use of chemical or biological weapons against British forces overseas. [51140]
  420W
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave on 10 April 2001,Official Report, column 30W, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith).

  Outreach Programme
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Outreach programme of the Defence Diplomacy Mission since July 1998. [51258]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are committed to strengthening stability and security in central and eastern Europe, the Caucasus and central Asia by offering assistance with defence and security sector reform. The Outreach programme was launched by the Ministry of Defence in the early 1990s to engage the 27 countries of the former Warsaw pact, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia in defence cooperation relationships. Centred in the Defence Diplomacy Mission, the Outreach programme seeks to assist in the development of stable, sovereign and democratic states throughout the region through its programmes of bilateral defence cooperation.

  At the highest level, a principal measure of the success of the Outreach programme is the accession to NATO of countries it supports. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland secured membership of NATO in 1999; and a further nine countries—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Macedonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania—are candidates for NATO membership this year.

  More generally, across the region Outreach has been successful in:
  Developing a major programme of English language training (ELT);
  Seconding civilian and military special defence advisers to assist directly with the defence reform process in host nation Ministries of Defence;
  Establishing a British Military Assistance Training Team (BMATT), based in the Czech Republic but providing training for the countries in the region;
  Providing individual and collective military training both in-country and in the UK;
  Providing resettlement training in Russia for over 13,000 retiring and redundant Russian military officers at seven centres around Russia;
  Contributing positively to multinational initiatives, such as the Baltic Defence College, the Baltic Battalion and the Baltic (Naval) squadron;
  The development of robust and valued bilateral relationships with countries across the region.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been enrolled in the Defence Diplomacy Scholarship at the Joint Services Command and Staff College in each year since 1998; how many have graduated from the scholarship in each year since 1998; and if he will make a statement. [51254]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Diplomacy Scholarship Scheme was one of the initiatives announced in the Strategic Defence Review. The scheme provides an opportunity for foreign military officers and Government officials to study for an Msc in Global Security or undertake the Managing Defence in a Democratic Market Based Society short course, at Cranfield University at the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham.
  421W
  Since the inception of the scheme in July 1999 the number of students that have enrolled and graduated on each course under the scheme are:

  Msc in Global Security

  Academic year 1999–2000–10 students

  Academic year 2000–01–12 students

  Academic year 2001–02–11 students (course finishes August 2002)

  Managing Defence in a Democratic Market Based Society short course

  7 February to 24 March 2000–30 students

  12 March to 27 April 2001–26 students

  4 June to 19 July 2001–26 students

  24 September to 9 November 2001–23 students

  11 March to 26 April 2002–20 students.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many short-term training teams were sent out under his Department's Outreach programme in each year since 1995, stating in each case(a) the destination, (b) the number of personnel involved, (c) the purpose of the mission, (d) the cost of the mission and (e) the duration of the mission; and if he will make a statement; [51257]

  (2) how many attachments were made under his Department's Outreach programme in each year since 1995, stating in each case (a) the destination of the attachment, (b) the number of personnel involved, (c) the purpose of the attachment, (d) the cost to his Department and (e) the duration of the attachment; and if he will make a statement; [51256]

  (3) how many training courses have been set up under his Department's Outreach programme in each year since 1995, stating in each case (a) where the training course was set up, (b) the number of personnel involved, (c) the purpose of the training course, (d) the cost to his Department and (e) the duration of the course; and if he will make a statement. [51255]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of the Defence diplomacy mission, the Outreach programme of bilateral defence co-operation in Central and Eastern Europe contributes to international stability by assisting countries in the region to establish democratically accountable, cost effective armed forces capable of contributing both to national and regional security and, increasingly, to international security through participation in peace support operations. Training courses, attachments and short-term training teams are core components of the Outreach programme, and the full details requested by the hon. Member will take time to assemble. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Specialist Support
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the instances since July 1998 where his Department or the armed forces have been required to offer specialist support to the civil authorities stating in each case the number of personnel involved and the duration of the mission; and if he will make a statement. [51261]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces provide military assistance to the civil authorities (MACA) on a daily basis. The assistance includes, for instance, search and 422W
  rescue, and support to the police in the identification and disposal of explosive devices. The assistance provided to the Police Service of Northern Ireland also falls under the general heading of MACA. The total number of individual tasks undertaken since July 1998 runs into the thousands. Detailed records of many of these activities are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There have, however, been a number of large-scale and high profile emergency tasks, details of which are in the table.

  Regular forces

  Operation and duration

  Army

  RN1

  RAF

  TA

  Fuel dispute

  600

  15

  66

  0

  September 2000

  Fuel

  1,301

  162

  537

  0

  On standby November 2000

  Floods

  21,100

  15

  218

  154

  October-November 2000

  Foot and Mouth3

  1,907

  178

  91

  4266

  March-October 2001

  Merseyside Fire Strike

  151

  191

  191

  0

  July 2001

  1 Including RM

  2 About

  3 This serial records the maximum number of regulars deployed on a single day during the foot and mouth crisis and the total number of TA soldiers deployed throughout the crisis.

  4 It is possible that the figure may count some individuals involved more than once in support of MAFF/DEFRA, as two individuals.

  Support and Humanitarian Operations
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of UK front-line capability was available to the United Nations for peace support and humanitarian operations in(a) July 1998 and (b) April 2002; and if he will make a statement. [51488]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom does not earmark specific forces for peacekeeping operations, but under the UN's standby arrangements system, designed to facilitate the rapid deployment of forces once political decisions have been made, we have declared a range of forces with information on capabilities and readiness. We announced, as part of the Strategic Defence Review, our intention to declare the full range of our rapidly deployable forces, additional strategic lift and logistics capabilities as potentially available to the UN. This new declaration was incorporated into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which the Government signed with the UN in June 1999.

  The MOU makes it clear that we would be prepared to consider the provision of forces up to a full brigade size to meet the specific needs of a UN operation. It is not possible to say precisely which of the forces listed in the MOU are available at any one time. The exact availability of the forces for peacekeeping depends on a range of factors, not least other continuing and known future commitments. The decision to commit United Kingdom forces to any UN operation will continue to be a national one.

  Unexploded Ordnance (Kenya)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to ensure that
  423W
  unexploded ordnance is removed from the sites of Army training exercises in Kenya once the exercises are completed. [49727]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 18 July 2001,Official Report, columns 400–02.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the exchange of fire between ISAF forces and members of the Afghan police force which took place on the night of 12 April. [52044]

  Mr. Hoon
  On the night of 12 April, two observation posts in west Kabul manned by solders from 1 Royal Anglian Regiment came under fire from 30–40 men. During the subsequent exchange of fire, most of these men fled on foot; seven were detained and disarmed. Five of these were dressed in police uniforms, one in combat fatigues and one in civilian clothing. All were handed over to the Afghan Interim Administration in accordance with the Military Technical Agreement.

  Despite this incident, there has been a significant improvement in the security and stability of Kabul under the Interim Administration. The ISAF has played a crucial role in this process.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the medical manning and retention review examining the Defence Medical Services to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [51809]

  Dr. Moonie
  The medical manning and retention review is due to be completed in time to inform the Ministry of Defence paper of evidence to the Armed Force Pay Review Body for the 2003 pay round. The overall aim of the review is to propose effective policies for medical and dental officers, covering both remuneration and other issues, that will help to achieve a satisfactory manning balance, and, thus, delivery of the required Defence medical outputs.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force are claiming (i) working families tax credit and (ii) children's tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [51807]

  Mr. Ingram
  Statistics regarding the number of service personnel currently claiming children's tax credit are not held as applications are made by the individual direct to the Inland Revenue. The number of service personnel currently claiming working families tax credit is as follows:

  Working families tax credit1

  Army

  1,718

  Royal Navy

  73

  Royal Air Force

  345

  1 An employer will usually be expected to take responsibility for paying tax credits 14 days after a notification is sent by the Inland Revenue (IR) for weekly paid employees, and 42 days after

  424W
  notification is sent in all other cases. The IR pays tax credits up to the point at which the employer takes responsibility. Consequently, the statistics provided will not include those personnel in receipt of working families tax credit direct from the IR.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel with children in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force are earning under £92.90 per week; and if he will make a statement. [51808]

  Mr. Ingram
  No armed forces personnel, irrespective of their married or parental status, receive as little as £92.90 per week (or £4,830.80 per annum). The minimum rate of pay recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) in their 2002 report, accepted by the Government, was £8,997 per annum for Army new entrants under 17. The minimum rate of pay for all adult service personnel recommended by the AFPRB was £10,778 per annum.

  Information Warfare
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department has made since July 1998 to the development of national security policies and technical measures to protect against potential vulnerabilities arising from information warfare; and if he will make a statement. [51492]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence participates in all relevant Government activities relating to the protection of information systems from electronic attack, including contributing to the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC).

  It is longstanding Government policy not to make detailed comment on the protection measures applied to communications and information systems, or on techniques such as computer hacking, as these could assist potential enemies to penetrate these elements of national security. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Arms Sales
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total value of(a) arms sales and
  (b) arms-related sales from the UK to Africa has been in each of the last five years. [50082]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  £ million

  North Africa

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  Total Africa

  Total UK defence exports

  1996

  1—

  35

  1—

  6,177

  1997

  1.8

  3

  4.8

  6,684

  1998

  1

  10

  11

  6,030

  1999

  2.6

  5

  7.6

  4,250

  2000

  7.9

  6

  13.9

  4,406

  1 It was not possible to breakdown figures for North Africa from the 1996 total.

  These figures are derived from table 1.13 (Exports of Defence equipment: deliveries and identified orders) of the Ministry of Defence publication "UK Defence

  425W
  Statistics 2001", a copy of which is available from the Library of the House. Figures for the year 2001 are not yet available.

  Army Attributable Pensions
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the mistaken taxation of Army attributable pensions. [53048]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since my statement to the House on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 891–902, the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency has been conducting a review to establish more clearly the exact extent of the problem with the mistaken taxation of service invaliding and attributable pensions. This work is not complete, but has revealed that some Royal Navy invaliding and attributable pensions awarded between 1973 and 1999 have also been mistakenly taxed. We will be reviewing all the case files of those who might have been affected and arranging for refunds to be made as appropriate. This will be done as quickly as possible but is expected to take some months given the need to review several thousand pension files. We will also be providing appropriate national publicity to allow those who think they might have a claim to apply for a tax refund.

  Our research has not so far revealed any cases where Royal Air Force pensions were wrongly taxed and there is evidence that the RAF has had in place checks which would have uncovered cases where attributable pensions should have been exempt from tax. However, we will include the RAF in our continuing work to ensure that no error is left unidentified.

  Our further work to date has confirmed that the problem was more extensive than originally understood but has also shown the complexity of the issues involved as, over time, changes have been made to the organisations responsible for administering the pensions and to the rules governing the schemes. We have therefore concluded that we should set up an internal review, completely independent of the staffs involved, to establish the precise extent of the current problems and to expose any other problems that may exist. This independent review will look across all three services, be launched as soon as possible and is likely to take a number of months to complete. The review team will be headed up by a senior civil servant and consist of staff drawn from the Defence Internal Audit. In order to provide external confidence, the NAO will be invited to validate the procedures. I will report the findings to the House.

  Defence Procurement Agency
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [53049]

  Dr. Moonie
  Five key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency for the financial year 2002–03.

  The first three key targets apply to projects covered by the Major Projects Report which have passed their Main Gate approval. Key targets 2 and 3 are consistent with goals set in the Department's public service agreement (PSA), adapted to cover cumulative performance. The
  426W
  fourth key target relates to improvements in DPA customer satisfaction and the fifth to the costs of running the agency. The key targets are:

  Key Target 1: Key requirements compliance

  Predicted achievement of customers' core requirements for projects197 per cent.

  Key Target 2: Average cumulative in-service slippage

  Average cumulative slippage of in-service dates2 at 31 March 2003 not to exceed 12.1 months.

  Key Target 3: Average cumulative cost growth

  Average cumulative cost variation3 at 31 March 2003 not to exceed 2.2 per cent.

  Key Target 4: Customer survey satisfaction rating

  Customer satisfaction rating 70 per cent.4

  Key Target 5: Agency running costs

  No excess against DPA resource control totals.
  1 Up to 10 core requirements per project are agreed between the DPA and Ministry of Defence headquarters, defining the essential characteristics of the equipment.
  2 Variation between in-service date (ISD) approved at "Main Gate" (the major investment decision point) and currently predicted ISD. Cumulative target of 12.1 months includes 11.7 months average slippage already incurred on the relevant project population. The in-year target is for no more than 0.4 months average new slippage.
  3 Variation between cost approved at Main Gate and current estimate. The average cost growth already incurred on the relevant project population amounts to 2.2 per cent.: the in-year target is, therefore, for 0 per cent. average cost growth.
  4 Aim is to secure 80 per cent. satisfaction rating by 2005–06 which would place the DPA among best performers for analogous organisations; 70 per cent. would be an incremental improvement on last year's rating of 67 per cent.

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the garrisons or other forms of military presence that his Department provided in Britain's overseas territories at(a) July 1998 and (b) April 2002, stating in each case the territory and the number of armed forces personnel; and if he will make a statement. [51260]

  Mr. Ingram
  We maintain Overseas Commands in Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and the UK Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus, a naval party in the British Indian Ocean Territory and an RAF station on Ascension Island. Until March 2001 we maintained a small military detachment on South Georgia. Small numbers of service personnel are occasionally stationed in other overseas territories. Full details are as follows:

  Territory

  July 1998

  April 2002

  Ascension Island

  23

  25

  Bermuda

  1

  2

  British Antarctic Territory

  3

  3

  British Indian Ocean Territory

  40

  40

  Falkland Islands1

  21,500

  21,300

  Gibraltar3

  2800

  2755

  South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands

  15

  0

  Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus

  23,260

  23,230

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  4

  0

  1 Figures for the Falkland Islands exclude the Falklands Guardship.

  2 Approximate figure

  3 Figures for Gibraltar include the Territorial Army element of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  IT Equipment
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the President of the Council how many Hewlett Packard Office Jet G85 printer/fax/ scanner/copiers have been supplied to parliamentary offices; what the total value of the contract is between the Government and Computacenter for the supply of Hewlett Packard Office Jet G85 printer/fax/scanner/copiers; how many replacement Hewlett Packard G85 printer/fax/ scanner/copiers have been supplied to parliamentary offices following technical faults; and how much money has been spent(a) carrying out repairs to and (b) replacing faulty Hewlett Packard Office Jet G85 printer/fax/scanner/ copiers which have been supplied to parliamentary offices. [50502]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I understand that the Parliamentary Communications Directorate has supplied 613 G85 printers to Members since central provision of IT equipment began in July 2001. The cost to the House is commercially confidential. Because the figure paid is inclusive of installation and maintenance, repairs and replacements for these machines are not costed separately.

  If a problem arises with these machines, our maintenance contractors will replace them on site rather than attempt a repair. A total of 109 replacements have been provided for 73 Members. It is likely that these 109 include some machines in which no fault was found.

PRIME MINISTER

  Czech Republic
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister whether his discussions with the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic included discussions of(a) the sale of Gripen jets to the Czech Air Force and (b) the offset arrangements that formed part of the bid of Gripen International. [51487]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, as my official spokesman has already made clear, I did make representations regarding the Czech decision to buy supersonic aircraft. As with previous Administrations, backing British business abroad is an important part of my job.

  As had also been made clear, I visited Prague primarily to discuss issues such as EU enlargement and to continue our efforts to develop good relations with an important NATO ally.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Stadium
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what conditions were attached to Sport England's grant to the national stadium project; and if she will make a statement. [51763]

  Tessa Jowell
  The lottery funding agreement between Sport England and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. (WNSL) and the Football Association sets out a number of conditions related to the development of Wembley as the site of the English National Stadium. WNSL is required to develop a national stadium for three sports:428W
  football, rugby league and athletics at Wembley. The lottery funding agreement also sets out a number of mandatory technical and operational requirements. The key requirements are:

  (i) the stadium must have the capability to meet IAAF, FIFA, UEFA, and Rugby Football League requirements; this includes obligations related to stadium capacity, design quality, playing surfaces, facilities for participants, spectators and the media;

  (ii) the stadium must have a minimum seating capacity of 80,000 seats for football and rugby league 75,000 of which must be made available at prices affordable to the general public, and 65,000 seats for athletics;

  (iii) the stadium must be made available for World Athletics Championships and Olympic games events on a cost only basis;

  (iv) the name of the national stadium will be the English National Stadium and any change, for example to facilitate the sale of television naming rights, requires prior written approval of Sport England;

  (v) the stadium may not, except with the prior written consent of Sport England, have an anchor tenant.

  WNSL are also required under the terms of the lease agreements with the English National Stadium Trust to assign 1 per cent. of turnover to the trust five years after opening, for distribution by the trust to community-based sports projects.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of his Department's policies and actions(a) from 5 May 1994 to 2 May 1997, (b) from 2 May 1997 to 7 May 1998, and (c) since 7 May 1998. [35606]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment. We are currently undertaking a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent. This is making a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and
  combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and future pensioners.

  Child benefit is now worth £15.75 a week for the eldest child and £10.55 a week for other children: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Bristol, East 11,455 families benefit.

  The number of people in work is at historically high levels of over 28.2 million. Nearly three quarters of working age people are in employment and in Bristol, East the proportion in employment currently stands at 76.3 per cent. Unemployment is at levels last seen in the early 1970s. Our New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, disabled people, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to

  429W
  move from benefit into work. Nationally well over 600,000 people have been helped into work by the New Deals and in Bristol, East over 1,300 have been helped into work.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. This winter (2001–02) we have made available a winter fuel payment of £200 for each eligible household to help with their heaviest fuel bill. We estimate that around 16,600 older people in Bristol, East will have received a payment this winter.

  We want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. Our first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners.

  From this April we will be spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of our policies. This includes £2.5 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners.

  3,000 pensioner families in Bristol, East are receiving the minimum income guarantee which helps our poorest pensioners. Some 15,300 pensioners in Bristol, East will benefit from this year's increases in the basic state pension of £3 a week for single pensioners and £4.80 for couples. Those over 75, of whom we estimate there are about 7,300 in Bristol, East, may qualify for free TV licences.

  Other reforms include the new pension credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings and the introduction of the state second pension from this April. Both of these initiatives will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners. We have also announced that from October 2003 benefits currently reduced after a hospital stay of 6 weeks will not be reduced until 13 weeks. This will benefit both pensioners and people of working age.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioner units have savings below(a) £6,000, (b) £8,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £16,000 and (e) £20,000. [50881]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  Pension units in Great Britain with savings below certain limits

  Pensioner units with savings below limit

  Limit

  Number

  Percentage

  £6,000

  4,100,000

  60

  £8,000

  4,400,000

  64

  £10,000

  4,600,000

  68

  £16,000

  5,200,000

  76

  £20,000

  5,400,000

  79

  All pensioner units

  6,800,000

  100

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). 2000–01 is the latest year for which data are available.

  2. A pensioner unit is a single person or couple living as married and any dependent children where the head of the benefit unit over state pension age.

  3. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response and using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.
  430W
  4. Questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low level of response. Evidence suggests some under reporting of capital by respondents.

  5. The numbers are rounded to the nearest 0.1 million.

  Source:

  Figures are from the Family Resources Survey 2000–01.

  Incomes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the total share of national income received by the poorest 10 per cent. of the population was in(a) 1997, (b) 1999 and (c) 2001; [45290]

  (2) what percentage of people living below (a) 50 per cent., (b) 60 per cent. and (c) 70 per cent. of median income are in receipt of a means-tested benefit. [45556]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Such information as is available can be found in the publication "Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1999–2000", a copy of which can be found in the Library.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will break down the sentences received by those convicted of benefit fraud as a result of investigations carried out by the Benefits Agency in each year since 1997 by type; and in the case of sentences of imprisonment how many were sentences of(a) less than six months, (b) six to 12 months and (c) more than 12 months. [45334]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not collated centrally on the terms of imprisonment. For information on the type of sentences, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 540W.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department in each of the last four years. [27915]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how the operation to clear Afghanistan of unexploded ordnance is being funded. [50087]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan (MAPA) is leading on humanitarian mine action and unexploded ordnance (UXO) interventions in Afghanistan. The current humanitarian situation and the challenges ahead, including for mine and UXO action, are set out in the Immediate and Transitional Assistance Programme for the Afghan People (ITAP), prepared by the UN and agreed with the Afghan Interim Administration (ALA) for the period to the
  431W
  end of December 2002. So far 53 per cent. of the £33 million requirements for mine/UXO action in the ITAP have been met by the international community.

  In response to the ITAP, DFID has to date allocated £3 million through the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) for the MAPA programme in Afghanistan.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what education on the dangers of unexploded ordnance is being provided to people living in areas of Afghanistan which are affected by the problem. [50086]

  Clare Short
  In March this year the Mine Action Centre for Afghanistan initiated mine awareness coordination meetings and workshops to ensure that mine awareness operations are fully integrated into the humanitarian response throughout the country.

  The Mine Action Centre for Afghanistan is producing mine risk education (MRE) training, which covers UXO, to brief national education focal points including Ministry of Education officials, heads of schools and provincial education representatives to prepare for the integration of MRE in regular school curriculum. All returning refugees from Pakistan and Iran will receive MRA training.

  According to UNMAS, all mine risk education messages have been updated to include the threat of new unexploded ordnance (UXO).

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of civilian victims of unexploded ordnance in Afghanistan since 11 September 2001. [50084]

  Clare Short
  We have requested this information from the International Committee of the Red Cross. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with details once this information has been received.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress being made in clearing unexploded ordnance in Afghanistan. [50083]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan (MAPA) is currently completing a period of retraining and is resuming operations wherever possible. In most regions mine and unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance operations have returned to their pre-September 2001 capacity. In addition, the process of expanding capacity to address the UXO threat is under way. The UN priorities for 2002 are the execution of emergency operations throughout the country and a subsequent return to 100 per cent. operational capacity, and to continue to expand mine clearance capacity as resources become available.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the accuracy of the information on the geographical locations of unexploded ordnance being provided to clearance experts in Afghanistan. [50085]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations Mine Action (UNMAS) has been notified by coalition forces of 188 sites where cluster bombs were used. UNMAS is currently undertaking a programme of visits to high priority areas to determine the accuracy of information being provided.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the decision to put the Higher Educational Links Scheme in Sudan out to international tender. [52250]

  Clare Short
  No such decision has been made.

  The Higher Education Links Programme aims to enhance the capacity of higher education in developing countries to contribute to the promotion of sustainable development. This is done through promoting collaboration between UK universities and similar institutions in developing countries. Sudan is one of 47 countries in which the programme currently operates.

  DFID has recently agreed to extend the current Links Programme for a further year (up to 31 March 2003). We will shortly be developing proposals for a new long-term programme to operate from April 2003. This will reflect the evaluation of the current programme, our strategy for meeting the demand for knowledge and skills, and our policy on untying. We will be consulting the British Council, which manages the current programme, about these plans.

  Emergency Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the additional £120 million allocated for emergency aid in 2001–02 has been spent. [52362]

  Clare Short
  Following the events of 11 September, additional commitments totalling £120 million, including our share of additional EC spending, were made to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The funds were allocated to emergency aid, budgetary support and debt relief. They were financed from additional allocations from the Treasury Central Reserve, DFID's Contingency Reserve and other resources. Figures for spending will become available with the finalisation of DFID's accounts later this year.

  Foreign Infrastructure Programmes
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what foreign infrastructure programmes the Department is involved in. [52148]

  Clare Short
  We are increasingly allocating our funds to multi-donor or multilateral programmes in order to both minimise the transaction cost and use our inputs to help guide the allocation of funds of other donors.

  In addition, much of our programme is now channelled through the central budgets of the recipient developing countries we are assisting.

  In both these instances, where our money is mixed with that of others in order to achieve broad development objectives, rather than for individual projects, we are unable to give specific details of the infrastructure projects in which we are involved.

  We are however, in many of our recipient countries, still providing funds in direct support of specific infrastructure projects and programmes. Table 1 shows these projects, by number and value in each sector.

  433W

  Table 1: Infrastructure projects by sector, number and value

  (£ million)

  Sector

  Number

  Value

  Air Transport

  7

  2.5

  Energy

  10

  14.8

  Misc. Transport

  4

  14.1

  Roads

  15

  125.1

  Communications

  3

  0.9

  Water and Sanitation

  46

  82.9

  Note:

  Table details operational and planned projects over the value of £100,000 that commenced in or after 1998.

  National Insurance Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the cost in the next 12 months of the budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to(a) her Department, (b) agencies of her Department and (c) charities in the overseas development sector. [52080]

  Clare Short
  I do not foresee any significant costs arising in the next 12 months—the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions take effect in April 2003.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Equality Scheme
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the Home Office Race Equality Scheme. [53194]

  Angela Eagle
  I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the Home Office has today published its Race Equality Scheme, setting out how the Home Office intends to promote race equality in accordance with its responsibilities under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Scheme is made up of an overarching scheme which describes the high level principles which apply across the Home Office, together with associate schemes for the core (non-IND) Home Office; the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND); the National Probation Directorate; the Forensic Science Service; the Passport and Records Agency and the Prison Service.

  Copies of the complete Home Office Scheme are available in the Library and on the Home Office website, www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Probation Service
  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 the efficiency of the Probation Service will be met by March. [47222]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Overall, the budgets of assumed probation boards, in line with the public service agreement, that efficiency savings to the value of three per cent. would be achieved. The total amount distributed to boards was based on the national forecast of workload. Providing actual workload is in line with this forecast, the target will be achieved.
  434W
  In addition, the 42 local probation boards have been asked to report to the National Probation Directorate on the achievement of their efficiency savings. This information is currently being collated. The boards will also be required to report on the achievement of their efficiency savings for 2001–02 in their annual reports. A summary will also be included in the annual report and accounts of the National Probation Service.

  Work has now been commissioned on developing the new comprehensive model for measuring efficiency savings taking into account the considerable changes that are being made to the arrangements for dealing with offenders, such as the introduction of accredited programmes. The provisional completion date for this work is June 2002.

  Wrongly Convicted Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he established a working group on the aftercare of wrongly convicted prisoners; what its terms of reference are; what appointments have been made to the working group; what its target date is to report; and by what means interested parties may make submissions. [48627]

  Beverley Hughes
  The working group was established and first met in July 2000. The group is made up of Home Office officials and representatives of the National Association for the Care and Re-settlement of Offenders (NACRO) and the Society of Voluntary Associates (SOVA), two national voluntary sector organisations with considerable interest and experience in criminal justice and resettlement issues. The group's terms of reference are to consider and report to Ministers on what assistance might be given on release to ex-prisoners who successfully appeal against conviction and how that assistance might best be delivered within the available budget. No target date was set for the report but the working group is due to report to Ministers shortly. The group commissioned an independent scoping study to inform its work, which identified and canvassed views from a number of interested parties. After consideration of the scoping study the working group decided that a pilot project was appropriate. As there is no procurement exercise or competition for service delivery during the pilot phase, expressions of interest have not been invited. However, it has always been open to those who wish to contribute views to send them direct to the Home Office.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Hassockfield (Medomsley) Secure Training Centre by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49649]

  Beverley Hughes
  The estimated total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Hassockfield (Medomsley) Secure Training Centre by comparison with a public sector alternative is £29.5 million (excluding VAT).

  Prisons
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners have been diagnosed as having a learning difficulty(a) while in prison and (b) prior to sentencing in the last 12 months; [49973]

  (2) what educational facilities are provided in each HM Prison in the UK to (a) diagnose and (b) treat prisoners who suffer from specific (i) psychological and (ii) educational disabilities, with particular reference to dyslexia and autism. [49972]

  Beverley Hughes
  Prisons will form part of a pilot being developed by the Adult Basic Skills Strategy Unit, which will introduce a greater diagnostic element in the assessment of a prisoner's learning difficulties and disabilities. We know that many offenders have learning difficulties and/or disabilities and we are working with prisons, including young offender institutions, to develop a national policy to support their needs. A working party has been set up to develop an action plan and representatives of the National Autistic Society, the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute have been invited to join the working party. No reliable information is available on the total number of prisoners diagnosed with learning difficulties but new procedures are being developed to capture this kind of information.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research he has commissioned into the work of prison visitors and voluntary associates. [49985]

  Beverley Hughes
  A survey into the nature and extent of the involvement of voluntary sector organisations and volunteers in prison, including prison visitors, was conducted in September 2000. The report will be published shortly.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults by prisoners on(a) staff, (b) prisoners and (c) other people took place in prisons and resulted in a positive disciplinary adjudication in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) the period since 1 April 2001; how many prisoners and what percentage of the average prison population during each relevant period this represented; and if he will make a statement. [48801]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The number and rate of positive assaults adjudications for the years in question are given in the table.

  1996–97

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Assaults on prisoners

  2,747

  3,282

  3,552

  Rate of assaults on prisoners (percentage)

  4.8

  5.1

  5.3

  Assaults on staff/others

  2,531

  3,107

  3,159

  Rate of assaults on staff/others (percentage)

  4.5

  4.8

  4.7

  1 Annualised

  Figures for 2001–02 are annualised based on positive adjudications to the end of February 2002 and are provisional. The Prison Service does not collect data separately to distinguish between the number of assaults on staff and others, nor the number of individual prisoners charged.

  The number of proven adjudications of assault expressed as a proportion of the average prisoner population is a key performance indicator (KPI) for the
  436W
  Prison Service.While the number of assault adjudications has risen recently, all prisons now have an active anti-bullying strategy and there is some evidence that this leads, at least in the short term, to an increase in reported incidents.

  Detention and Training Orders
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people serving detention and training orders of eight months or more have been released early, broken down by institution in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [49977]

  Beverley Hughes
  The most recent data show that on 31 March 2002 there were 113 detention and training orders being served in secure training centres, 151 in local authority secure units and 2,047 in Prison Service establishments. There are no data held centrally on the number of people being released early from detention and training orders.

  Temporary Licences
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children aged 18 were released on temporary licence during 2001, broken down by the purpose of the licence. [49976]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of 18-year-old prisoners released on temporary licence in 2001 is shown in the table.

  Total

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1,148

  1,016

  132

  Compassionate

  42

  25

  17

  Facility

  785

  685

  100

  Resettlement

  321

  306

  15

  Drugs
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money the Government allocated to drugs rehabilitation programmes and services in each of the financial years from 1997 to 2001; and how much of the allocated sums were spent. [50627]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information is not available in the form requested. Drug rehabilitation programmes form only part of a wider range of drug treatment interventions. During 1997–2001 they were funded through a number of mainstream community care funds from which it is impossible to ascertain exact amounts.

  Since 2001, however, they have been financed through the (ring-fenced) pooled treatment budget together with some mainstream funds. In 2000–01 the Pooled Treatment budget amounted to £234 million. This expanded in 2001–02 to £328 million.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has made of the ECHR judgment in Edwards and Another v UK application No 46477/99. [48658]
  437W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) found the United Kingdom in breach of Articles 2 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Christopher Edwards who was murdered by his cell-mate, Richard Linford, in Chelmsford prison in November 1994.

  The Court found breaches of Article 2 in respect of the circumstances of Mr. Edwards' death (the failure of various agencies to pass on information about Mr. Linford's mental health and the inadequate health screen given to Mr. Linford at the prison) and the failure to provide an effective investigation. They ruled that there had been a breach of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective remedy available to Christopher's family either through an effective investigation or the payment of compensation.

  Mr. Edward's death was the subject of an independent investigation commissioned by the Prison Services and other agencies. The Court has not ordered a further investigation. Although it considered that there were defects, the investigation was regarded by the Court as having been thorough and useful. The Court found that the family were not eligible for compensation under United Kingdom civil law and awarded the sum of £20,000 plus costs (a further £20,000) by way of redress. The Court recognised the changes that have taken place since Mr. Edwards's death. These include introduction of the Prison Escort Record completed before a prisoner enters a Prison Service establishment and improved health care screening. The system of investigating deaths in Prison Service custody is currently under review as part of the Service's new suicide prevention strategy.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have been recruited and employed within the Prison Service during the last 12 months. [51147]

  Beverley Hughes
  363 prison officers were recruited by the Prison Service during 2001–02. This figure excludes current staff who re-graded to prison officer during the year but includes staff beginning on the accelerated promotion scheme.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unpaid hours of time off in lieu of hours worked by prison officers at Wandsworth prison there are. [51146]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of hours of time off in lieu (TOIL) owed to staff at Wandsworth prison is approximately 5,130 hours for 305 staff.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed in the Prison Service as(a) prison officers and (b) operational support grades in each of the last five years. [50814]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The information is contained in the table. Officer grades include; prison officers, senior officers and principal officers. Operational support grades (OSG) include prison auxiliaries and night patrols who are able to re-grade to prison officer grades.
  438W

  As at 31 March

  Officer grades

  Operational support grades

  1997

  23,058

  3,925

  1998

  23,444

  5,207

  1999

  23,875

  5,687

  2000

  24,090

  5,939

  2001

  23,777

  5,956

  2002

  23,052

  6,669

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reviews of prison officer/staff ratios have taken place, and when, in the last 12 months. [51144]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service publishes the staff to prisoner ratios for unified staff on an annual basis. A partial review of prison officer staff to prisoner ratios was issued on 23 October 2001. A record of local reviews of prison officer staff ratios is not available centrally.

  Prisoners (Drug Use)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of whether there is an incentive in prisons for prisoners to switch from using drugs that remain in the body for a long period to other substances; [51581]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 April 2002, Official Report, column 567W, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the fall in the detection of cannabis use among prisoners by the mandatory drug testing programme. [51580]

  Beverley Hughes
  Mandatory drug testing (MDT) figures show that, overall, drug misuse in prisons has declined significantly over the past five years. The statistics suggest that much of this decline has been down to reductions in the use of cannabis, with opiate use static. Deterrence, supply reduction and treatment have been the key elements of the Prison Service's drug strategy and the decline in MDT rates gives evidence of its success.

  Available research evidence does not support the assertion that prisoners have switched from cannabis to other drugs which can only be detected for a shorter period. The Prison Service is continuing to look at this issue. The Institute of Psychiatry and the Office for National Statistics are currently reviewing the MDT programme, including the issue of switching. Their findings are expected in May 2002.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what parliamentary procedure would be required to change the controlled substance classification of cannabis. [51217]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: If a decision to change classification is taken an Order in Council is needed to change the classification, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, of any controlled drug. Such an Order is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. The draft Order has to be debated in each House, and approved, then submitted to a meeting of the Privy Council for approval and signature.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of drug treatment and testing orders have been breached since October 2000. [51473]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The information is not available in the form requested. Between October 2000 and November 2001 information was only collected at national level on the number of applications for breach action which resulted in the Court ordering revocation of the order for unacceptable failure to comply. From November 2001 more comprehensive data is being collected to record all breach instigations.

  Between October 2000 and February 2002, 1,519 Drugs Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) have been revoked by the Courts for unacceptable failure to comply. This represents 27 per cent. of the 5,609 orders made during the period.

  Drug Trafficking/Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the maximum penalty is for offences of(a) trafficking of class C drugs and (b) tobacco smuggling. [51472]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The maximum penalty for importing a Class C controlled drug is five years imprisonment; that for assisting an offence outside the United Kingdom is 14 years imprisonment; that for producing a Class C controlled drug is five years imprisonment. This is also the maximum penalty for supplying and possessing with intent to supply a Class C controlled drug. The maximum penalty for tobacco smuggling is seven years imprisonment.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firms of solicitors in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales reported matters to NCIS relating to money laundering in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001. [51971]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  From the data currently held relating to suspicious transaction reports made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), it is not possible to differentiate between those made by solicitors firms in Scotland and those in England and Wales. However, the total number of reports received from solicitors in the United Kingdom as a whole was 164 in 2000 and 176 in 2001.

  Football Hooligans
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals, by category, are classified as football hooligans in England and Wales. [50010]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 22 April 2002,Official Report, column 37W.

  Prisoners' Property
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve the 440W
  security of prisoners' property (a) in storage and (b) in transfer between establishments, including those operated by private contractors. [51928]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans at present to alter existing procedures relating to the security of prisoners' property. These procedures are the same across the prison estate, including those establishments run by private contractors. A comprehensive review of matters relating to prisoners' property is currently being conducted and the issue of the security of property is being considered as part of the review.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Egypt
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the detention in Egypt of Mr. Nawaz from Southend and two other persons (Ref: 1–46906/02); and if officials of the embassy have been permitted to see them. [52317]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Mr. Nawaz and three other British Nationals have been detained in Egypt since 1 April. Consular access has been granted and the detainees have been visited twice, on 11 April and 23 April. On 18 April the ambassador met the Interior Minister to discuss the case and establish more information about the legal process. The ambassador has also raised the case in a meeting with the Foreign Minister on 11 April.

  GCHQ
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the recruitment statistics for GCHQ in 2000. [53244]

  Mr. Straw
  GCHQ notified the Civil Service Commissioners that as a result of recruitment schemes run in 2000, 324 individuals have joined the Department or are awaiting completion of the application process. This compares with 241 reported for 1999 recruitment schemes. In addition, one former member of staff was reappointed in 2000, compared with nine in 1999.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local authority the level of(a) rent and (b) council tax arrears in each year since 1993 in Wales. [50330]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 1 July 1999 this is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  The following table lists the available information in respect of council tax arrears prior to July 1999.

  Comparable information in respect of rent arrears is not held centrally.

  441W

  Council tax outstanding at the end of each year, in respect of each individual year1

  £000

  Former local authority

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Alyn and Deeside

  582

  432

  175

  Colwyn

  732

  410

  456

  Delyn

  334

  264

  351

  Glyndwr

  871

  508

  254

  Rhuddlan

  327

  288

  294

  Wrexham Maelor

  726

  702

  580

  Carmarthen

  475

  448

  519

  Ceredigion

  554

  538

  558

  Dinefwr

  510

  361

  433

  LIanelli

  524

  503

  526

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  327

  230

  208

  South Pembrokeshire

  407

  304

  332

  Blaenau Gwent

  434

  382

  390

  Islwyn

  365

  241

  217

  Monmouth

  555

  456

  379

  Newport

  787

  694

  619

  Torfaen

  268

  204

  338

  Aberconwy

  228

  271

  259

  Arfon

  241

  229

  216

  Dwyfor

  83

  141

  107

  Meirionnydd

  151

  261

  169

  YnysMon

  397

  357

  417

  Cynon Valley

  197

  170

  184

  Merthyr Tydfil

  215

  205

  162

  Ogwr

  618

  654

  864

  Rhondda

  227

  169

  246

  Rhymney Valley

  373

  336

  419

  Taff Ely

  401

  428

  465

  Brecknock

  96

  162

  166

  Montgomeryshire

  207

  203

  251

  Radnorshire

  93

  98

  104

  Cardiff

  1,954

  2,101

  2,338

  Vale of Glamorgan

  500

  453

  655

  Port Talbot

  263

  270

  276

  Lliw Valley

  237

  238

  235

  Neath

  311

  252

  370

  Swansea

  1,005

  1,336

  1,344

  Total Wales

  16,575

  15,299

  15,876

  Percentage of total debit

  6.1

  5.4

  4.9

  1 Amounts outstanding at the end of each year in respect of the council tax due for that year. Previous year's arrears are not included.

  Council tax outstanding at the end of each year, in respect of each individual year1

  £000

  Current local authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Isle of Anglesey

  306

  313

  402

  Gwynedd

  595

  638

  689

  Conwy

  705

  728

  887

  Denbighshire

  1,309

  767

  703

  Flintshire

  1,250

  1,177

  1,376

  Wrexham

  810

  822

  920

  Powys

  393

  383

  1,445

  Ceredigion

  648

  808

  1,266

  Pembrokeshire

  387

  488

  540

  Carmarthenshire

  1,448

  2,399

  2,536

  Swansea

  1,923

  2,017

  2,790

  Neath Port Talbot

  915

  967

  991

  Bridgend

  945

  1,009

  1,107

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  537

  692

  972

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  1,234

  2,319

  2,242

  Merthyr Tydfil

  161

  176

  249

  Caerphilly

  1,006

  1,004

  1,158

  Blaenau Gwent

  404

  652

  658

  Torfaen

  419

  354

  917

  Monmouthshire

  597

  419

  403

  Newport

  674

  792

  913

  442W

  Council tax outstanding at the end of each year, in respect of each individual year1

  £000

  Current local authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Cardiff

  3,244

  4,015

  4,048

  Total Wales

  19,910

  22,939

  27,212

  Percentage of total debit

  5.2

  5.6

  5.8

  1 Amounts outstanding at the end of each year in respect of the council tax due for that year. Previous year's arrears are not included.

  Strategic Rail Authority Funding
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to ensure that in future Wales is allocated a greater share of Strategic Rail Authority funding. [35636]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Allocation of such funding is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority. To assist the Strategic Rail Authority in delivering the 10-year transport plan targets, the Government are providing it with an extra £155 million over the next two years. I will shortly be meeting Richard Bowker, Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, and will be discussing their Strategic Plan, and in particular the Welsh dimension.

  Welsh travellers will benefit from investment in improved rail links outside Wales, just as those from elsewhere in the UK will benefit from investment in Wales. In these circumstances a simple population share division of investment could be disadvantageous to rail travellers in Wales and I have no intention of pressing the SRA to adopt such an approach.

  The Assembly also has a close working relationship with the Strategic Rail Authority, well beyond the formal requirement in the Transport Act which requires that the Strategic Rail Authority consult the Assembly on its strategies relating to Wales.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Personal Injury Pre-action Protocol
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the personal injury pre-action protocol was introduced; and what changes have been made since its inception. [50999]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The personal injury pre-action protocol was published in January 1999 and came into force from 26 April 1999. Some minor amendments were introduced in June 2000 following suggestions from the personal injury protocol working party. The amendments were aimed at clarifying various elements, such as the scope of the protocol, rather than substantive changes.

  The personal injury working party is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the protocol and will be considering what, if any, further amendments may be required. The first meeting of the working party to discuss the review is scheduled for 7 May 2002.
  443W
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to issue guidance on the case of Carlson v. Townsend heard in the Court of Appeal in April 2001. [51001]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: My Department has no plans to issue guidance on the case of Carlson v. Townsend.

  That said, the judgment in that case will be one of the issues considered by the personal injury protocol working party as part of its comprehensive review of the protocol.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the implications are for the operation of the personal injury pre-action protocol arising out of the case of Carlson v. Townsend heard in the Court of Appeal in April 2001. [51002]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The question of whether the personal injury pre-action protocol will require redrafting in the light of this judgment is one of the issues that will be considered by the personal injury protocol working party as part of its comprehensive review. The first meeting of the working party to discuss the review is scheduled for 7 May 2002.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what obligation there is on the part of a defendant to disclose medical reports to a third party under the personal injury pre-action protocol. [50924]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Under the personal injury pre-action protocol parties are encouraged to exchange information but are not obliged to do so. However, if the dispute proceeds to court, the judge may impose costs sanctions if it is deemed that by not disclosing information the party has acted unreasonably.

  Transsexuals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she proposes to implement the recommendations of the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People, April 2000; and if she will make a statement. [52057]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The report has been considered carefully within Government and by other interested groups. The Government are sympathetic to the issues raised in the report and is considering actively how to take the matter forward.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much legal aid has been spent on family related issues since 1997. [51504]
  444W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Net expenditure on legal aid in family-related matters since 1997 is as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  389.8

  1998–99

  423.5

  1999–2000

  1399.8

  2000–01

  419.4

  1 Figures for 1999–2000 do not include the cost of acts of assistance provided under contracting pilot schemes.

  Figures are not yet available for the 2001–02 financial year.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of administering the Legal Services Commission in each year since 1997. [51501]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission was created by the Access to Justice Act 1999 and came into existence on 1 April 2000. The Grant in Aid Costs for the Commission are as follows:

  £ million

  Grant in aid costs

  2000–01

  72.700

  2001–02

  70.350

  The staff cost to the Lord Chancellor's Department of administering the Commission is not immediately available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tribunal Justice
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the Government's response to the Leggatt report on tribunal justice. [50384]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are currently considering their response to the Leggatt review and will make a statement at an appropriate time later in the year.

  The Government's response will take into account the public consultation exercise completed in December 2001, which generated over 350 responses.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether guidance will be issued to staff on the handling of subject access requests under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. [53047]

  Mr. Wills
  My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently issued central guidance on the handling of subject access requests. I have placed a copy of this guidance in the House Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Complaints
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints were registered against his Department and its predecessor Departments in(a) 1990 to 1996 and (b) 1997 to 2002; how many are current; and what proportion were (i) taken up and (ii) upheld by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in those periods. [51587]

  Mr. Leslie
  Details of complaints against the Cabinet Office are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of complaints taken up and upheld by the Parliamentary Commissioner are contained in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report. Copies of the annual reports covering the periods specified are available in the Library of the House, and for annual reports from 1997–98 are available on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at:

  www.ombudsman.org.uk/pca/document/par01/index.htm

  Staff on loan to other Government Departments, by Government Department, as at 1 April 2001

  Importing Department

  Staff on loan

  Total staff

  Percentage

  Cabinet Office

  540

  1,804

  29.9

  Crown Prosecution Service

  3

  5,832

  0.1

  Culture, Media and Sport

  83

  633

  13.1

  Customs and Excise

  10

  22,439

  0.0

  Department for Education and Employment

  35

  39,296

  0.1

  Department for National Savings

  0

  123

  0.0

  Department of Health

  80

  5,708

  1.4

  Department of Social Security

  40

  88,793

  0.0

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  111

  16,728

  0.7

  Department of Trade and Industry

  84

  10,300

  0.8

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  10

  384

  2.6

  Health and Safety Executive/Commission

  8

  4,058

  0.2

  Home Office (Main)

  52

  16,743

  0.3

  Charity Commission

  2

  547

  0.4

  HM Prison Service

  2

  42,719

  0.0

  Inland Revenue

  54

  71,775

  0.1

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  23

  11,227

  0.2

  Ministry of Defence

  52

  86,722

  0.1

  Office for National Statistics

  14

  3,214

  0.4

  Office of Fair Trading

  58

  505

  11.5

  Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland

  1

  93

  1.1

  Privy Council Office

  17

  38

  44.7

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  1

  5

  20.0

  Scottish Executive

  22

  5,101

  0.4

  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal

  1

  1,222

  0.1

  Security and Intelligence Services

  21

  4,492

  0.5

  HM Treasury

  148

  850

  17.4

  Total

  1,472

  441,351

  0.3

  The table represents a snapshot figure as at 1 April 2001. In the year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, there were 1,577 instances of loans inward to all Government Departments, and 1,694 instances of loans outward. Inter-departmental mobility is a key factor in the delivery of the Modernising Government Agenda. It is important because
  1. it reinforces the appeal of variety in an individual's career and can aid staff development;
  2. experience of other Government Departments/agencies encourages individuals to think across departmental boundaries and work in partnership, exchanging ideas and good practice;

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [49618]

  Mr. Leslie
  No Bills introduced by my Department during the period in question have contained sunset clauses. However, as part of their better regulation agenda, the Government are committed to using sunset clauses where appropriate.

  Civil Service Secondments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average percentage is of civil service staff on loan from one UK Government Department to another UK Government Department per UK Government Department. [29511]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following table shows civil service staff reported as on loan to other Departments, as a percentage of the total staff in that Department, as at 1 April 2001.3. it contributes to the creation of a diverse, but unified, civil service.

TREASURY

  Flat Rate Scheme
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a summary of responses to the consultation on the flat rate scheme. [52970]
  447W
  Mr. Boateng
  Customs have produced a summary of responses, which will be placed in the House Libraries, with copies also of the individual responses to the consultation.

  Equal Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved. [42918]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: A basis assessment of gender effects is one aspect of the equality impact assessment that goes into the formulation of tax policy advice. Like other aspects of Budget policy, this is coordinated by HM Treasury.

  The Treasury Guidance for the 2002 Spending Review emphasises that Departments must consider key cross-Government agenda, including equality and sustainable development, and how to implement them in their submissions to the review. The guidance explicitly states that Departments' analysis should also highlight any significant distributional effects—e.g. between regions, types of environment, generations or gender—in their proposals.

  Moreover, several of the cross-cutting reviews in the 2002 Spending Review have remits, which include promotion of equality, such as reviews of the public sector labour market and tackling health inequalities.

  The Treasury has worked closely with organisations such as the Women and Equality Unit and the Women's Budget Group (WBG)—and an independent UK organisation of gender experts—in order to improve its understanding of gender impact and its analytical capacity.

  Analysis is included in internal advice put to Ministers during the development of policy. Policy makers are required to look at the impact legislative proposals may have across the range of equality issues—e.g. race, disability, age and gender. Policy makers have access to guidance on equality impact assessments on an intranet site, which includes information on policy appraisal for equal treatment—and also includes the draft gender mainstreaming guidance produced by the Women's Unit.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if Customs and Excise make random checks on private passengers in order to detect the illegal import of meat and meat products; [46779]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the relative cost-effectiveness of measures used by Customs and Excise to detect the illegal import of (a) drugs, (b) explosives,
  (c) tobacco and (d) meat and meat products; [46773]

  (3) what priority is given by Customs and Excise to the prevention of the illegal import of meat and meat products; [46780]

  (4) what use Customs and Excise make of trained dogs to detect the illegal import of meat and meat products and how this is co-ordinated with dogs working on (a) explosives, (b) tobacco and (c) drugs detection; [46777]
  448W
  (5) how many people were found by Customs and Excise to be illegally importing meat and meat products in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [46776]

  (6) how illegally imported meat and meat products seized by Customs and Excise are disposed of; [46774]

  (7) what steps Customs and Excise are taking to prevent the illegal import of meat and meat products. [46778]

  Mr. Boateng
  Import controls to detect illegal import of meat and meat products are the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and local or port health officers. HM Customs and Excise does not therefore specifically target its checks against the risk of illegal import and meat products and does not use dogs to detect such illegal imports.

  Customs does however support the controls to prevent illegal import of meat and meat products by:
  dealing with meat and meat products found in the course of checks made in relation to the wide range of controls for which Customs does have lead enforcement responsibility;
  participating in joint exercises organised by DEFRA or local or port health officers;
  supporting DEFRA and local port health officers with information to assist in detection of illegal imports; and
  contributing to the DEFRA led illegal imports programme, for example by assisting in developing risk assessment.

  Customs only seize illegal meat and meat products detected in passengers' baggage or found in the post or where the meat is controlled under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Any other detections are detained and referred to the appropriate enforcement authority to take action. Meat and meat products seized by Customs are disposed of through arrangements made by the local or port health authority.

  Central records identifying Customs' seizures of meat and meat products are only available from the year 2000. Details for calendar years 2000 and 2001 are:

  2000

  263 seizures made from persons arriving in the UK

  186 seizures made from postal packages

  2001

  788 seizures made from persons arriving in the UK

  237 seizures made from postal packages.

  Heritage Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the heritage assets of the(a) Office for National Statistics and (b) Royal Mint to which values cannot be described are outside the remit of resource accounting and budgeting; [48741]

  (2) whether the Valuation Office's heritage items which are not recorded on the Agency's fixed asset register as current assets but are controlled separately as valuable and attractive items are outside the remit of resource accounting and budgeting; [48742]

  (3) what the definition is of a non-operational heritage asset, as described in HM Customs and Excise's entry in the National Assets Register; and if non-operational heritage assets are outside the remit of resource accounting and budgeting. [48740]
  449W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  All assets held by Departments must be accounted for in accordance with resource accounting policies, as set out in the Resource Accounting Manual.

  The Manual—which is drawn up following advice from the independent Financial Reporting Advisory Board—recognises that certain assets are held primarily for their cultural and heritage significance. The Manual specifies that in certain circumstances, Departments need not capitalise or value such assets.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to sell heritage assets that are outside the remit of resource accounting and budgeting. [48730]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  None of HM Treasury's antiques are classified as 'heritage assets'.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the lots of silver that HM Treasury withdrew from auction on 29 October 2001 are part of the 250 items listed as antique assets on page 613 of the National Asset Register. [48731]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Yes.

  Tax and Excise Duty
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the cost of collection, (b) the revenue realised and (c) the cost as a proportion of the revenue of each (i) tax and (ii) excise duty in the last year for which information is available. [51934]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Inland Revenue's annual report for the year ending 31 March 2001 was laid in Parliament in December 2001 as Command paper 5304 and includes on page 35 a detailed analysis of the cost of collection by tax head. HM Customs and Excise have recently produced an analysis of their costs of collecting taxes and duties in 2000–01, as shown in the table.

  Tax/duty

  Total net current cost (£ million)

  Revenue collected (£ million)

  Cost as percentage of revenue collected

  VAT

  406.1

  58,622

  0.69

  Insurance premium tax

  2.0

  1,707

  0.12

  Excise duties

  53.4

  38,444

  0.14

  Air passenger duty

  0.8

  949

  0.08

  Landfill tax

  1.8

  462

  0.38

  Customs duties

  110.3

  2,099

  5.26

  Core Debt
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what intervals the figures for core debt will be published. [52377]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Estimates for core debt will be updated in future Budget and pre-Budget report forecasts as set out in Box 2.4, page 35 of the 2002 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report.

  Community Investment Tax Credit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the community investment tax credit will be implemented; and how it will work. [52370]
  450W
  Mr. Boateng
  Legislation for the Community Investment Tax Credit is being brought forward in the Finance Bill. The scheme will come into force as soon as possible after state aids approval is obtained.

  The scheme will offer tax relief to individual and corporate investors who make qualifying investments, through intermediaries, in enterprises in disadvantaged communities. The intermediaries must be accredited as Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs) under the rules of the scheme. CDFIs provide capital and technical assistance to businesses and social enterprises in disadvantaged communities that find it difficult to access mainstream commercial finance. Qualifying investments are debt or equity investments made for a minimum period of five years.

  The amount of the tax relief is 5 per cent. of the amount invested for the tax year (or accounting period for a corporate investor) in which an investment which qualifies for the scheme is made, and for each of the following four years or periods, making a total of 25 per cent. of the amount of the investment in all. The tax relief is set against the investor's income tax or corporation tax liability as appropriate. So for example, an individual investing £10,000 in an accredited CDFI for at least five years could obtain a reduction in their income tax liability of £500 for the tax year in which the investment was made and for each of the four following years, making a total tax reduction of £2,500 over five years.

  VAT
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason motor accident repair shops wholly owned by insurance companies are exempt from charging VAT on the labour element of the service. [52242]

  Mr. Boateng
  Such motor repair shops are not exempted from VAT. However, it is a fundamental principle of VAT that the use by a business of its own staff is outside the scope of VAT.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 by automatic fines imposed by Customs and Excise on firms responsible for late payment. [52373]

  Mr. Boateng
  The VAT default surcharge system is the only fully automated system within Customs and Excise for applying fines for late payments. During 2000–01, penalties totalling £87 million were paid by businesses who were late paying tax declared on VAT returns. The total for 2001–02 is £75 million (subject to year end accounting adjustments).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses he expects to benefit from the removal for companies with a turnover of under £100,000 of the requirement that a business has to be VAT-registered for 12 months before using the annual accounting scheme. [52375]

  Mr. Boateng
  As a result of the measures announced in the Budget, approximately 140,000 traders in 2002–03 will have the opportunity to use the annual accounting scheme earlier than would have otherwise been the case.
  451W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow sixth form colleges the same VAT exemptions as secondary schools which have sixth forms. [52345]

  Mr. Boateng
  VAT is not charged on education taught in sixth form colleges or in sixth forms within secondary schools. The funding of sixth form colleges takes into account the VAT they pay on their purchases.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £420 billion allocated for public expenditure in 2003–04 he estimates will be spent in 2003–04. [52620]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Total public expenditure in 2003–04 is projected to be £454.6 billion (Table C11, Financial Statement and Budget Report, 2002, HC592).

  Rogues Report
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish up-dated versions of tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the Rogues report to include figures for 2000–01. [26516]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 14 January 2002]: Where available, the Government will publish updates on levels of fraud and other relevant statistics on a routine, annual basis in line with the framework set out in the Customs and Excise paper, "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud", which was published as part of the pre-Budget report package.

HEALTH

  Care Standards (Older People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultation his Department has undertaken with housing and social services to ensure that the Better Care Higher Standards charter is working, as set out on page 172 of the milestones of the National Service Framework for Older People; and what areas of the charter have been found to have shortcomings; [51526]

  (2) how many (a) reviews are being undertaken and (b) actions plans are being developed to correct shortcomings reflected in the Better Care Higher Standards charter as set out on page 172 of the milestones of the National Service Framework for Older People; [51528]

  (3) what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the Better Care Higher Standards charter is working, as set out on page 172 of the milestones of the National Service Framework for Older People. [51525]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department commissioned the Nuffield Institute for Health to undertake a full analysis of the first round of local "Better Care, Higher Standards" charters in the summer of 2000. In March 2001, the Department and the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) jointly published (LAC(2001)6/HSC 2001–06) further guidance on the development of "Better Care, Higher Standards" charters for the two years 2001–02 and 2002–03.
  452W
  By the end of June each year, local councils are expected to publish a local "Better Care, Higher Standards" charter for the year and an annual report, reviewing progress in meeting previous charter standards and targets, and setting out future plans. Councils and their partners are also expected to carry out annual user and carer surveys, the outcomes of which are expected to feed into the annual reports and to drive up standards of service.

  In the light of local charters to be published by the end of June 2002, the Department will carry out a review of the effectiveness of "Better Care, Higher Standards" charters.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many councils have reviewed their eligibility criteria for adult social care to ensure they do not discriminate against age as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People, page 172. [51531]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance on eligibility criteria for adult social care will be issued to councils with social services responsibilities shortly. It will provide a framework so that, within their resources, councils review and revise their eligibility criteria according to individuals' needs and associated risks to independence. Through implementing the guidance, councils will fulfil the first stage requirement of standard one of the national service framework for older people with respect to eliminating age discrimination.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children up to the age of 16 years were under the care of social services departments in the UK on 1 April. [51645]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of children aged under 16, who were looked after by local councils in England at 31 March 2001, was 49,600.

  This figure excludes children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements.

  Information for the number of children looked after in Wales and Scotland is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children up to the age of 16 years have disappeared while living in social services care in each of the last five years. [51644]

  Jacqui Smith
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Estimated number of looked after children aged under 16 whose last placement in their care history is recorded as being absent from agreed placement, by age at start of last placement, for years ending 31 March 1996 to 2000 England

  Year ending 31 March

  Number

  1996

  40

  1997

  65

  1998

  55

  453W

  Estimated number of looked after children aged under 16 whose last placement in their care history is recorded as being absent from agreed placement, by age at start of last placement, for years ending 31 March 1996 to 2000 England

  Year ending 31 March

  Number

  1999

  30

  2000

  90

  Notes:

  Local councils only recorded children as being missing from their agreed placement after they had been missing for a period in excess of seven days.

  All figures rounded to nearest five

  Above table excludes children looked after under a series of short term placements

  Source:

  DH Annual Statistical returns (CLA Episode system)

  Long Stay Patients Benefit
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with mental illness in the United Kingdom are in receipt of long stay patients benefit. [51543]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally.

  North-East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Health Authority
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost has been of provisionally locating the strategic health authority HQ for north and east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire on the York science park; [41372]

  (2) what the total cost of establishing the north and east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire health authority (designate) has been. [41373]

  Jacqui Smith
  The only cost incurred in provisionally locating and establishing the strategic health authority (StHA) HQ for north and east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire is for the rent of two offices in the York science park for February and March 2002. This will be approximately £3,500. This is the project office for the StHA pending a discussion about its permanent location.

  An option appraisal completed prior to the appointment of the chairman and chief executive (designate) has been shared with the Department's regional office and national health service estates. The chairman and chief executive (designate) have asked for a business case to be prepared for consideration by the StHA board at its first meeting. This is being prepared by Capitec. All the existing NHS accommodation is proposed for future use in each locality and will largely accommodate primary care trust staff including shared services to support these organisations.

  The communication about the proposed location of the StHA HQ has given rise to significant correspondence from local authorities and MPs on the north and south bank of the Humber. These concerns will be made apparent to the StHA board at its shadow meeting on 20 March.

  The creation of the StHA is part of the Government's "Shifting the Balance of Power in the NHS" proposals which are committed to delivering savings of £100 million for reinvestment in services.

  Care Workers (Training)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have directly funded the training costs for care workers employed by(a) local authorities and (b) independent providers to National Vocational Qualification level II. [45628]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: Central national health service budgets for the education and training of healthcare staff do not fund the training costs of employees of local authorities or independent providers.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) budget and (b) staff are allocated to media relations in the National Care Standards Commission. [45638]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The budget allocation for the National Care Standards Commission does not specifically identify either funding or the staff allocation for media relations. Decisions on such staff numbers and budget are a matter for the NCSC to decide from their overall budget, consistent with their management statement, financial memorandum and business plan as agreed with the Department. The management statement and financial memorandum can be viewed on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/ ncsc/manangementstatement.pdf. On publication the business plan will also be available on the Department's website.

  Primary Care Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many one-stop primary care centres are under construction; [47015]

  (2) how many one-stop primary care centres have been opened since the publication of the NHS National Plan. [47016]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest published information as at 31 December 2001 indicates that 68 One Stop Primary Care Centres are in place following publication of the NHS Plan.

  This is expected to rise to 102 by 31 March 2002.

  Beta-interferon
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of Beta-interferon to multiple sclerosis sufferers in the East Surrey health authority area. [49841]

  Ms Blears
  In line with the recommendation from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence we have concluded an agreement with five companies on an innovative scheme which allows patients with multiple sclerosis meeting the criteria of the Association of British Neurologists to be treated cost-effectively with disease modifying therapies on the national health service. The companies have agreed terms for the supply of their products under the scheme. Patients will be monitored to confirm whether the drugs are working. Prices will be reduced if patients do not benefit as expected. The scheme starts on 6 May 2002.
  455W
  Multiple Sclerosis sufferers in the East Surrey area will, from then, have access to beta interferon on the same basis as other NHS patients. NHS bodies are expected to fund any treatment within this scheme prescribed by clinicians for eligible patients, in accordance with statutory directions. Consultant neurologists, in consultation with patients, will have a choice of treatments within the scheme taking into account expected benefit and potential side effects. The products included in the scheme are Avonex (Biogen), Betaferon (Schering), Copaxone (TevalAventis), Rebif 22 mg and 44 mg (Serono).

  Patients whose condition does not come within the ABN guidelines and who are currently receiving treatment with these drugs will continue to do so in line with NICE's recommendation on this point. I am also taking steps to ensure that those patients who have funded their treatment privately because the drug was not available to them locally on the NHS have had the costs of their prescription met since 4 February.

  Copies of the health service circular issued to the NHS to explain the scheme have been placed in the Library.

  Primary Care Trusts (Operational Status)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from the(a) East Yorkshire Primary Care Trust and (b) West Hull Primary Care Trust concerning operational status prior to 1 April. [50619]

  Jacqui Smith
  Representations have not been received from either the East Yorkshire Primary Care Trust or the West Hull Primary Care Trust concerning operational status prior to 1 April. The primary care trusts were established after full and open consultation locally, giving every opportunity for views and concerns to be expressed and addressed at that stage.

  Heroin
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of the drug naltrexone being taken in implant form in the rehabilitation of heroin addicts. [50629]

  Ms Blears
  No assessment of the benefits of naltrexone being taken in implant form in the rehabilitation of heroin users has yet been made. This is because a sufficiently developed evidence base does not yet exist. Naltrexone in implant form is not currently licensed for this indication in the United Kingdom. The National Treatment Agency (NTA) for drug misuse treatment, will continue to monitor the evidence for this proposed treatment.

  Lymphoedema
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of clinics which treat lymphoedema in(a) England and (b) Gloucestershire. [50490]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: Data on the number of lymphoedema clinics across England and at a local level are not collected centrally.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health bodies have bid for allocations to 456W
  support the provision of digital hearing aids following his Christmas Eve 2001 announcement on the subject; for how much each has bid; what resources are available centrally for this purpose; and when he expects to respond to these bids. [50068]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 465W. Discussions will now take place between the project management team and those sites joining the project to determine the resources each will need.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) electrically powered and (b) manual wheelchairs meet the health and safety requirements of their users in terms of their (i) inherent design, (ii) regular servicing and (iii) planned replacement. [48817]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The Medical Devices Agency, (MDA), has specific responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State to safeguard public health where medical devices are involved.

  Within this overall remit, MDA has a specific unit responsible for wheeled mobility devices where all reported incidents concerning the quality or safety of wheelchairs are considered. If the units investigation highlights a need for an improvement in a wheelchairs design, usage or servicing information then appropriate action is taken with the manufacturer/supplier concerned.

  MDA has also issued comprehensive guidance to health services relating to the management of medical devices including the provision of appropriate repair and maintenance procedures and the consideration of whole life costs and life cycle of devices. This guidance has now been incorporated into the new NHS Controls Assurance Standards for medical devices to give all health services basic standards in this area.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding people being placed inappropriately in(a) residential care homes and (b) nursing homes. [50069]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: In recent years the Department of Health has received representations about inappropriate placements. Systematic information on these representations is not collated.

  The introduction of the single assessment process, and the development of preventative and intermediate care services, will help to ensure that placements in care homes are appropriate. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 926W.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 942W, regarding free nursing care, which agencies have failed to pass on the free nursing care payment to residents; [50561]
  457W
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 942W, regarding free nursing care, whether she has received further representations regarding failures to pass on the free nursing care payments to residents; [50565]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 942W, regarding free nursing care, what plans she has to provide additional funding to residents of the four homes she wrote to which have failed to receive financial benefit from their free nursing care payment; [50562]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 942W, regarding free nursing care, whether she will also be writing to these care homes to inform them of the breach in national model contract. [50860]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: I continue to receive correspondence on this subject. I wrote to some national providers about the increases in fees that some residents had experienced since the introduction of national health service funded nursing care. It should not be inferred that all those providers have, in every case, failed to pass on to residents any financial benefit from the NHS funding for part of their care. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 942W.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 310W, on care homes, when the booklet, 'Moving into a Care Home', was published; how much the booklet cost to produce and distribute; and what other means are being considered to ensure the widest possible circulation; and how much the new booklet has cost to produce. [50076]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The booklet 'Moving into a Care Home' was published in October 1996. It focused on financial issues for residents. At today's prices, it would cost approximately £10,000 to produce and distribute 3,000 copies of the original booklet free of charge to councils and other interested parties. The booklet was drafted and consulted upon by departmental staff. These and related costs were absorbed within the Department's running costs and are not separately identifiable, and therefore not included in the cost given above.

  A voluntary organisation called 'Counsel and Care' has been commissioned to produce a new booklet for people both entering and in residential care that will be much more detailed and cover a much wider range of topics in addition to residents' finances. It will be distributed on the same basis. In addition, an electronic version will be placed on the internet. The Department awarded a grant of £80,000 for Counsel and Care for this work, which will also include the costs of dissemination events in the form of conferences and seminars.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure the availability of sufficient residential and nursing home places for the elderly. [49924]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our policy is to enable older people to remain independent in their own homes wherever possible. That is where most people want to receive care. Between 2000 and 2001 there was a 6 per cent. increase in the number of households receiving intensive home care.
  458W
  We are providing local authorities with an additional £300 million over this year and last to spend on a range of community care services, including care home placements. In addition, as announced on 17 April by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we intend to increase resources for personal social services by an annual average of 6 per cent. in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06. Local authorities will be able to use these substantial extra resources to stabilise the care home market and to provide more care home places.

  I chair a Strategic Commissioning Group, which aims to improve the commissioning of care services for adults. Last October, the group published an agreement, "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care", which will help councils and independent sector providers to work together to promote a more strategic, inclusive and consistent approach to local capacity planning.

  Ambulance Services
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on the review of south-east ambulance services in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [50708]

  Ms Blears
  No additional work force costs were incurred as most of the work in connection with the review of ambulance services in the south-east has been carried out by existing civil servants at the Department and staff at health authorities and trusts. Additional costs were incurred for printing and the hire of church halls etc. for public meetings.

  The wide ranging nature of the consultation and the number of organisations involved have meant that a central collation of costs has not been possible.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whom he consulted in deciding(a) the number of units of smallpox vaccine required for production in the UK and (b) the number of individuals to be covered; [50791]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the process by which it was decided to use the Lister strain of the smallpox virus for vaccination of the UK population. [50792]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The choice of smallpox vaccine strain, the number of units of vaccine and the number of individuals to be covered, was made on the basis of expert advice, under the auspices of a specially convened sub-group of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

  Information concerning quantities of vaccine or deployment are not made public for reasons of national security.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which companies were asked to tender for the contract to supply smallpox vaccine for the NHS. [51916]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: Detailed confidential discussions were held with five major pharmaceutical companies who were known to have vaccine manufacturing capability either in the UK or in Europe. Our requirements for the vaccine strain, timing, and delivery were made clear to each of the companies, who were then given time to submit their responses.

  Medical Compression Tights
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with(a) NHS managers and (b) private companies, about the provision of extra large medical compression tights; and if he will make a statement. [50925]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: None.

  Drug Treatment Centres
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implication of the refusal of planning permission by local authorities in respect of drug treatment centres for the Government's strategy of increasing treatment facilities for drug users; and if he will make a statement. [51294]

  Ms Blears
  There is currently no evidence that this is a widespread national problem and in fact current data indicate a rise of about 16 per cent. over the past two years of those drug misusers entering treatment. These figures mean that the Government are on track to meet the target of increasing the number of drug misusers in treatment by 100 per cent. by 2008. The Government are of course aware of the negative impact that refusal of planning permission locally could have on the Government's aim of increasing the number of drug misusers accessing treatment.

  Local authorities are autonomous bodies, accountable to their electorates, and the Government do not routinely comment on, or intervene in, their day-to-day administration of the planning system. Nor would it be appropriate for a Minister to comment on the merits of an individual planning decision, because of the appellate role of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. It is for the local planning authority to assess each planning proposal on its individual merits, in the light of the authority's development plan and of any other considerations material to planning.

  Elderly People (Care Facilities)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of people over(a) 95 and (b) 100 who are being cared for in (i) an NHS hospital and (ii) a nursing home. [51306]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not have data available in the form requested. However, there were an estimated 57,910 nursing beds occupied by people aged 85 and over being cared for in private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics in England during the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001. This represented 38 per cent. of all occupied beds.

  Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the UK are diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy; how many new patients were diagnosed with the condition in each of the last six years; and what the annual mortality rate for children and young adults with the condition was in the last six years. [51142]
  460W
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the annual rate is of new diagnosis for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in the UK; [51813]

  (2) what the mortality rate for children and young adults with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy was in the last 12 months. [51812]

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence has been of new diagnosis of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in each of the last three years; and what the annual death rate is for children and young adults with this condition. [52051]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect statistics on the incidence of individual conditions.

  Anti-stab Vests
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce the provision of light-weight anti-stab vests for front line ambulance personnel. [51286]

  Ms Blears
  There are no national plans to introduce the provision of light-weight anti-stab vests for front line ambulance personnel. The use of anti-stab vests is something local managers in ambulance trusts need to consider after undertaking a thorough assessment of the risk faced by their staff, and the need for this type of protective wear.

  The London Ambulance NHS Trust has recently piloted the use of anti-stab vests at two ambulance stations. The evaluation of the pilots was positive, and this information is being shared with all other NHS ambulance trusts.

  Spinal Cord Injury
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Department has spent on research into spinal cord injury since 1997; what efforts have been made with(a) his European counterparts and (b) the World Health Organisation to increase resources for the treatment of spinal cord injury; and what measures have been introduced to help people suffering from spinal cord injury. [51230]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since 1997–98 we have spent around £5 million on research of relevance to spinal injuries. We also support a great deal of basic underpinning work on the structure and function of the nervous system; spend on this is not included in the figure above.

  We have not been asking either the World Health Organisation or our European counterparts to increase resources for the treatment of spinal cord injury.

  In February 2001 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a national service framework would be developed for long-term conditions, and that this would have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease and brain and spinal injury.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 25 July 2001 from RD Fouracre and subsequent correspondence of 6 November 2001 and 7 February 2002. [51400]
  461W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: I regret the Department was unable to trace the original correspondence. Following receipt of further information from the hon. Member on 18 April, a reply was sent on 23 April.

  Modern Matrons
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the modern matron posts were(a) newly created and (b) redesignated from existing nursing staff posts. [51607]

  Mr. Hutton
  Trusts were not required to submit information on how many of their modern matrons were newly created or redesignated from existing nursing staff.

  All of the 1,895 posts comply with the requirements set out in HSC 2001/010.

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the increase announced in the Budget for social services departments, will be devoted to child protection. [52246]

  Jacqui Smith
  Detailed decisions on the allocation of resources will follow in the autumn.

  Ambulance Accidents
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries have resulted from road accidents involving ambulances; and how much compensation has been paid out, in each of the last five years. [52248]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

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

Arab Commercial Television Operators
Lord Campbell-Savoursasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will meet overseas-based Arab commercial television operators to discuss the potential for the transmission of news programmes and documentaries in the English language by satellite throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have not met overseas Arab commercial television operators. For the most part, they present general Arabic entertainment programming. We are aware that A1-Jazeera, a dedicated news and documentary channel, is examining the costs—and the means of meeting them—of providing a simultaneous English translation of its key programmes. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in a Commons Written Answer on 14th November last, this is entirely an editorial—and, I might add, a commercial—decision for A1-Jazeera.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to meet—or to ask other Ministers to meet—the Emir of Qatar, who owns A1-Jazeera, and ask him whether he might be prepared to contribute to funding this very important news service?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise that it would scarcely be appropriate for me to put myself forward in such a role. I emphasise to my noble friend that this is a commercial issue for A1-Jazeera. We recognise the merits of A1-Jazeera having a degree of independence and balance about its programmes, which are wholly to be commended. We recognise the value of that service to Arabic speakers and potentially to people in this country. However, we are talking about a commercial and editorial decision by a private station and it is for those who run that station to proceed as they see best.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister clarify what he has said? He has emphasised a couple of times that these are commercial and editorial decisions. Does that mean that any regime or any country that had the will could buy itself on to satellite and start broadcasting to this country?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it does not mean that. Before any broadcaster could do so, it would need
358
to obtain a licence under the criteria laid down by the licensing authority. It is not a free market to quite the extent that the noble Lord suggests. I am emphasising the editorial and financial decisions of A1-Jazeera, because we are talking about the cost of effective translation of its programmes, which are already broadcast to the United Kingdom for those who understand Arabic. My noble friend is asking whether the Government should play a part in providing support or encouraging others to do so. That is the question to which I have addressed my answers.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, we have a Department of Trade and Industry, 'which is there to assist people who want to trade in this country. Surely my noble friend's request is a reasonable one for people who want to trade here. If not a Minister, one of the officials in the Department of Trade and Industry should be willing to meet the gentlemen concerned.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not here to speak on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. As my noble friend has said, the department is busy on many issues with which I confess that I have only limited acquaintance. I understand what my noble friend is saying. We clearly recognise the value of the station. We also appreciate that significant costs are involved in broadcasting in English in this country. There are also potential benefits to British people from the extension of understanding that such broadcasts would provide. Some help may be possible, but I cannot accept the requests for direct representations at government level on the issue.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, pursuant to his answer to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is the Minister saying that every satellite broadcaster whose transmissions are currently receivable in this country is licensed to do so?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, all broadcasters have to meet the requirements of the licensing authority covering the whole of Europe. The permission for A1-Jazeera to broadcast in Europe is granted by the French authorities, because it broadcasts predominantly to France—and in French. That is the basis of broadcasts to this country, too. The station is seeking to provide a service in the United Kingdom, involving additional cost. It meets the requirements of the licensing authority. The issue with regard to English language costs, as I persist in emphasising, is a commercial decision for the board of A1-Jazeera.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that BBC Monitoring already provides English language translations of many of the most important broadcasts on A1-Jazeera and other Arab broadcasters and that these are available at very economical rates to commercial users? Will the Government encourage people who need to know what is being thought about in the Arab world to subscribe to BBC Monitoring?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have said, we recognise the value of A1-Jazeera. As the noble Lord

359
has said, that is emphasised in particular ways in terms of the monitoring service of the BBC. I emphasise that a number of journalists from A1-Jazeera were previously journalists with the BBC World Service, so it is an entirely reputable organisation. I see no difficulty in acceding to what the noble Lord is saying. Of course we would encourage all in this country who need to understand issues in the Muslim and Arab world to take advantage of these opportunities. We all recognise that the nation as a whole needs to understand these matters more fully than perhaps has been the case in the past.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I declare an interest as the deputy chair of the Independent Television Commission. Is my noble friend aware that perhaps as many as half a million people in the UK listen to A1-Jazeera's broadcasts in Arabic? Would it not be in the public interest if non-Arabic speakers were able to listen to what A1-Jazeera says as well?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend has said. She is absolutely right that the station broadcasts successfully to a large number of people in this country who can understand its programmes in Arabic. As I said earlier, I do not doubt for one moment the benefits of people being able to appreciate the information that A1-Jazeera can communicate. However, the process by which that is done and the costs involved should be attributable not to the Government, but to the private broadcasting organisation.

Farming and Food
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will produce a formal response to the report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, indicating how they intend to take forward the recommendations therein; and whether they have calculated the costs of doing so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government propose to produce a strategy for sustainable food in farming in England in the early autumn. The strategy will incorporate a definitive response to the policy commission's recommendations, although not all those fall to, or involve expenditure by, the Government. The Government will also be in a position to quantify the total cost of delivering the strategy once the 2002 spending review has been concluded.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I know he is working hard to ensure quick progress on some parts of the strategy. However, people in rural communities
360
find it depressing that last week's Budget failed to mention the pump-priming money that is so urgently needed to ensure that progress is made this summer. There has also been no evidence so far that the DTI plans to enforce the supermarket code although such action is desperately needed. I hope that other government departments mentioned in the report—such as the Department for Education and Skills, in relation to apprenticeships—will sign up to the strategy with the same enthusiasm which the Minister says his department feels. How often are the various departments meeting, and are they as committed to the strategy as his department?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, following through on the Curry commission report is a matter for the Government as a whole. Therefore, all the departments to which the noble Baroness referred are engaged in determining how best to deliver the report's various recommendations, and are submitting proposals involving spending to the spending review. The Government's approach was symbolised by the fact that, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister himself held a seminar on the report. It has never been indicated that expenditure on the proposals would be allocated in the Budget; indeed, the report was timed so that it could feed into the 2002 spending review. That point has always been clear, from the report's commencement to its issue.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, while welcoming his positive reply as far as it goes, does the Minister agree that the Curry commission also recommended that, in the brave new world without subsidies,
"the Government should be prepared to support the development of basic safety net aids at EU level"?
If the Minister is to perform on the high wire, will he remember the importance of a safety net for British agriculture?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the only place where I perform on the high wire is in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, other forms of acrobatics have to take place in negotiations on the common agricultural policy. One dimension of the CAP is the form of support provided in adjusting the present financial regime and in the longer-term development of that regime, and that may well include safety net support. The medium-term review has to face up to a huge number of issues. The Commission intends to present its review proposals in June, and the negotiations should be extremely interesting thereafter.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I declare my direct interest as an organic farmer. Will the Government's strategy give full weight to the benefits of organic farming, particularly sustainability, being friendly to the environment and to animals, and replacing imports?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, sustainability in organic farming and improved sustainability in conventional farming is a key theme of the Curry commission report

361
and the Government's response. There is a specific commitment to an action plan to support organic farming, the full details of which are due to be completed by July.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in answering a previous question, the Minister seemed to say that the Government will not reply to the Curry report until the autumn. The Comprehensive Spending Review, however, will be in July. Does that mean that no money will be allocated until after the autumn? If so, a dreadful message will be sent to those in the countryside who are looking forward to rebuilding confidence and reestablishing their businesses. What is the position if that process cannot begin until July 2003?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is unduly confusing herself about the time scale. The 2002 spending review should be completed at about the end of July, although the details may not be finalised until September. We shall draw up the spending dimension of the overall strategy in the light of those final details. Besides the spending dimension, the strategy will also have significant aspects for my department, other departments and the industry itself. We shall bring all those aspects together in a strategy that we shall issue in the autumn.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in his first reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the Minister mentioned sustainable agriculture. Does he agree that animal health is a very important part of sustainable agriculture? Can he please explain why there has been such a severe cut in staff at the Worcester office that they cannot cope with the TB paperwork, so that TB tests are being delayed in an area where TB is now rife?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the two aspects of the question are not really connected. The change in the Worcester staffing levels, on both the veterinary and administrative sides, reflects a rationalisation of the former MAFF regions to create the new structure. The TB situation is concerning, and there has inevitably been a back log in dealing with TB during the foot and mouth outbreak. Resources are now being deployed and prioritised to address the issue.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in welcoming many aspects of the Curry report, we have to accept the fact that, by transferring money that would go to supporting agriculture from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2, farmers generally will be deprived within rural communities, and only those fortunate enough to subscribe to the various agri-environmental schemes will benefit? I hope he will agree that the real way forward is to green Pillar 1 and make it common across Europe so that the whole of agriculture can genuinely benefit.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, this is a complicated issue. It may well be that some of the CAP negotiations will involve some flexibility in greening Pillar 1 as well as a transfer from Pillar 1 to
362
Pillar 2. However, the transfer from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 does not of itself disadvantage farmers as the noble Earl suggests. First, if the current rules on Pillar 2 remain, they will require matched funding, entailing a larger sum for rural and environmental development. Secondly, as it concerns land management, farmers and other landowners will be the principal beneficiaries of the environmental dimension of Pillar 2. Thirdly, if we can get the broad and shallow scheme envisioned by Curry agreed as an appropriate Pillar 2 mechanism within Europe, it will reward farmers who already meet good environmental practice rather than those who enhance their practice as required by the current agri-environment schemes.

Mental Incapacity Law Reform
3.18 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the proposals by the Lord Chancellor's Department on mental incapacity law reform have not been followed by legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): M y Lords, the Government remain committed to reforming this important area of law. When parliamentary time allows, we will legislate to improve and clarify the decision-making process for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves or who cannot communicate their decisions. In advance of securing parliamentary time, the Government are taking forward a number of initiatives which will benefit people today and pave the way for the introduction of more radical changes in the future.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is she aware that I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself did not reply to this Question? He has made some important statements about the law relating to these exceptionally vulnerable people. He has said, for example, that the law as it stands is "confusing and fragmented". He has also said that the law "fails to offer adequate protection". Those are very strong words, especially from a Lord Chancellor. He made those statements in 1997. Since then, he has failed to bring forward legislation to protect the very people who require more protection than anyone.
Is my noble friend aware that this is by no means a simple issue? However, it is simply unacceptable for the Government to fob off these very vulnerable people with White Papers, Green Papers, a few pamphlets and vague assurances about future legislation at some unspecified date. What they need is comprehensive legislative protection, and they need it now.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straight away that I am disappointed at my noble friend's disappointment. But notwithstanding the fact

363
that I cannot in any way stand in the shoes of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I shall attempt to give my noble friend satisfaction. I reassure him that the Lord Chancellor's determination in this regard has in no way waned. He continues to have a strong interest in bringing forward legislation. However, my noble friend will know that, as with every government, there is always competition in terms of legislative time. I am sure that the strong words urged by my noble friend will greatly assist the Lord Chancellor when he sallies forth in that battle.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Lord Chancellor's Department's paper, Making Decisions, and in particular its leaflet No. 5, produced in the absence of legislation, do not appear to make any provision for people with a mental handicap or people with the more severe learning disabilities? When the Government come to legislate, will they undertake to give priority to the views of the families of these unfortunate people, who know them best, and not to less competent social workers, independent advocates and so on, as envisaged in those documents in so far as they cover people with learning difficulties?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course those issues are of great importance. However, improvements have been made by means of all those who care for the vulnerable working in unison. That involves taking fully into account the views of the families concerned but also those of advocates, lawyers, social workers or others who assist in the process. We shall get the right solutions only if we find a way forward that is based on all those who are involved in the process working in unison.
Lord Rix: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that a working party is to be set up to make proposals for legislation and is to include such parties as Mencap and Age Concern? Will the Minister ensure that when the working party finally meets it always considers the difference between mental illness and learning disability and also the difference between those who have a temporary inability to make decisions and those who have probably a lifelong inability to make decisions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the differences that the noble Lord highlights are important. I certainly reassure him that those participating in the consultative process will be able to make those distinctions which will be reflected in the deliberations that they undertake.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is particularly urgent to legislate to reverse the decision of the House of Lords in the Bournewood case? Does she agree that it is wrong that people lacking capacity can be informally detained in hospitals under Section 131 of the Mental Health Act without their carers having the opportunity to challenge the decision of the doctors?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to say that we shall take steps to reverse the decision of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Of course we shall consider intensely the consequences of that decision and will in due course come to an informed judgment as to how we go forward.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there exists in the present law a considerable lacuna in regard to protection of those with vulnerability from abuse of various kinds; namely, sexual, medical, emotional and other such abuses? Does she further accept that the only way to deal with that is to have a comprehensive Act similar to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 which has nearly 100 sections and half a dozen schedules?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we shall of course take into account what the noble and learned Lord says. He will know that a decision was taken that it is inappropriate at this stage to take that matter into consideration when deciding on the legislation. However, those discussions may need to go further. I shall certainly ensure that those who deal with this matter take into account what the noble and learned Lord has just said.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, in fairness to those interested in the final Question we should move on.

Dr Robert Watson
3.25 p.m.
Lord Razzallasked Her Majesty's Government:
What position they took, and why, on the dismissal of the chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, Dr Robert Watson.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in view of Dr Robert Watson's outstanding leadership of the IPCC over the past five years the Government took the view that it would be in the best interests of the IPCC for him to continue as chairman or co-chair. The UK therefore strongly supported his nomination. In the event, Dr Watson was not re-elected. Dr Pachauri of India, also well respected, was elected by a clear majority. We are confident that the IPCC will be in good hands under his chairmanship. He has helpfully indicated that he would like Dr Watson to have a role in the future work of the IPCC.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that as a result of the US Freedom of Information Act we now know that serious pressure was put on the US Government by

365
Exxon Mobil to have Dr Watson removed or to engineer his removal? Does the Minister agree with Al Gore's comments in the New York Times this Monday that United States environmental policy has been hijacked by a group of former oil and chemical executives who are trying to dismantle the ability of the United States to force the oil and chemical industries to reduce levels of pollution? In the context of those comments does the Minister agree that the removal of Dr Watson was a mistake?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already indicated that the Government strongly supported the reelection of Dr Watson. It is fairly well known, with or without the Freedom of Information Act, that there is strong pressure from oil interests on the present United States Administration. However, I cannot say whether that was crucial as regards the decision of the administration not to renominate Dr Watson and to support the nomination of Dr Pachauri. There was also pressure for a representative of the developing countries to chair the panel. Indeed, the majority received by Dr Pachauri probably reflected that view.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are times in the best of friendships when the gloves have to come off in order to protect valuable principles? Do Her Majesty's Government agree that it is clearly a step in the disinterest of Europe and in the interests of what appears to be the President of the United States' stand on environmental issues that this change of leadership has taken place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have explained our view on the change of leadership. One cannot disagree with the noble Lord's first sentence. Her Majesty's Government regret the stance that the present American Administration has taken on environmental issues as regards its withdrawal from the Kyoto process and other domestic and international measures it has taken. However, as I say, a clear majority of the members of the panel elected to change its leadership. I do not believe that that can be entirely ascribed to the United States Administration. The Kyoto process lacks American participation, but the good news is that the European Union and the vast majority of countries will ratify the Kyoto treaty.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the statement that has been made that Exxon Mobil objected strongly to Dr Robert Watson? What has my noble friend to say about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that it is true that the named companies did object strongly to Dr Watson and reflected that objection to the White House. As I said, I have no way of telling whether that was the crucial element in the White House's decision.
Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, given that Robert Watson is widely recognised as having embraced assent but forged a clear consensus on the balance of the science—that was endorsed recently by 17 of the
366
world's major academies—does the Minister agree that it is particularly unfortunate that the person now appointed has been characterised in the scientific press as a "foot dragger" with respect to Kyoto?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have expressed my regret at the non-re-election of Dr Watson. However, it would be wrong, whatever the manoeuvres that took place and the various pressures that were exerted in the process, to dismiss Dr Pachauri as being a foot dragger. He has a commitment to this area and a record in relation to it. Indeed, there has been near unanimity in the IPCC on the analysis and on what needs to take place, as the noble Lord knows. I therefore hope that under the new leadership, the IPCC will continue to show the way in recognising the reality of the challenges presented to us by climate change.

Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish to raise a matter before we proceed with our debate. It concerns the issue that was raised by a newspaper this morning about the impression that information that was available to the Minister was not made available to the House on an indication of an instruction from a civil servant that the information should not be made available. It involves the issue of the privatisation of detention officers, which was debated in relation to Amendment No. 163 at great length on 16th April, on the second day of our debate on Report.
In view of the fact that the code of conduct that governs the behaviour of detention officers and their right to conduct intimate searches is not available to the House (more precisely, it was made available to my noble friend only 10 minutes ago, when a letter was given to him in which the information was not enclosed although the letter said that it was) and in view of the fact that the Minister may have been aware of policy suggestions to extend much more widely the privatisation of detention officers and of his assurance to the House that no such intimate searches would be conducted except under the supervision of, to quote his words, "a senior officer" (which the House assumed to mean a senior officer of the police), will the Minister now give an assurance—I ask this with respect for the Minister—that no information that is

367
relevant to matters that are being debated in the House will be held back from the House? That will enable it to conduct its discussions with the fullest possible information and there will be no question of any information being withheld from it that might be relevant to our debate at Third Reading.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who raises an important issue and makes a significant charge. It strikes me that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has increasingly been a magnet for trouble recently. However, since he came to this House—I believe that I speak for my party in this regard—he has built up a reputation for being forthright, frank, open, candid and, on some occasions, for being very robust in the defence of government policy. We admire those qualities and therefore hope—I hope that he will comment on this—that there is no truth in the rumour that the noble Lord has so offended the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has demanded the removal of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We would be very sorry if he were to go. However, that shows that at least somebody in government is reading copies of Hansard from this House!
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised, is it true that the noble Lord has been asked to keep planned government policy secret from Members of this House? If so, how does that square with the spirit of openness that was laid down in the Nolan code a few years ago?
What is at issue is not just the reputation and integrity of the Government and of the Minister but also the reputation of this House for being a House that can hold the Government to account and scrutinise effectively. I hope that the Minister can offer a full explanation of what has been going on in relation to a matter that increasingly has a very bad smell about it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness raised this issue and to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his words about me personally. On the policy point, I shall deal with the issues that have been raised.
First, no civil servant has instructed me to do anything. It does not work that way round; I instruct civil servants. One of the instructions—this will be confirmed by the DSS and MAFF—that civil servants who brief me regularly received, so far as parliamentary activity is concerned, involves the fact that I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and read out paragraph after paragraph of narrative without putting in my own bit; I therefore prefer bullet points. They usually get the instruction that if there is something that I should say precisely—that is, because of the legal consequences—that should be spelt out, and if there is something in the background that I should not say, they should make sure that that is there as well. From that point of view, the instruction flows in exactly the opposite way to that which people might have suspected. That is that matter out of the way.
368
I turn to the other point that the noble Baroness raised, before turning to the issue of substance. Yes, we did debate Amendment No. 163, but we should not run away with the idea that we debated it extensively. The debate fills less than one column in Hansard. I do not call that an extensive debate. The whole debate runs from half way down column 856 and concludes before the end of column 857. That was the substance of the debate on that amendment.
Leaving aside the article in the Guardian for a moment, I defy anyone who reads the briefing that the Guardian used—that is, the notes that were there for me on the amendment's purpose and effect; the speaking notes, some of which I used; and the PACE information, which I used extensively—and what is in Hansard to substantiate any claim that I misled, deliberately or otherwise, the House or the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I refute that absolutely and without any qualification whatever.
The fact is that on the issue that we were discussing about detention officers, we have no secret plans to privatise any part of the police service. I do not think that the briefing would lead anyone to that conclusion. There is no question of misleading Parliament. The position is that the Home Office has received representations from a number of police forces—the figure is somewhere round about 10—which were and are considering contracting out custody functions to private providers on efficiency grounds. The Government have therefore been considering whether the Bill should allow forces the same opportunity to give appropriate police powers to private-sector providers if functions are contracted out—that is the choice of the police authority, not the Home Office—as police authorities have in relation to civilians. It is already the case that they can contract out.
It is not even true to say that no final decisions have yet been made. The suggestion has been dealt with by Home Office police Ministers and others but it has not been approved within the government decision-making machinery—the LP committee. There is no clearance for it. There is no plan. There is no secret plan. But discussions take place in government all the while. And in the context of the debate, I held nothing back. When the Bill reaches another place, it is possible that a government amendment may be put forward to that effect. I do not know. There is no government policy on the issue as I speak, and, therefore, there is no certainty whatever about this matter. It would not be to anyone's benefit if we had to go through what might or might not happen.
However, the fact is that if any proposals came forward, they would first have to be approved by the Commons and placed in the Bill. Then, as I repeatedly inform my colleagues in the Home Office regarding this Bill, anything that we want must receive consent in the House of Lords. "Consent" is a word that my noble friend the Chief Whip has impressed upon me since my arrival in this House. This place works by consent. It is fairly obvious that it must, given the arithmetic of the representation here. Therefore, proposals would have to be approved by this House and nothing would be done in secret.

369
The type of functions being considered are analogous to those already carried out by private sector employees working in privately run prisons. But it would be for the police forces to choose how they use the support staff. I repeat the central point that I made in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—anyone can cross-check the notes that I had. I made it absolutely clear that, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes, the people who carry out such searches are in the main doctors and nurses. They are medical practitioners and they do so only under the authority of a senior police officer. Only in a few extreme circumstances, where a doctor or nurse is not available, will the detention or custody officers carry out that function with the safeguards in Section 55 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and under the aegis of a senior police officer. Therefore, the idea that in future any Tom, Dick or Harry would be asked to carry out that work is absolute nonsense. It would not happen. All the safeguards would apply in all the circumstances.
I turn to my final point. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked a reasonable question regarding the consultation on the new or reviewed codes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I said that, first, I would ensure that whatever was available would either be placed in the Library or would be sent to the noble Lord. At the time, I was not sure whether all the codes were fully public because they are large volumes. Secondly, because the codes are under review, I did not know whether they had been put out for consultation. I indicated that they would not be put out before today's Third Reading but, at present, I still do not know whether that is the case. However, I have every expectation that it is. I believe that it would be sensible for the Government to ensure that the codes are put out for consultation at, before or by the time this issue is dealt with at the Bill's Committee stage in the House of Commons. MPs are bound to demand sight of the consultation on the PACE codes. I said that I would provide hem if I could and that, if I could not, I would explain why.
That is the position. The Nolan code of practice does not come into it. Not only did I not tell any lies; I did not mislead any Member of this House either deliberately or by accident. I am not using this as an excuse, but I have not been asked any questions about this matter either today or during the previous stages of the Bill, and the issue was not relevant.
However, there is no government policy for me to announce or defend in that respect because there is no decision. There is not even a policy decision in the Home Office. The request was put to us initially by the police themselves when they saw the White Paper and the Bill. Some police forces are already considering contracting out some of those services, as is their right. That is the situation. Although no one has said it here, I deeply resent the idea, as set out in the first sentence of the article in the Guardian, that the Government have—that is, I have—deliberately misled Parliament. I refute that absolutely.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in no way would I wish to cast any doubt on the good faith of an
370
extremely honest and direct Minister. But, in conclusion, I must read to him one sentence from the instructions that were given to him on the amendment to which I referred. I quote:
"We are resisting this amendment on the grounds that we want designated persons to take on those very duties which are keeping police constables from policing on the streets".
The relevant phrase is, "we want designated persons". I believe that indicates a little more than that no decisions of any kind have yet been taken. There appears to be an intention on the part of the Civil Service, if not on the part of the noble Lord.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not accept that. The whole debate about community support officers, whether they be detention officers, escort officers, investigation officers or scenes of crime officers, has been predicated on that basis. It was deployed at length in the White Paper which was put to this House in December regarding the civilianisation of the police. But the noble Baroness did not read the next sentence in her quotation:
"Section 55 of PACE contains numerous safeguards for the conduct of intimate searches which designated … officers will have to follow".
There is already provision in the Bill for designated persons to have regard to PACE codes of practice, and that makes them accountable for their dealings with suspects. The codes require a doctor or a nurse to carry out the search, and it can be carried out only if a senior officer decides that it is necessary. A detention officer would carry out the search only if a doctor or nurse were not available and if there were reasonable grounds for believing that someone had hidden something on his person, such as a razor blade, that could cause harm. That is the fact of the matter.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I have no wish to prolong this matter, but the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in a very robust and charming way, spoke about a smell being attached to my noble friend Lord Rooker and the Government. In view of what has been said, will he perhaps now be gracious enough to withdraw those remarks?
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Eltonmoved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"PERFORMANCE TARGETS
In section 38(1) of the 1996 Act (setting of performance targets) after "may" there shall be inserted "and to section (Limitation of powers of the Secretary of State) of the Police Reform Act 2002"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, somewhat to my surprise, I do not have to focus noble Lords' attention on detention officers because it is clearly focused there already. They are the subject of the group of amendments to which I wish to speak. In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

371
Your Lordships will be aware of the proposal for persons employed by the police forces but not equipped with powers of policemen to be instituted in the Bill. It is, in fact, in Clause 35(2). Noble Lords will also be aware—I regret that I did not embrace it in this group of amendments—of the proposal to introduce community safety accreditation schemes with persons similarly equipped with minimal powers under that clause and of the reservations which many of us have about those proposals.
The disquiet which we felt—I told your Lordships of this when I spoke during the previous stage of the Bill—was shared by those who responded to an inquiry by the Metropolitan Police as to their reaction to the proposals. At that stage I quoted from a summary of the reply in which it was said of five distinct police forces that, although they welcomed them as a possible improvement, they raised concerns 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",
and they called for local discretion to be allowed.
Having read those words, I looked at the ways in which the Home Secretary might exert such a ring-fencing move and found that in the Police Act 1996 there are two powers which could be used for this purpose. They are the subject of my two paving amendments. The first is in Section 38(1), which gives the Home Secretary power to establish levels of performance, to be called "performance targets". The second is in Section 46(4), which states that,
"the Secretary of State may exercise his discretion by applying such formulae or other rules as he considers appropriate".
What he would apply it to is the payment of grant to police forces.
Those are two clear instruments which the Home Secretary would be able to use. I was encouraged by the words used by the Minister a moment ago in his vigorous and convincing rebuttal. He said, of detention officers—I start in the middle of a sentence—"if contracted out; that is the choice of the police authorities, not of the Government". I find that reassuring.
All I want from the Minister is an assurance that these routes will not be used by a Home Secretary of this Government for the purpose of forcing upon a chief officer of police the necessity to employ a particular proportion of any of these categories of person within his police force. I hope that is sufficient and clear. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that we support generally the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, lengthy remarks by me are superfluous. This is a matter which has been debated on two previous occasions. The concern is a real one. It would be enormously helpful both to the House and, indeed, to people at large in the country if
372
the Minister were able to give an assurance that these indirect routes will never be used in this way. I have long and sad experience of the powers of persuasion of government and of the tools that they will use if they are genuinely available. It is not unreasonable to ask that these tools should never be used.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I understand entirely the noble Lord's anxiety, and the anxiety which prompted the amendments. However, I can assure him that there is no intention to impose anything on police authorities or chief officers so far as the employment of civilian staff is concerned; that is, no quotas, no levels and no thresholds. I hope that reassures the noble Lord. I do not believe in any event that the amendments would achieve what the noble Lord hopes they would achieve.
Amendment No. 1 on performance targets would amend Section 38(1) of the Police Act 1996, but that section as amended would begin:
"Where an objective has been determined under Section 37, the Secretary of State may and to … section … of the Police Reform Act 2002 direct police authorities to establish levels of performance".
The amendments are misplaced. Police authorities do not have the power to insist that chief officers employ a particular number or proportion of designated or accredited staff or special constables. In any event, the Secretary of State could not, even if he or she wanted to, direct them to do something that they have no power to do. He could not issue that direction. We could not, for instance, direct a police authority to recruit a certain number, a quota, of different types of officers because that is a function of the chief officer, not the police authority. That distinction is clear. I see members of police authorities nodding. They understand the distinction.
The fact is that we do not intend to set quotas for forces relating to a proportion of their force which must be made up of community support offices and Specials. Nor is it our intention to set such figures for forces as to how many community safety organisations they accredit. It is, as set out in Clause 35, at the discretion of chief officers as to whether or not they recruit and designate those people.
Let me finally nail this other canard that has arisen. This is not about policing on the cheap, nor about replacing police officers with community support officers. I would argue that our commitment to delivering record numbers of police officers belies any such suggestion. It is the intention of the Government to provide by March next year the resources for 130,000 police officers UK-wide. This March we have achieved record levels. Those two points have been acknowledged in an earlier debate. Then it is a matter for us to see where we need to go in terms of policing numbers.
We are trying to establish measures which work. It is not a question of cost or of trying to get policing on the cheap. We are trying to establish something which is of value to police forces up and down the country if

373
they want to enter into it. It will be their choice and their discretion. That will be true of custody escort officers or any other category of support staff.
My final point is one with which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will agree. He has been in this position and understands what this is about. When either of our two parties have been in government we have tried to use civilianisation to free-up fully trained, qualified expertise from police officers for front line duties. I have always thought that there was a consensus on that issue. We have debated it long and hard in this House. For example, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has encouraged us in the past to divest police officers of the responsibility for escorting abnormal loads. We have had that from Members of our own Benches.
Through a process of sensible civilianisation where right and appropriate, and where the chief officer wants to do it, we are trying to ensure a freeing-up of core police time for front line duties. We are not trying to have policing done more cheaply. That is not the intention of this legislation. It is about making good use of the resource that we can deploy. Having heard that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to—
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has been convincing on Amendment No. 1 and has obviously taken on board Amendment No. 3, but there was no mention of the effects of Section 46(4) of the 1996 Act, which concerns the serious issue of grant being withheld unless it is applied in a specific way. I shall continue on that point for a moment longer because I think that the Minister is searching for some information he may have which will make it easier for him to reply to the point which I have made eloquently, at length and persuasively. It will be difficult to continue this address to your Lordships on such a slender basis for much longer. Therefore, I hope that t he noble Lord is now possessed of the facts.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord said. I have re-read the amendment and can see the issue of concern. However, this has to be viewed as a package. It is not the intention of the Government to use the section in the way in which the noble Lord suggests. This comes as a package. I am grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging that I have been convincing on Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. However, this has to be seen in that context. It is not the desire of the Government to direct in the way in which he suggests. I suspect that one could read it in that way if one had a particularly conspiratorial frame of mind, but that is not our intention.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the Minister has been extremely patient, perhaps I may ask his indulgence to give him the opportunity not to say that it is not the intention of the Government but that the Government will not use this device, in which case I should be happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are no plans to use the provision in the way the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord places me in a difficulty, which can be resolved only by another place or by taking your Lordships through the Lobbies, which I am anxious not to do, as we have much more work to do. Therefore, with some regret and in the expectation of receiving a letter, perhaps, to be placed in the Library. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Community safety accreditation schemes]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 35, line 38, at end insert "and the principal local authority for that area"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is grouped with a large number of other amendments. Amendments Nos. 4 to 20 and Amendments Nos. 22 to 27 are tabled in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Harris, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Amendment No. 21 stands in my name and that of my noble friend, Lady Harris.
I speak first to Amendment No. 4. It is about community safety accreditation schemes. It is important to recognise that we do not object to the establishment of such schemes. However, we believe that such schemes should be restricted to local authorities. The Bill allows chief constables to accredit local authorities or other employers, such as security firms, to run schemes involving accredited wardens with certain police powers. These are specified in Schedule 5 to the Bill.
Our amendments seek to provide safeguards by limiting accreditation to local authority-led schemes. To avoid any confusion about the status of those not employed or engaged by local authorities, we would expect employers to be sub-contractors of the local authorities when these schemes are running.
We do not dispute the need to establish and maintain a community safety accreditation scheme. We accept that that will contribute to community safety and security; assist in combating crime and disorder; and it will also help towards diminishing public nuisance and other forms of anti-social behaviour.
We believe that a chief constable has a duty not only to consult the police authority but also the principal local authority in his area. Local authorities play an important role in crime prevention. That is ably demonstrated by many of the CCTV schemes which are run in co-operation with them.
We cannot and should not exclude local authorities from this important function. For the purpose of clarity, in Amendments Nos. 8 and 20, we have defined the local authorities both in England and in Wales.

375
Policing is about partnership. One cannot exclude one of the key players in a crime prevention strategy. The amendment is designed to make that possible.
There are a number of issues with regard to other amendments. They all relate to local authority functions. Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 are designed to ensure that local authorities are involved in this process. Amendments Nos. 9 to 20 deal with accreditation under the community safety accreditation schemes. All the amendments seek to ensure that local authorities are involved. Amendments Nos. 22 to 27 make similar provision in Clause 38 of the Bill. That leaves Amendment No. 21. It specifies that any,
"person who exercises or performs any power or duty … [under the accreditation scheme] shall be known as a community safety warden".
On Report the Minister assured me that he does not genuinely object to what they are called, provided that their functions are properly defined.
In conclusion, we believe that a clear distinction has to be drawn between police officers and those who are designated under the community accreditation schemes. That would avoid confusion in the minds of the public. More importantly, our amendments would also ensure that local authorities become part of the process of supplementary provision relating to designations and accreditations. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and I both have our names to this group of amendments with the exception of Amendment No. 21. The reason for that exception is very simple: we did not consider that the name for these people was important. Therefore, we did not add our names to that amendment—a rose by any other name, and so on—although there is some virtue in having one single name for them.
So far as concerns the other amendments, it is absolutely essential that local authorities are deeply involved in accreditation schemes. That is all the more important because we do not operate in a country where police authority boundaries are congruent with local authority boundaries. They are not. There are some relatively convenient police authorities, such as my own in Essex. It represents the existing geographic county of Essex. Within that county there are unitary authorities which do not acknowledge the remit of the county council. If the Chief Constable of Essex wanted to set up an accreditation scheme in any part of the county he would need to go to the relevant authority in order to do so. Indeed, if he failed to do so, however much he wanted in principle to set up such a scheme, he would be endangering a project that one would hope would be successful.
We tabled amendments at an earlier stage in the Bill to try to get full police powers for these people. I have given up that argument; but I am sure that it was the correct one. The Bill contains—if it contains anything—an admission of failure by the Government properly to resource the police. We are establishing these groups of people with limited police powers
376
because governments of long time have not been prepared to do the job properly; therefore, we cannot have people on the streets with full police powers. That is the only way in which one should reasonably interpret what lies behind the Bill.
Furthermore, the Government, the police authorities and/or the system have failed to reduce the administrative burden on constables in particular. We know about the diary of a policeman. It states that a constable must spend 40 per cent of his time in the station. That is necessary for administrative and legal reasons. Indeed, if we are to achieve greater conviction rates for criminals, that time must be sacrificed for the needs of the law. It is a desperate situation because if that time could be reduced then more policemen would be available on the streets. It is not a straight arithmetical calculation. If that 40 per cent could be halved to 20 per cent, the number of police available on the streets would not increase by 20 per cent, it would increase by 33.3 per cent. If anyone sat down and did the sums, which I shall not bother to do now because trying to explain arithmetical formulae would take an unnecessary few moments, he would see that that is so.
I return to the acceptability of these schemes. They must be put into effect in local authority areas and not in police authority areas, which are much too big. In any event, I strongly suspect that they will largely be used to try to resolve specific problems relating to particular localities. Therefore, these amendments are important. They have our wholehearted support.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the 24 amendments which are cobbled together are a strange mixture. Some of them are clearly sensible. For example, in introducing such a scheme one should like to see consultation with the local authorities as part of the exercise carried out by the police authority in deciding whether or not this is a sensible action by the chief officer concerned.
What I find surprising is the proposal, as I understand it—the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, did not say much about this—to limit the power to propose schemes to be approved for accreditation to local authorities. I wonder about the wisdom of such a restriction. In London, for example, a scheme is run and administered by the Central London Partnership, an organisation of businesses working with local government in central London, that uses wardens to carry out the community safety tasks that we are discussing. Presumably, if the amendments were passed, it would not be open to the Central London Partnership, a business-led organisation, to make proposals for accreditation.
Similarly, it would not be possible for a local chamber of commerce or local businesses to combine to provide a community safety scheme in their area. Equally, it would not be possible for a major tenants' organisation or housing association to make such proposals.
There may be good reasons for such exclusions, but I am not convinced of them and I did not hear them articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. There

377
may well be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to propose for accreditation schemes run by a housing association, a business organisation or some other consortium. As I understand it, the amendments would forbid that.
There is a simple solution. I know that my noble friend the Minister has abiding love and support for police authorities and I am aware that he recognises their significance and power. If it were required that, before an accreditation scheme was approved, it had to be approved by the police authority, it would be for the police authority in its area to say whether or not it was appropriate for accreditation to be extended beyond local authorities to business organisations or others. That would be a better way to resolve the issue. It would provide an opportunity for flexibility; it would provide an opportunity to meet local circumstances; and it would ensure local accountability for decisions.
The proposals for accreditation are an important and valuable part of the Bill. They recognise what is already taking place in many local areas. For those reasons, I should be sorry to see them restricted in the way that some of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, provide.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris mentioned—obviously genuinely—that I have come to have an abiding regard for police authorities during the passage of the Bill. I spent an hour and a half this morning meeting the Association of Police Authorities. I met five different groups briefly and then met them collectively for a while. So I had my ears bent, as it were.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that we would be unable to implement this by police areas; it would have to be done by local authority areas. I submit that that is up to the chief constable, not us, under the Bill. That is the whole point of the exercise; the Bill is enabling legislation.
As far as I know, police forces in this country are basically constructed from county council areas—either a single county council, or two in Devon and Cornwall, three, I think, in West Mercia, and I do not know how many in Thames Valley. However, none crosses or divides a county council boundary and local authorities are contained within those boundaries. So the police know with which county councils and local authorities they are dealing. They may want to do so on a local authority or smaller area basis, but I submit that that is up to the chief constable.
I appreciate that, as is their right, noble Lords have returned to the issue on Third Reading; and I have no doubt that it will be debated at length in the other place. The group of amendments is large. In summary, they would exclude from accreditation schemes a wide range of organisations already involved in community safety and regeneration and increasing public safety. Their effect would be to slow down any withdrawal of accreditation that a chief officer might wish to make. I now turn to the detail.
378
It is ironic that the Conservative Party is signed up to the idea of "public sector good; private sector bad". There will be a few wry smiles in the other Chamber if such an amendment is tabled down there. We have this incredible operation of the Tories in the Lords—if I may put it that way—ruling out the private sector from accreditation schemes in any way, shape or form and restricting them to local authorities. My, how things have changed in the past few years! Perhaps that suspicion is unfair.
I am uneasy about accepting the amendments. I do not really have any new arguments; but I have a few more examples to add to those that I have given previously. The amendments would fail to harness what is already taking place and the goodwill that exists in both the voluntary and private sectors—along with local authorities, of course. Town centre, shopping centre and shopping mall security staff would be ruled out because invariably they are not run by the local authority.
Policy Action Team 6 is a group asked by the Social Exclusion Unit of the Cabinet Office to consider the concept of neighbourhood wardens as part of the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. It gave examples of 50 neighbourhood warden schemes around the country serving their communities and reducing the fear of crime. Many were not being run by local authorities and so could not be accredited under the amendments. That would be a great pity.
Other organisations that would be excluded from accreditation under the amendment would be all of the non-local authority-led neighbourhood and street warden schemes, church housing associations and registered social landlords. For example, a local authority could employ accredited persons using money from the rent account, but if the housing were transferred from the local authority to a registered social landlord, it could not use the safety officers and tenants would be denied those services.
I mentioned shopping centre security staff. Hospital security staff employed for the protection of hospital staff and patients do vital work. It is terrible that these days we have to employ security staff in and around hospitals, but they are a necessary fact of life. Invariably, they are employed by or contracted to the hospital, so they could not be accredited under the amendments. Neither could warrant enforcement officers employed by magistrates' courts committees, sports stewards, concert hall stewards or mosque and synagogue security staff.
So we would rule out great tranches of existing staff—I am not inventing those examples. Such work already takes place. It would be good as a comfort blanket for the public to know that such uniformed people were OK'd by the police or the chief constable. That would give them some comfort. At present, 208 street and neighbourhood warden schemes have been set up using funding from the neighbourhood and street wardens programme. Just over a third or them—72—are not led by the local authority. Communities in those 72 areas would not be able to take comfort from the provision.

379
I turn to Amendment No. 21—which, of course, the Conservatives do not support—under which all such staff should be known as community safety wardens. I repeat what I said in Committee and on Report: I have no hang-up about that; nor do the Government. I think that that is a matter for local communities and the police to discuss locally; we should not prescribe that in the Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 22—an idea we have already discussed, which would require the chief officer to consult the local authority before modifying or withdrawing accreditation. That would hinder the chief officer. If he needs to take quick action because a scheme has fallen apart or the employer has for some reason caused the police difficulty, he should be able to do so. At the end of the day, under this enabling legislation, the chief constable is responsible for the concept and accreditation of wardens.
While I understand that this issue will be revisited, I think that it would be wholly demoralising for all those bodies—the voluntary organisations, private sector companies and housing association staff, as well as others that I listed earlier—if we were to agree to this form of amendment. I understand the reasons why it has been brought forward, but I sincerely hope that noble Lords will not seek to press it.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that I have some sympathy for the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Provided that all the organisations to which the Minister referred are accredited by the police authority as well as the chief constable, I think that I would, as I said, have some sympathy with the noble Lord's view.
I believe that most of the organisations will be local authority-accredited forces or local authority-employed wardens. But in the circumstances, for example, of a local hospital or possibly of a large shopping centre, if the security guards are accredited by the chief constable and that fact is placed before the police authority for approval as a matter of course, then I think that we could go as far as that in accepting the remarks of the Minister.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot offer an amendment to that effect, but—purely off the top of my head, so I may be on dangerous ground again; please do not hold it against me—it is a fact that many of these bodies, in particular concert hall, sports ground and hospital staff, are public or publicly funded authorities which have relationships with local authorities through funding arrangements, management or corporate governance. One can see a route for the funding or public body to ensure that matters are dealt with properly and that the relevant bodies are employing bona fide staff without necessarily specifying that on the face of the Bill. That may provide a route for some of these bodies, although I accept that it would not work for shopping centres.
Planning consents might also offer a route. By and large, if something goes wrong in a shopping centre, most people would blame the local authority for any
380
policing issues. People may think that they are public properties with public highways, but they are not; they are private properties. One has to take account of that fact when granting planning permission.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, perhaps I may clarify the position in relation to other organisations for accreditation purposes. I did say that the amendments are designed primarily for local authority-led schemes. However, in case there is any confusion, I shall repeat what I said earlier about the status of those not directly employed. As the Minister pointed out, it would be perfectly feasible and possible to come to a form of contractual arrangement.
The Minister spoke of a large number of other bodies currently operating such schemes. Many local authorities and other bodies employing such officers do so without any police powers specified at the present time. They are perfectly able to carry out their work. All it requires is an application to the local authority to enter into the process whereby accreditation could form part of the basis of their operation.
I am not necessarily satisfied with the Minister's response. If he wishes to explore ways of bringing other bodies within the jurisdiction of local authorities, that could take the matter further when it is discussed in another place. In the meantime, however, this is a matter on which I certainly wish to seek the opinion of the House.
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 151; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chadlington, L.

Ackner, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Addington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Craig of Radley,L.

Arran, E.

Crickhowell,L.

Astor, V.

Cuckney, L.

AstorofHever, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Attlee,E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Avebury, L.

Dholakia,L.

Biffen,L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blatch, B.

Elles,B.

Boardman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Bradshaw, L.

Elton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ezra,L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Falkland, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Burnham,L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Buscombe, B.

Freeman, L.

Byford, B.

Glentoran, L.

Caithness, E.

Goodhart, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Goschen, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hamwee, B.

381

Hanham, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Haslam, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Henley, L.

Peel,E.

Higgins, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Holderness L.

Plumb, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hooper, B.

Quinton, L.

Howe, E.

Razzall, L.

Howe of Aberavon. L.

Reay, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Rennard, L.

Jacobs, L.

Renton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jopling, L.

Roper, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kingsland, L.

Russell, E.

Laird, L.

Sandberg, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Selborne, E.

Liverpool, E.

Selsdon, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sharman, L.

Lucas, L

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Luke, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stern, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

McNally, L.

Stewartby, L.

Maddock, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Strathclyde, L.

Marlesford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Methuen, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Vivian, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Walmsley, B.

Montrose, D.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Weatherill,L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Newby, L.

Wilcox,B.

Noakes, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Northesk, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Northover, B.

Windlesham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Wolfson, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Ahmed, L.

Chandos, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Alli,L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Andrews, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Condon, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bach, L.

Crawley, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Billingham, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Borrie, L.

Desai, L.

Brennan, L.

Dixon, L.

Brett, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brightman, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dubs, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Burlison, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

382

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Filkin, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Mishcon, L.

Gale, B.

Mitchell, L.

Gavron, L.

Monson, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morgan, L.

Gilbert, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Goudie, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Grenfell, L.

Nicol, B.

Grocott, L.

Paul, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Pendry, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Peston, L.

Harrison, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Haskel,L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Puttnam, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Radice, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rea, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Richard, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rooker, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Sandwich, E.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sawyer, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Jones, L.

Sewel, L.

Jordan, L.

Simon, V.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Layard, L.

Strange, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lipsey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Tenby, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Thornton, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Marsh, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Accreditation under community safety accreditation schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 20 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Supplementary provisions relating to designations and accreditations]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 27 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Power to amend Chapter]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 28:
Leave out Clause 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are grouped together, although the second amendment is not consequential on the first. In fact, they will be taken separately.
Amendment No. 28 is deceptively simple: "Leave out Clause 40". Clause 40, of course, is another matter altogether. It provides the Secretary of State with the power to extend the police powers set out in Schedules 4 and 5 to police civilians working at the order of the

383
chief constable or to accredited persons working under a scheme created by the chief constable. It provides a power for the Secretary of State to amend the contents of the schedules to increase or diminish those powers.
It is, of course, true that the power is subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses, and, to that extent, Parliament will be involved in any subsequent decision to amend the schedules. However, despite what the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has said about the matter, such clauses call into question the validity of the legislation that we pass. We have seen that from time to time with other Bills. I do not apologise for saying that. Parliament gives much less consideration to statutory instruments than we give to fundamental legislation, such as this Bill.
Clause 40 goes too far. There are other problems with Schedules 4 and 5, to which we shall come later, although we need not concern ourselves with those now. However, we argue strongly that Parliament should decide such matters and that should be the end of it. We do not see the necessity for having Clause 40 in the first place. If such matters have been properly debated and determined by both Houses by the time that the Bill is passed, that ought to be the end of it.
Amendment No. 29 is in the same group. We felt that it was worth pursuing. It could be argued—this is where I find myself with a slight intellectual difficulty—that Amendment No. 29 is in conflict with a wish to leave out Clause 40. However, given the realities of political power, as Parliament goes to work, one cannot be certain what the final outcome on the Bill might be. In any event, there will have to be a great deal more discussion in another place about the Bill.
The clause that Amendment No. 29 would insert would be appropriate. There may be occasions when wider powers than those which are finally included in Schedules 4 and 5 will be appropriate, particularly for accredited people, but we on this side of the House have argued consistently that the people on the streets exercising police powers should be policemen.
We have tried very hard to persuade the Government that the accreditation schemes could be used to revivify the Special Constabulary. The Government was having none of either argument. They had bitten on a hook, the barb was set—I congratulate the person who set it, whoever he may be—and they were not prepared to consider other, perhaps more effective, schemes which would have provided a better long-term solution. I refer to my remarks on the previous amendment. This whole issue has come about as a result of a failure over time to properly fund the police force so that there can be sufficient real policemen on the streets.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to allow the Secretary of State to approve pilot schemes in the first instance. If people wish to try schemes of accreditation with powers additional to those permitted by the Bill, then, subject to the Secretary of State deciding that they are appropriate, they will be able to do so. If such schemes are successful, as some people believe that they will be,
384
although I am immensely sceptical that any success will be on the scale that they hope for, the amendment would permit the Secretary of State to expand the number of schemes and even to introduce them nationally. It is a valid amendment and one well worth pursuing.
Amendment No. 28 is the significant amendment of the two. Amendment No. 29 needs further debate, but that will have to take place in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 28 only. The amendment seeks to remove Clause 40, which enables the Secretary of State to amend by order the detailed powers in Schedules 4 and 5 of police civilians and accredited persons.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said that he seeks to delete Clause 40, despite the fact that it has the maximum kind of safeguard that one expects for delegated legislation—that is, that any use of the power in Clause 40 would require a draft order to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is moving the amendment—we may hear from the Liberal Democrats in support of it, as the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, appear on the amendment—is somewhat surprising in view of the many debates that there have been on the powers to be given to civilians, particularly the community support officers. We may hear further arguments today.
In so far as there is perfectly legitimate anxiety about the powers of community support officers and others, this is not exactly an innovation on the ground. But it is an innovation in so far as it concerns detailed powers in police legislation and, given that it is fairly novel, it strikes me as contrary to much of what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said in Committee and earlier. He said that this is new and worrying and that he is anxious about how it will work out. But if the powers of civilian and community support officers at Schedules 4 and 5 are to be included in the Bill—and it is still an "if" at the present time—then, because this is novel, surely the noble Lord should see it as highly desirable that, if the Secretary of State should find that in this particular or that particular we have included a power that should not be there, or that we have omitted a power that should be there, the schedules should be amended by order of the Secretary of State, subject to the parliamentary control to which I have referred. That would seem a wholly appropriate and desirable power.
I could surely use some of the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in previous debates to indicate that I, too, am anxious about these powers and would like to see that in certain circumstances they could be amended. We all know that there is to be a police Bill this year. The previous Bill was not long ago, but often there is a gap of many years between a substantive Act dealing with a subject such as this and another substantive Act. To wait until there is time for primary legislation may be wholly undesirable.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, powers of arrest and powers of entry are about as fundamental powers in English law as one can well take. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was mistaken to say that they are an innovation. They have been tried before and caused a vast amount of controversy. Inevitably, they led to conflicts of interest. They led to the revival of impeachment in the Parliament of 1621. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is illustrating the proposition that those who do not know history are compelled to repeat it.
In the face of these powers we have only the power of the statutory instrument. In the previous Parliament, 0.5 per cent of negative instruments were debated in another place. The percentage for affirmative instruments was not much higher. None was defeated. One single statutory instrument was defeated in this place. If this is the only power we have to control powers of arrest and entry, we relegate ourselves to being a part of the dignified part of the constitution: we are preserved to show off to the tourists while the effective government goes on elsewhere. If this House allows this clause to remain on the statute book, Parliament will have made itself redundant.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I shall address my remarks to Amendment No. 29. I have spoken previously about the ambition of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, of which I am a council member—I hope to remain a member after 2nd May—to introduce a scheme of borough constables. Whatever happens to this clause, we shall wish to be part of a pilot scheme. One of the advantages and attractions of limiting the provision initially to pilot schemes is that it will enable us to see how the system works.
In Committee, I moved amendments to encourage the Minister to consider giving community constables the power of detention and the ability to use force in order to detain; and, secondly—although perhaps not so importantly—that community officers should be able to seize bicycles. That is an important aspect when one has been nearly mown down—as I have—by someone hurtling along the pavement. So there are additional areas where people consider those powers should be given.
I see, however, that it might be difficult to operate such provision on a general basis without having tested it out. Therefore, I support the concept of agreement to a number of pilot schemes in order to work out what the powers should be and how they could be applied—perhaps also to see what limitations should be imposed as a result of the concerns raised regarding the Secretary of State's powers. It would need to be determined whether they were too wide or not wide enough.
Therefore, Amendment No. 29 has a great deal of merit. It provides an opportunity to see how the system will work; then it gives the Home Secretary the right to extend the pilot schemes after observing how they operate. I support Amendment No. 29, but it is probably a matter of "tail over top" or "top over tail"—I am not quite sure which.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we set out our arguments on Report as to why we oppose Clause 40. The clause contains draconian powers by which the Secretary may, by order, amend the provisions of Schedules 4 and 5—as was rightly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.
On Report, we were told by the Minister that this is a long long-stop, and that the Home Secretary cannot make an order unless the draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses.
The question we must ask is: why does the Secretary of State require such wide-ranging powers? On Report, this House was not prepared to give powers to the Secretary of State in Clause 5. I know that the amendment does not relate directly to that provision, but the power in that clause would give the Home Secretary the ultimate authority, bypassing the duties and obligations of police authorities across the country, thus enabling him to control police functions centrally. A strong impression is given of the degree to which the Home Secretary wishes to exercise these powers, bypassing many of the functions of the local police authority.
The police authorities have local accountability. They are the ones who should be exercising powers, without interference from the Secretary of State. But 'we know the Minister's view of police authorities. I am delighted that he met members of some of them today. Perhaps he will have a change of heart.
There is ample Home Office involvement in the composition of police authorities. The 1994 Act introduced by the then Conservative administration ensures that, out of 17 members—nine of whom are councillors and three of whom are magistrates—five independent members are appointed from a shortlist referred by the Home Secretary. Again, he has considerable leeway within which to convince those at local level about what is required and what is appropriate.
Even at present, the Home Secretary has wide powers. He can make regulations and issue codes of practice and good practice guidelines which police authorities follow. To empower the Secretary of State further, as envisaged in Clause 40, bypasses one of the fundamental principles of local policing. Section 96 of the Police Act 1996 requires police authorities, not the Home Secretary, to make arrangements for local consultation. The purpose is to obtain people's consent as regards policing in their area and to obtain the cooperation of local people in preventing crime.
The Secretary of State does not require the additional powers laid down in Clause 40. This is another measure which shows how far the Government are prepared to go to control some police functions centrally.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am in a quandary. I do not know what the precedent is for this House effectively overturning a settled recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Obviously, the House is master, not the committee. However, it will not wash the next time a

387
Minister has to tell his or her department that the committee's recommendations on a Bill should be observed. Why on earth should anyone listen? The implication will be that the committee is not particularly powerful, because we cannot guarantee that the House will agree to implement its recommendations.
In the past, the Government have accepted the Select Committee's recommendations and have amended and changed legislation at its request. They have acceded to the views of the committee. To the best of my knowledge, they have accepted its recommendations without qualification where it has believed that powers being exercised by negative resolution should be exercised by affirmative resolution; or where powers were being operated in such a way that in the view of the committee the House ought to have more control. So it simply will not wash in future if the House decides to overturn the recommendation in paragraph 7 of the committee's report relating to this clause—which was Clause 38 in the Bill as originally drafted.
It is true that this is a Henry VIII clause. The Secretary of State may modify Schedule 4 and other enactments to facilitate the exercise of powers. It makes it clear that we consider that the affirmative power is appropriate. So, for the future, we must make our minds up. There is no reason why Ministers in other departments should acquiesce in future to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee if they are minded not to. It simply will not work for Ministers in this House to explain to Ministers in the other place, who may not fully understand the position here, that this is how this House works. To the best of my knowledge, to remove Clause 40 would be to tear up the rulebook.
Furthermore, any recognition whatever that this is enabling legislation has been absent from the debate. The clause is not prescriptive. There is reference to pilot schemes. Of course there will be pilots. There are 43 police authorities—and they will not all choose to operate the legislation. It is for the chief constables to decide whether to include such provision in their policing plans. It is not up to the Home Secretary. This is purely enabling legislation for chief constables. There is nothing prescriptive about it. So I cannot understand some of the arguments that have been made repeatedly at different stages.
It is not as though Clause 40 contains no safeguards, or checks and balances, to prevent the provision from being used inappropriately. Any changes under the terms of the clause are subject to affirmative resolution—a fact dismissed by the noble Earl. I do not dismiss it, and I do not accept his dismissal.
Noble Lords will appreciate that the clause contains a significant safeguard. A future Home Secretary will not be able to extend the range of powers available under this part of the Bill at the drop of a hat. That is important. Secondly, while the clause would allow the
388
Secretary of State to give chief officers a greater range of powers to make available to designated and accredited persons—
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House when an affirmative resolution was last rejected by another place?
5 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I cannot, my Lords, but that is not the point. If the other place chose to accept a resolution, that would be its business. The point is that, in whatever case it might be, the other place would be given that opportunity. It is not as though the power being operated would be agreed by negative resolution. There is a well tried procedure. It is no good arguing that, just because the other place accepts affirmative resolutions, that is to be dismissed and parliamentary accountability is to be dismissed. One might as well argue that there is no difference between negative and affirmative resolutions if we take the noble Earl's point to the illogical conclusion that he seems to be advancing. I simply do not accept his argument.
The checks and balances in the clause are important. Anyone might run away with the idea that the clause gives the Home Secretary the power to do anything he wants, and ram that through under the affirmative procedure—which I do not accept is a case of ramming through. The clause explicitly prohibits the Secretary of State from conferring powers of arrest or detention on civilians which are additional to those already provided for in Schedules 4 and 5. So he cannot by stealth create an army of community support officers with full constabulary powers. He cannot confer on such officers additional powers to enter premises without the occupier's consent when unaccompanied by a constable; and he is prevented from creating new powers which are not already available to a constable or some other person—for example, a local authority employee such as a dog warden or an environmental health officer. He cannot do any of those things under the clause, by negative or affirmative resolution, with or without the approval of the House. He simply cannot do it. None of us claims to have a crystal ball. Schedules 4 and 5 provide a comprehensive list of powers—a menu from which chief constables can choose—which would enable those who are designated as community support officers to tackle the various types of behaviour that blight people's lives at the moment, in 2002. In the future the position might change. It may change or it might change, but we do not say that it "will" change.
The ability to use secondary legislation is important. Chief police officers would not have to wait, potentially for a number of years, for appropriate primary legislation. There are always excuses for why Bills cannot be put in the programme.

389
I also argue that the clause would allow the Secretary of State to add additional categories to the types of support staff who can be given police powers, if it becomes apparent in the future that that will be a sensible thing to do in order to free up highly trained police officers to spend more time on the street, where the public want them. We have to reduce the 43 per cent of a police officer's time spent in the station. That is, after all, one of the main purposes for Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill. Empowering support staff in this way maximises the use of the skills and the time of police officers. It is an important part of the battle against unnecessary bureaucracy that ties constables into police stations for too long dealing with red tape and issues that do not require all their skills. It is about putting a greater uniformed presence on the streets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised the issue of the local elections that are to take place next week. I would loathe to be a Tory candidate in a marginal seat who has been told, "The Government are on the rocks, you are going to get in this time", only to discover that the Conservatives in the House of Lords are voting against a greater uniformed-police presence on the streets. That is the reality of the package of amendments tabled today. I can say the same for the Liberal Democrat candidates.
We are trying to get bobbies out of the stations and on to the streets. In order to do that they need greater support in certain areas, as deployed through the Bill in terms of accreditation and community support officers. I repeat that this is enabling legislation. This is not the Home Secretary saying to chief constables, "You will appoint community support officers"; and no one should give the impression that it is. The chief constables may employ community support officers and other designated individuals, but they do not have to. Chief constables may accredit organisations that first have to request accreditation; it is not for the chief constable to do that. So we are not talking about the Secretary of State being able to force the schemes on to chief constables. At all stages of the Bill we have made that abundantly clear.
If noble Lords are not satisfied in respect of the arguments for Clause 40, which we were told on Report and again today is a matter of principle—there is no question about that—we then come to Amendment No. 29: the quaint little new clause giving power to approve pilot schemes. What is in that new clause? There is a power for the Home Secretary, by order, to increase the powers available to accredited persons in up to 12 pilot areas. There are few safeguards in Amendment No. 29. Do not forget that Clause 40 is out and all the safeguards that I have talked about are out. There are no safeguards in the new clause or very few. Yes, it is subject to the affirmative procedure, but there are no limitations on the order-making power in the new clause as there are in Clause 40 which is already in the Bill.
We are legislating seriously and maturely. I make it clear that under these amendments Clause 40 goes out and that new clause goes in. We are not comparing like with like. There is no restriction that prevents the powers of arrest being conferred on accredited
390
persons. There is nothing to prevent accredited persons being given powers of entry without being in the company of a constable. Furthermore, it would he possible to confer on accredited persons the power to use reasonable force. That is the new clause. Surely nobles Lords will not seriously attempt to put such a measure on the statute book.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord knew his Punch well enough to know that pilots can be dropped.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the whole thing is a pilot. There can be a national pilot at the request or at the choice of any one of the 43 chief constables in this country—not at the request of the Home Secretary and not ordered by this House. That is the reality. That is how the pilots will originate. We all know that the first pilot will take place in London. The Metropolitan Police want to employ such people this summer. The first pilot will be in London and there is no beating about the bush in relation to that. We know that other chief constables are interested in considering the powers, and all the other 42 chief constables will watch what happens in London.
The reality will be a greater uniformed presence on the streets at the choice of the chief constable; not at the order or the behest of the Home Secretary. I call that a pilot worth having; one that chief constables choose and are not forced into by the Home Secretary.
I genuinely believe that we cannot seriously talk about taking out Clause 40, with all its checks and balances, and putting in this wishy-washy new clause with five little subsections. We must be taken seriously by the other place. The Members of another place will laugh at this House if we take out Clause 40 and send the Bill back with this new clause. I ask noble Lords to show some self-respect and not to press these amendments to a vote.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his advice as to what to do if we are anxious about the content of legislation, but the anxiety increases as the degree of flexibility increases. The problem is that, in our view, Clause 40 gives too much flexibility. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made that point with great force. We have perennial problems with the possibility of what may happen. The brutal reality of government is that no government can commit their successor.
I have already said that the two amendments are separate. I shall deal with the Minister's remarks in that regard first. We do not know what view the other House may take. In this House, we have to consider our decision. It will save time, and may save the Minister some anxiety, if I say that I do not intend to press Amendment No. 29. It is not consequential on Amendment No. 28, although in many ways it would provide a useful supplement to it if Clause 40 were re-inserted in another place.

391
In proposing these amendments we are considering the full parliamentary procedure and trying to anticipate the outcome. We are trying to consider the kinds of points that may be discussed in the other place, although we cannot dictate them. That is the reason behind this pair of amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he hoped that in the future the situation would change and that this is all about achieving more uniformed people on the streets. I absolutely support those remarks. If we are serious about getting uniformed people on the street, in five years we may not need accredited schemes because there will be the proper number of policemen doing the job that ought to be done in the first place. We have argued from Second Reading that the proposals are a poor substitute for proper policemen.
I return to the removal of the Henry VIII clause and the Select Committee for Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I would be the first to acknowledge that the affirmative procedure is provided for and that is appropriate. The Minister asks why the Government should take any further notice of the committee's recommendation if the House does not accept it. There is no obligation on the House to accept the committee's recommendation. Still less is there any obligation on another place. In fact, it was not a recommendation but a statement that the committee considers that the powers are appropriate—a valid statement by people with a particular function in that regard.
Decisions on the Bill are not before that committee but are before your Lordships' House at this moment. This House has to make up its mind.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I feel a bit of a new boy here but if the committee is so powerful, has the noble Lord discussed his proposal with any of its members?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the answer is no—I have not. I completely acknowledge the committee's expertise but the fact remains that all the committees of this House are subject to the decisions of this House. That has always been the case and always must be the case, so I do not withdraw my comments.
If the Minister wishes to chance his arm one day and find out whether or not regard is paid to the committee's recommendations—and if he wants to go against its recommendations—he may quickly find the House lining up behind them. There is no obligation on the House to line up behind every recommendation or statement that the committee makes because the House must be the master in this place.
We have had a good debate. I am grateful for the contributions of those whom I have not named. We have had enough discussion.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 165; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Addington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Arran,E.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Astor, V.

Jacobs, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Attlee, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Avebury, L.

Jopling, L.

Barker, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Blaker,L.

Kingsland, L.

Blatch, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Boardman, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Liverpool, E.

Brightman, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lucas, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Luke, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Burnham,L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Buscombe, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market L.

Byford,B.

Caithness, E.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McNally, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Maddock, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chadlington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Methuen, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Monro of Langholm, L,

Craig of Radley,L.

Monson, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Montrose, D.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noakes, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northesk, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northover, B.

Elles, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Ezra,L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Falkland, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Fearn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flather, B.

Peel, E.

Fookes, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Freeman, L.

Plumb, L.

Geddes, L.

Plummerof St. Marylebone, L.

Glentoran, L.

Quinton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L,

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Rennard, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Renton, L.

Hanson, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Haslam, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Henley, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Higgjns, L.

Russell, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sandberg, L.

Holderness, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hooper, B.

Selborne, E.

Howe, E.

Selsdon, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharman, L.

393

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Vivian, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Stern, B.

Walmsley, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Stewartby, L.

Weatherill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wilcox, B.

Swinfen, L

Williams of Crosby, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Thatcher, B.

Wolfson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Hylton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jones, L.

Best, L.

Jordan, L.

Billingliam, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Borrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brennan, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Listowel, E.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clark of Windermere, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Marsh, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Condon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ouseley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parekh, L.

Dubs, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Filkin, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gale, B.

Radice, L.

Gavron, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rea,L.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goudie, B.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rooker, L.

Grocott, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath,L

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harrison, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Haskel, L.

Sewel, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

394

Strabolgi, L.

Warner, L.

Strange, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitaker, B.

Wilkins B

Temple-Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tenby, V.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Thornton, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed accordingly.
5.23 p.m.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Earl Attleemoved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
"IMPERSONATION OF A TRAFFIC WARDEN
(1) Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (impersonation, etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "or special constable" there is substituted ", special constable, or traffic warden"; and

(b) for "or constable" there is substituted ", constable or traffic warden".

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) after "constable" there is inserted "or traffic warden";

(b) after "police uniform" there is inserted "or traffic warden uniform"; and

(c) after "police force" there is inserted "or of a traffic warden".

(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) for "or special constable" there is substituted ", special constable, or traffic warden": and

(b) after "police uniform" there is inserted "or traffic warden uniform".

(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "article of police uniform" there is inserted "or traffic warden uniform"; and for "or special constables" there is substituted ", special constables or traffic wardens"; and

(b) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

"(c) "traffic warden" means a traffic warden appointed by a police authority.""

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as is well known, it is an offence to impersonate a police officer. The Bill makes it an offence to impersonate an accredited person or a designated person. It also increases the power of a traffic warden to stop individual vehicles, but it will not be an offence to impersonate a traffic warden. My amendment seeks to correct that anomaly.
In his rather weak reply on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the provisions were not previously thought necessary and that he had received no representations from ACPO. I am sure that that is correct, but the provisions were unnecessary until the powers of traffic wardens were increased. The noble Lord also said:
"Moreover, if impersonation facilitates the commission of an offence, it would be the substantive offence that is most significant".—[Official Report, 16/4/02; col. 874.]
Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right. However, if the police detect a known criminal lying in wait to ambush a commercial vehicle carrying a

395
valuable load, and he is wearing a traffic warden's uniform in order to carry out the crime, no offence will have been committed—apart from a conspiracy, which would be very hard to prove. I believe that the lack of an offence in this respect will severely limit the ability of the police to investigate a possible serious offence.
The noble Lord also claimed on Report that it was necessary to consult "interested parties". I agree. When the Government decided to increase the powers of traffic wardens, it is a little unfortunate that they did not find it necessary to consult the relevant trade associations whose members will be affected. In any case, my suggested new offence is consequential on the increased powers of traffic wardens.
The noble Lord identified drafting errors in the amendment that I put forward on Report. I have, therefore, redrafted it. My proposed new clause seeks to add reference to "traffic wardens" to Section 90 of the 1996 Act—the section that makes it an offence to impersonate a police officer. I hope that the noble Lord has reconsidered the position since the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has made a very convincing case for his amendment. Clearly, there is an unforeseen gap in the law, and one that could be dangerously exploited by those with criminal inclinations. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the amendment on which the noble Earl has taken much expert, first-class advice. Indeed, he has obviously taken a great deal of care in an effort to get the amendment into an acceptable form.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was trying to be helpful to the noble Earl on Report. I thought that I was quite kind in my comments. I am not sure that I gave a weak response; indeed, I thought it fairly robust under the circumstances. I am unable directly to support the noble Earl's amendment today. However, I can put on the record the fact that I have some sympathy with the intention behind it. I do not envisage a great number of people queuing up to impersonate traffic wardens, but I recognise that the position could cause problems in certain circumstances.
Essentially, the amendment would put traffic wardens in exactly the same position as police officers, special constables and "designated or accredited persons". There is undoubtedly some logic in that proposal. It would also address one of the arguments advanced in the past against extending to traffic wardens the unrestricted power to stop vehicles, as the Bill does; namely, the risk of facilitating robbery and hijacking if vehicles have to stop for a wider range of people.
How far the latter is a valid concern is not entirely clear. The impersonation of a traffic warden has not previously been thought to merit a specific offence. So far, there has been no pressure for it to be made one, either formally from ACPO or from traffic warden
396
representatives. There is no great clamouring out there for such a change to be made. On the face of it, traffic wardens are not being given that much more power by the Bill—the power only to stop vehicles in more circumstances, though, I accept, with some additional responsibilities.
Against that background, we believe that the noble Earl's proposal merits some further thought and consultation, which we have not had time to accomplish between the Report stage and Third Reading. Given the number of noble Lords in the Chamber today, I suspect that the noble Earl might press the amendment successfully if he were really building up a head of steam behind it. However, I give the noble Earl the following undertaking. If he declines to press his amendment at this stage, we will agree to take forward his proposition, make a decision on whether a new provision is necessary, and decide if and how it should be introduced.
I hope that the noble Earl understands that I cannot at this time offer him any undertaking that the Government will table an amendment in another place. The consultations and discussions that we would need to have with the many interests concerned would not enable us to do that in the time frame permitted. To one extent, the Bill is perhaps somewhat distant from creating a specific criminal offence of impersonating a traffic warden.
We shall certainly undertake to consult with the Association of Chief Police Officers and, I suspect, the representatives of traffic wardens. No doubt their union will want to say something about the idea as well. We shall do that as quickly as possible. We do not necessarily see this Bill as a vehicle for an amendment, but we think that the noble Earl's proposition merits further serious consideration.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I assure him that from these Benches we generally support what he said. Carjacking is increasingly prevalent. The Government will not have received any representations from ACPO or from the traffic wardens' trade unions on the power to stop vehicles because it is not a power that traffic wardens have enjoyed so far. On the assumption that they are going to have the power, it would be as well if the two organisations and the trade associations were consulted.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have supported my amendment. On the one hand I am grateful for the Minister's comments; on the other hand I am slightly disappointed that he has not snapped the amendment up. I am still a little unclear as to why it was necessary for the Bill to make it an offence to impersonate an accredited or designated person but not a traffic warden. However, if I pursued the amendment any further today, I should make myself extremely unpopular with my noble friends on the Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Nationality requirements applicable to police officers etc]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 62, line 34, after "birth" insert "but subject to the requirements for naturalisation under Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (requirements for naturalisation)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with two amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who have both expressed concern about the apparently unqualified nature of the clause. We have pressed the Minister on the issue on a number of occasions. He has done his best to explain the present situation and what the clause means. However, although I have listened with great care and read his remarks, I am still not certain what the clause means.
In casting around for an answer to that problem, I came fortuitously across the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is before the other place. It is a Bill and not yet an Act of Parliament, so its contents are not certain. Clause I of that Bill contains some interesting references. For the ease of all concerned, I shall read from the interpretation—if I can use that word—in the Explanatory Notes to that Bill. This is a way of lifting us out of our difficulty. The Explanatory Notes on Clause I say:
"Subsection (1) adds to Schedule 1 of the BNA 1981"—
the British Nationality Act, to which my amendment refers —
"a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom.
Subsection (2) enables provision to be made by regulations for determining whether a person has sufficient knowledge of a language and whether a person has sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom for the purpose of an application for naturalisation".
The reason for the reference to "a language" is that Gaelic and Welsh are included as appropriate languages. The Explanatory Notes go on:
"By subsection (3) the regulations may make provision about how those requirements of sufficient knowledge of language and about life in the United Kingdom are met (for example, by reference to a specified qualification or attendance on a specified course)".
In view of the open nature of Clause 68, it would be prudent to insert the provisions of Clause 1 of that Bill into this Bill. Unfortunately, as that Bill is not yet an Act, its provisions cannot be inserted into this Bill. However, I had very good advice from the Public Bill Office, who said that I could insert a reference to the appropriate provisions of the 1981 Act, because if the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is passed, the amendments that it makes to those provisions will become the substantive provisions of the schedule to that Act and will therefore apply. That seems to meet the requirement for qualification for naturalisation to this country. It would not be tolerable to have a qualification for a person to apply to be a member of the police force that was less rigorous than the qualification that would apply to a person seeking naturalisation. It would be appropriate for the qualifications to be in parallel. My amendment would give that effect to
398
Clause 68. It seems to me to be wholly worthwhile and I should be immensely pleased if the Minister was able to say at least that he was sympathetic to the argument and would deal with it in the other House. I should be even more gratified if' he was able to say that this was a satisfactory solution to an otherwise rather difficult dilemma. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when I withdrew my amendments on the equivalent clause nine days ago on Report, I intimated that I would come back on Third Reading with amendments that represented even more of a compromise, shifting further towards the Government's position in the hope and expectation that they would be acceptable to the Minister.
I feel confident that my Amendment No. 32 should be acceptable to the Government for the simple reason that it is based entirely on the Minister's assurances. On 16th April, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said categorically:
"Serving policemen and policewomen will not be recruited from abroad".
A few lines later he said:
"Foreign nationals will need to be resident in the UK with no restrictions attached to their stay in order to qualify".—[Official Report, 16/4/02; col. 887.]
Amendment No. 32 merely enshrines those verbal assurances in statute, just in case a subsequent government, less scrupulous than this one, were to toy with the idea of reneging on them. I therefore trust that the Government will accept either Amendment No. 31, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, or Amendment No. 32, as well as Amendment No. 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which is also broadly based on the Government's assurances.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, support all three of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will remember, I wished to oppose what is now Clause 68 in Committee and on Report. However, in view of the full and candid discussions that we had then, I shall not oppose it any further. These three amendments would add clarity to the clause and remove doubts without changing the substance to any extent that the Government may worry about.
I shall briefly comment on each of the three amendments, the first of which is Amendment No. 31, moved by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. If a person would not qualify for naturalisation as a British subject, surely it would be absurd to say that he would be suitable to be a police officer. That is why I support my noble friend's amendment.
Amendment No. 32 does not make a big change, but it does add clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, simply suggests adding the words,
"who is resident in the United Kingdom",
after "nationality" in Clause 68(1), beautifully clarifying the effect of the whole clause.
As for my own amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was very candid and fair-minded when he replied to us on this rather difficult matter. I did not think that the clause was well drafted. When I said that

399
the word "may" went too far in relation to the qualifications mentioned in subsection (4), he pointed out that some of the people mentioned in subsection (1)—for example, a member of the Royal Parks Constabulary—are in a different position from those who are going to be appointed police officers. So my amendment clarifies the position and says that those who are going to have the responsibility of being police officers should meet the requirements set out in subsection (4), which I shall quickly mention. They are:
"competence in written and spoken English",
and to meet,
"requirements with respect to … immigration status",
and,
"requirements with respect to nationality in the case of particular ranks, offices or positions".
Surely my amendment has the advantage of specifying which of the ranks should be regarded in that way. It is a very simple amendment which merely brings into relationship the provisions of subsection (1) and the provisions of subsection (4). I do hope that that will appeal to the Minister.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I was rather hesitant about this provision on Report because we do not yet know what the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will provide, and that legislation may have a considerable impact on the operation of this provision. However, I believe that Amendment No. 31 is worthy of consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, rightly points out various difficulties—such as that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill has yet to be considered in your Lordships' House. We shall have to examine in detail those provisions on citizenship, in Schedule 1. Consequently, we are discussing a provision that has not yet received parliamentary consent. If we are later to approve a provision on citizenship, how will it affect the provisions in this Bill on the employment of police officers?
Amendment No. 31 requires detailed scrutiny. What we must not do is put ourselves in the type of situation that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor encountered in relation to magistrates affected by earlier nationality legislation. That created quite a lot of conflict. Some of the magistrates have been asked not to continue in that role. We do not want people already employed as police officers to be similarly retrospectively affected by earlier legislation. The provision therefore requires very careful scrutiny.
I hope that the Minister will take Amendment No. 31 away and examine its full implications and, if appropriate, propose a suitable provision in the other place. We must, however, exercise a little caution. The provision should also be examined within the context of anti-discrimination legislation to ensure that none of those provisions are breached. Overall, however, the amendment addresses a substantial issue which requires very careful consideration.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Dholakia has mentioned the difficulties that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has encountered with regard to magistrates and the letter he has had to send to 150 serving magistrates asking them to resign their post because they are not British citizens but citizens of other European countries or, in one case, the United States, will the Minister give us an assurance that no one affected by Clause 68 will be subject to review of his position under Section 2 of the Act of Settlement 1701? After all, it took the Lord Chancellor 300 years to discover that that legislation affected magistrates. Who is to say that, in future, it may not affect many other people in our system of law and order? I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could give me an assurance that the Act of Settlement will not be discovered to affect anyone mentioned in this Bill, including those who are dealt with under Clause 68.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that I had better reply first to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which were a very clever attempt to get me to make a commitment now on a related subject. I simply say that I heard his comments and will study them very carefully. We shall give very careful consideration to his words, which I have no doubt were carefully chosen.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, makes a very good point by raising the issue of the relationship between the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and this Bill. The remarks provide a further context for this debate. We shall have to think very carefully indeed about those implications.
No one is in any doubt that if the police service is to be opened up to non-British nationals, we must ensure that no one is appointed who cannot meet one of the fundamental requirements of a police officer—to be able to speak to members of the public and to be able to write effectively in English. I think that that is simply common sense—which is, I think, where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming from. I hope that my comments will reassure him and other noble Lords who raised the issue.
Our intentions on this have, I think, been clear from the beginning. We intend to include, among other qualifications for appointment, a requirement as to competence in oral and written English. That will be an absolute requirement, and our intention is to put it into regulations along with all the other qualifications that will have to be met before an officer can be appointed. I do not think that we can be any plainer or clearer than that; that is what we want to achieve. I think that everyone will agree on that requirement.
Similarly, there is no disagreement that police recruits should be resident in the UK and should have some knowledge of and ties with the UK. They should have a right to live in the UK either as EEA nationals or, if not, they should be free of all immigration restrictions. The point at issue is how best to achieve those requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes that we should tie qualification for

401
appointment as a police officer to the requirements for naturalisation. The requirements for naturalisation include a sufficient knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. In addition, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill—which has sensibly been mentioned in this debate—will extend the requirements to include a sufficient knowledge of the UK.
However, the naturalisation requirements also include requirements as to residence in the UK. People applying for naturalisation are required to have lived in the UK for five years prior to application with no more than 450 days' absence during that time and no more than 90 days' absence in the 12 months prior to application or, alternatively, for three years prior to application with no more than 270 days' absence during that three years and with no more than 70 days' absence in the previous 12 months.
The naturalisation requirements also specify that applicants must have been completely free of restrictions in the 12 months preceding the application and must not have been in breach of immigration laws during any of the past five years. Putting such requirements on to police recruits would be an administrative nightmare for the police service. It would require police forces not only to ensure that an applicant is living here free of conditions, as we propose, but to go back through five years of immigration records to check how long the applicant had been in the United Kingdom, to check the status of the applicant during each stage of that five years, to check long and short absences abroad and so on. At a time when we have argued against imposing administrative burdens on the police, we surely cannot impose such an administrative burden on them.
Nor should we forget the purpose of this clause, which is to open up the police service and to widen the recruitment pool. That is something that we are constantly urged to do; certainly the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has fervently made that case and has congratulated us from time to time on the way in which we have set about that task. And many others have urged us to remove unnecessary barriers to recruitment. I believe that we have been successful in that endeavour. We would not want to replace one barrier with an even greater hurdle.
By setting a requirement that applicants must be able to communicate effectively with the public and in writing and by requiring applicants to be lawfully resident and free of restrictions we can ensure that applicants have a sufficient knowledge of English and have ties with the United Kingdom. Unrestricted residence in the United Kingdom 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. What is material is that those with an unrestricted stay will have lived here for some time and will have knowledge of our way of life.
In addition, foreign nationals and EU nationals—indeed, all candidates—will need to satisfy our rigorous vetting requirements. Someone who has lived
402
here for a short time, for instance, may be unlikely to be able to be vetted and would not therefore qualify for appointment. This combination of safeguards will be put in place and will need to be satisfied for a candidate of whatever nationality to qualify for appointment.
The noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Renton, propose that we set out the residence requirement on the face of the Bill. With respect, I do not see that that adds anything to what we have proposed. The regulations will ensure that no one is appointed to the police service who is not resident in the United Kingdom or, in the case of members of other EEA states, has the right to live and work here.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, proposes that we make the language requirement, the immigration status requirement and the power to reserve posts mandatory for the police forces of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and otherwise leave this to the discretion of the other police forces covered by this clause.
It is our clear intention to provide requirements in respect of competence in English and immigration status for forces in England and Wales. We shall consult with colleagues in the devolved administrations to determine their intentions and will consider introducing an amendment in the other place. While we also need to be able to reserve certain posts, this may not be the case in every force covered by the clause; for example, the Royal Parks Police. There may well be others. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to impose a mandatory requirement to make provision for reserving posts. That element at least should remain discretionary. Given the clear commitment I have given to reflect further on Amendment No. 33, to pick up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and having heard all that I have said about the other requirements and the way in which we intend to manage those issues, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his important, well argued amendment which has regard to the operation of this legislation in the context of other legislation that is going through Parliament.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I hope that he will clarify a comment he made towards the end of his speech which I found rather alarming. He said on three occasions that recruits should be lawfully resident in the United Kingdom. However, towards the end of his speech he said that they should be resident in the United Kingdom or be members of other EEA states. Does that mean that Norwegians, Spaniards, Belgians or whatever could join the police force without having been resident in the United Kingdom at all?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is not our intention. I thought that I had made that plain. If I did not, I apologise to the noble Lord. We expect recruits to be normally resident in the United Kingdom. I thought that the explanation I gave made that clear.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord kindly said that the Government would table an amendment in

403
another place. Is that intended to clarify subsection (4)? If so, it would be welcome as well as necessary, I suggest.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, one hopes that it would be based on the noble Lord's amendment which we shall take away and reflect on further. If the noble Lord is satisfied with that reply, it probably answers his question.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is interesting, to say the least, to note that the Government are reluctant to include within one Bill phraseology which would apply to another. In this instance it seems to me that the question of citizenship is less significant than the qualification to become a policeman who has power over citizens. I am a little disappointed that the Government apparently are not prepared to consider the possible translocation of the nationality naturalisation requirements into qualifications for joining the police force. We are in that perennial difficulty which we have on these occasions in that the Bill before us is dependent on regulations which we do not have before us. The Minister has gone a long way to relieve us of the concerns that have been expressed. However, I cannot say that his response was wholly satisfactory. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Powers of the Secretary of State in relation to NCIS and NCS]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 92, line 42, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this amendment. On Report the House voted to accept our amendment to remove Clause 5 which conferred power to give directions to chief officers. Grouped with that amendment was an amendment to leave out paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 which concerns the power to give directions to the directors general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad respectively. Due to an oversight, that amendment was not moved at that stage. As a result there is an inconsistency in the Bill. The Minister kindly wrote to suggest that we might like to correct that oversight. I am immensely grateful to him for pointing that out. I do not think that any further discussion is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am at liberty to disclose the contents of my brief which states "Accept".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Powers exercisable by police civilians]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 128, line 17, leave out paragraph 2.
404
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 37 to 58—with the exception of Amendment No. 52, which is separately grouped—are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. They relate to Schedule 4. I shall be brief.
The amendments deal with powers that are exercised by police civilians—the so-called community support officers. We do not believe that CSOs should have powers to detain. When the liberty of an individual is concerned, we should ensure that the power of detention is exercised by a constable. However, paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 goes much further. It involves the powers of police civilians to detain. Where that person has reason to believe that another person has committed a relevant offence in the relevant police area, he may require the other person to give him his name and address. We believe that such powers should be vested in a constable, not in a civilian who is exercising police powers. Nor should they use reasonable force to detain, as specified in paragraph 4. We stress that the exercise of any such powers that are conferred should be done in the company of and under the supervision of a police constable.
I do not intend to speak to each of the amendments in the group. Almost all of the amendments relate to the exercise of powers that are under the direction or supervision of a constable. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I ask the Minister to deal with the question that I raised in Committee about whether paragraph 2 contains a power to arrest and detain. Or is that power merely to be found in paragraph 4?
As I understand it, paragraph 2 states that if the community support officer sees a relevant offence being committed, he has the right to request the man to give his name and address. If the man fails to do so or fails to comply with his request that he should remain with the officer or go with him to a police station, in so doing he is committing an offence. So far as I can see, that is different from having the power to detain or arrest that person. To find the power to arrest that person, one surely has to look to paragraph 4 of Schedule 4, which gives him the power to use reasonable force to detain a person during a period of 30 minutes. I may be wrong, but do the powers in paragraph 4 cover a wider area than those in paragraph 2? If so, is it deliberate that paragraph 2 does not appear to have a right to detain and arrest and merely makes it an offence if one refuses to respond to the individual's request? Is the power to arrest meant to operate in a more limited area?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I accept that Schedules 4 and 5 are pretty weighty and lengthy, although they essentially list a menu of powers. Before I respond in detail, I place on the record the fact that we believe that we have enough safeguards to ensure that the powers that we are discussing are used appropriately.

405
The thrust of the legislation is that chief constables must be satisfied that the person is suitable to carry out the relevant functions, capable of carrying them out and—I could say, "above all else"—is trained to carry out those functions. The Bill also provides that a designation cannot authorise or require conduct beyond the specified function. That ensures that the people concerned only exercise powers and perform functions for which they have been assessed as suitable and capable and have been fully trained. That is why I said, in Committee or on Report, that the Metropolitan Police will have three categories and train specifically for those categories.
The chief constable can place restrictions and conditions on a designation. That will ensure that chief officers can mould the extension of powers to fit the policing of an area. It is important to point out that that is a matter for the chief constable, not for the Government. For example, a community support officer may be restricted geographically to ensure that a particular area is focused on. As I said earlier, communities that have a community support officer will know that that officer cannot be moved to other areas at a later date. It will be up to chief officers to decide what restrictions, if any, should be placed on the designation. That arrangement will provide flexibility.
The clause explicitly covers legal responsibility for misconduct by designated persons. We have made it abundantly clear that the people designated, who are employed by the police authority and are under the direction and control of the chief constable, will come within the remit of the independent police complaints commission and will be obliged to have regard to the relevant PACE codes of conduct.
The menu of powers in Schedule 4 is strictly limited. Paragraph 2(3) contains the power to impose a requirement to wait with the community support officer for 30 minutes. Paragraph 4 contains the power to use reasonable force in making that person stay. That is where the connection is. However, the powers are strictly limited.
Police officers have a wide range of powers and duties which enable them to tackle all kinds of criminal behaviour and public safety functions. Community support officers, on the other hand, will have a much narrower role. We envisage their role to be increasing visibility, to be a uniformed presence on the streets and to address anti-social behaviour, public nuisance and disorder. That will free up the time of police officers. However, their precise range of functions will be decided locally from the menu of powers.
In order to have the maximum impact in communities, we believe that chief officers should have the option of giving appropriate and limited enforcement powers to community support officers. The community support officer will have a very important role in the community. If we prevent them from exercising the full extent of those powers, or make it clear that they can exercise them only in the presence of a constable, their effectiveness, frankly, will probably not be worth a candle. Moreover, no chief constable would seek to use the powers.
406
I do not believe that any of the powers in the Bill would let any chief officer give community support officers powers that were inappropriate. There are a massive number of checks and balances in the menu in Schedule 4.
If a chief officer has any concerns about a community support officer's ability to exercise the powers for which he has been trained, he will not issue a designation to that officer. If something goes wrong, he can withdraw or restrict the existing designation. The power is an operational one for the chief constable.
Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 would require investigating officers to be supervised and in the company of a constable when exercising a number of their powers of search and seizure. The amendments would undermine the whole purpose of having designated persons to free up police officers from doing certain tasks. What we are aiming for are properly trained investigating officers who can perform their functions without having to be constantly supervised or shadowed by a police constable.
Similarly, Amendments Nos. 48 to 58 are unnecessary. As noble Lords are aware, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides strong safeguards in relation to how people are treated in the police station. Many of the duties that we want properly trained officers to carry out can be performed only on the authorisation of a police officer. In many cases, that authorisation will come from an officer of at least the rank of inspector. For example, a custody officer will instruct a detention officer to undertake a non-intimate search of someone who is detained. An officer of at least inspector rank will have to authorise the search and examination to ascertain a person's identity. Where intimate samples and fingerprints are taken from a detained person without his consent, a senior officer must authorise their taking where he has reasonable grounds to believe that the sample or the fingerprint will tend to confirm or disprove, as the case may be, the person's involvement in a recordable offence.
I believe that satisfactory measures are contained in the paragraph, and I do not wish to go through each of them in turn. On the other hand, I shall be happy to do so because, if Amendment No. 37, which is the lead amendment in this group with Amendment No. 36 not having been moved, is carried—the others are not consequential amendments—I have no authority whatever from the Home Secretary to cave in. Therefore, noble Lords will be required to vote on each amendment. I make that absolutely clear. It is not a threat; I am simply explaining the situation. I do not want noble Lords to say later, "You didn't tell us". That is the situation.
Noble Lords should bear in mind the safeguards that we have given here and the authority of the chief constable to use this enabling power. I repeat: it will be the chief constable and not the Home Secretary who decides whether to use the power. Some chief constables will do so; others will not bother. In effect, as

407
I said earlier—obviously to no great effect—we shall have a pilot organised by the chief constables of this country. I believe that that is a suitable and adequate way to show that we have confidence in chief constables in terms of operational issues to operate these powers in a reasonable fashion. After all, it is all about getting a greater uniformed presence on the street.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, I hope that I answered his question in my comments about paragraph 2(3) containing the power to impose a requirement to wait with the community support officer for 30 minutes. Subparagraph (4) contains the power to use reasonable force in making the person stay.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, is the noble Lord confirming that in order to find a power to arrest and detain one must look at paragraph 4 of the schedule and not paragraph 2? As he said, paragraph 2 sets out the ability to require an individual to give a name and to ask him to stay. Paragraph 4 gives the power to use reasonable force to detain the man against his will. That is obviously arrest and detention. Therefore, I am asking whether paragraphs 2 and 4 apply to the same type of offence or whether one is wider than the other. Is there a power to detain in some cases but not in others?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a power to request the name and address of a person acting in an anti-social manner. Community support officers will have that power. There is a power to detain a person for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable or, indeed, to accompany that person to a police station with the person's agreement. There is a power to use reasonable force to detain a person or to prevent him from making off. Community support officers have those powers. There is no power of arrest there. The power of arrest lies with the constable. We must make that clear. We are dealing with the waiting period until the constable arrives because the constable will have the power of arrest.
In Committee, we deployed some of the practicalities in terms of the situations in which people might find themselves. However, as I made clear then, people would not be expected to be put into situations of danger above their training. That is important and it is a matter of common sense. Therefore, one person would not be asked to detain, for example, a gang of youths.
I do not know whether one power is wider than another in the way that the noble Lord suggested. Part 1 of Schedule 4 relates to community support officers. I must be careful as I do not want to confuse the extended police family with the accredited officers. Therefore, I shall not go into that matter because paragraph 4 is exclusive to community support officers. It gives them the power to detain a person who acts in an anti-social manner and who, having been asked for his name and address, refuses to give them. Such a power must be given, otherwise the whole process would fall apart.
408
The power enables the use of reasonable force to detain a person for 30 minutes and to prevent him from making off until a constable arrives. We hope that the constable would arrive within 30 minutes. I do not know whether one power is wider than another, but it is clear that the power to detain in paragraph 2 and, indeed, paragraph 4, which concerns the power to use reasonable force to detain a person, are both covered by several hundred words.
In terms of the noble Lord's question, I do not know which power would be wider. But the fact is that one gives the power to detain and the other gives the power to use reasonable force in order to stop a person making off while awaiting a constable. If I do not have that right, it is a little late to say at Third Reading that I shall write to the noble Lord—I must be realistic about this. But I shall certainly ensure that the matter is put right in the other place.
I am at risk of repeating myself but, if noble Lords wish me to do so, I can give an exposition of each detail of all the separate powers covered by the amendments. I repeat that if Amendment No. 37 is carried, I shall have to ask for the will of the House on all the other amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord is doing his best to explain but I am still confused. In relation to paragraph 2, where someone is alleged to have committed an offence, then the CSO, or whoever, can ask him to remain for a period not exceeding 30 minutes to await the arrival of a constable. Under paragraph 3, where a person is said to have been acting in an anti-social manner, he can be asked to give his name and address, but the paragraph does not contain a power equivalent to that in paragraph 2 to ask him to remain for 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable. Nor does the power to detain in paragraph 4(3) contain any reference back to the failure of the person in the spotlight to have given a name and address or to remain for a period of 30 minutes while a police constable is fetched. It refers back only to paragraph 2.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, noble Lords must remember that this is a menu of powers for community support officers. They may have some powers and not others. Only chief constables can decide that; not the Home Secretary. The menu of powers is used according to local circumstances and according to the area—perhaps the geographical area—where the chief constable has decided that community support officers are needed. Some powers are used and not others.
It is not for me to speak for chief constables—far from it. But it is extremely unlikely that community support officers will be given every one of these powers. That will probably not be the case. With regard to London, it has already been made clear that the Metropolitan Police want three classifications of community support officers who will be specialists in the areas in which they operate. They will have the

409
powers, taken from the menu, to deal with a certain area, but they will not have other powers. It is not a package; it is a menu.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry but the noble Lord has not dealt with the point that I made. Under paragraph 2, if a person fails to comply with the requirement, he can be asked to remain with the CSO for a period not exceeding 30 minutes while awaiting the arrival of a constable. However, under paragraph 3, if that person refuses to give his name and address after having acted in an anti-social manner, then there is no equivalent power for the CSO to ask him to remain on the spot for 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall try to get this right. So far as concerns the issue of anti-social behaviour, there is a power to ask a person to remain if the person does not give his name and address. Essentially, the first thing that the officer will do is to ask for an address in order to identify the person concerned. That is the effect of paragraph 3(2). In either case, paragraph 4 gives the power to use reasonable force to detain while awaiting a constable. I almost said "chief constable" but I do not believe we have yet reached the point where a chief constable is sent out on these matters.
So, there is the power to ask to remain if the person does not give his name and address. That is the effect of paragraph 3(2), but in either case, paragraph 4 gives the power to use reasonable force to detain until the constable arrives. It will be the constable who makes the arrest, not the community support officer.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. We have argued about these particular matters at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and we agree to disagree in terms of the powers vested in some of the support officers. I could never accept that they will have the same standard of professionalism as police officers. There is a need for great caution to be exercised here. I do not know whether the Minister has ever worked out the implication of letting loose some of those people in the streets of some of our inner city areas. What started off as being the eyes and ears of the police we are now making into little police officers. I believe that that is unacceptable. The best way to resolve the argument is to test the opinion of the House.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 168; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L

Astor, V.

Addington, L.

Astor of Hever, L

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Attlee, E.

Arran, E.

Avebury, L.

410

Barker, B.

Luke, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lyell, L.

Blaker, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Boardman, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McNally, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Maddock, B.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L

Byford, B.

Methuen, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Monson, L.

Chadlington, L.

Montrose, D.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Newby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Northover, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dholakia, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elles, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L

Patten, L.

Falkland, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fearn, L.

Peel, E.

Feldman, L.

Plumb, L.

Ferrers, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fookes, B.

Quinton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Razzall, L.

Freeman, L.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rees, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rennard, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roper, L.

Hanson, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Haslam, L.

Sandberg, L.

Henley, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Higgins, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Selborne,E.

Holderness, L.

Selsdon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sharman, L.

Hooper, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jacobs, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stewartby, L.

Jopling, L.

Strathclyde, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Liverpool, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

411

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wilcox, B.

Walmsley, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Wolfson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Alli, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Andrews, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jones, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jordan, L.

Bach, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Layard, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Borrie, L.

Listowel, E.

Brennan, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Burlison, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Mitchell, L.

Chandos, V.

Morgan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Condon, L.

Nicol, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Parekh, L.

Crawley, B.

Pendry, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Peston, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Puttnam, L.

Desai, L.

Radice, L.

Donoughue, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rooker, L.

Filkin, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Gale, B.

Sandwich, E.

Gavron, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sewel, L.

Gilbert, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grocott, L.

Strange, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Harrison, L.

Tenby, V.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hylton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 51 not moved.]
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 137, line 3, leave out paragraph 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 52 stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Harris and myself. It is grouped with Amendments Nos. 59 and 60. The amendment is about intimate searches of detained persons.
I shall not deal at any length with what today appeared in the Guardian. We have already had an interesting discussion on that matter. I want to record my considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has brought a breath of fresh air into your Lordships' House. He has often put aside his written papers and has not hesitated to criticise government departments about their handling of some past issues. I never believed that any civil servants would have the courage to tell the noble Lord what he should or should not say. But I am sure that someone will pay a very heavy price for such advice.
I raised this matter on Report. The information obviously was not available, particularly in relation to the code of practice. I have rather belatedly now received that information. I intend to study it very carefully. I shall then advise my colleagues in the other place accordingly.
I want to make one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, mentioned on Report that Code of Practice C, which contains guidance on the conduct of intimate searches, is currently under review. I should like to know when that review is likely to be completed—the consultation process and so on. The Minister indicated that the consultation will be completed before the matter goes to the House of Commons.
We should not confuse intimate searches of police detainees with those done in privatised prisons. People who are detained in police custody are innocent until proved guilty. I used to receive most complaints about that concern when I was at the Police Complaints Authority. Of course there will be instances where such examinations are necessary, but, I suspect, only in isolated cases. That is why safeguards, including the authority of a senior officer, are required when carrying out such searches.
We accept that doctors and nurses in those few and isolated cases are best equipped to carry out this process. Occasionally, due to unavailability of doctors and nurses, custody officers with police powers may have to perform such searches. Again, there are considerable safeguards in relation to that particular power.
A complaint that I often receive is that not only does one feel physically abused but that often this is accompanied by verbal abuse. It is a degrading practice, both for the victim and for the officers. No one disputes that sometimes it may be necessary. But in this present day and age, with all the available electronic gadgets and systems, is it necessary to resort to this particular level of intimate search? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, at

413
the start of his remarks. So far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. I am also grateful for his brevity in moving the amendment which has been before us three times.
In some ways I presume that the Guardian published not just the background notes but the speaking notes. I might as well say, "It is on the table". It is exactly the same as what I said on 16th April. I have nothing new to add. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has kindly set out, in moving the amendment, the circumstances in which currently a police constable and in future a designated detention officer can conduct an intimate search for potentially dangerous articles. They are extremely limited.
As I said before, under Section 55 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act such a search may be carried out only with the authority of a senior officer. Authority can only be given if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has concealed on his person an item which may cause physical injury to himself or to others. The senior officer must also have reasonable grounds to believe that the item cannot be found in any other way.
The noble Lord made the point about the modern use of technology. An intimate search is only made if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an item is there and that it cannot be discovered in any other way. Any search must be conducted by a registered doctor or a nurse, unless that senior officer authorising the search considers it is not practicable, for example, where he reasonably suspects that the person has concealed a harmful article on himself, such as a razor blade and no doctor or nurse is available to conduct the search. Of course the person carrying out the search must be of the same sex as the detainee. I do not think that I have mentioned that specifically. That is part of the existing rules. That is not changing.
Although all these things come later than one would wish, following our exchange on 16th April I wrote to the noble Lord about the intention to revise the codes of practice. The draft codes of practice will be issued shortly—I understand that it will be very shortly. I do not have a specific date, but I have reason to believe that it will be during next month. I have said that it would be for the convenience of Members of the other House that that consultation is open and in public—certainly by the time that they come to consider the matter in Committee; otherwise, I freely admit that the Minister or Ministers in that Committee will get a pretty rough ride from Members of Parliament. That is the plain fact of the matter. I cannot give a specific date—I have not myself seen the drafts—but they will be available shortly. Of course, as soon as they are, they will be made available to your Lordships' House.
In addition to the consultation, the House itself will in due course have the opportunity to scrutinise the codes through the affirmative resolution procedure. So there is no question of our publishing the codes, consulting, and then ramming them through the other place—to use that or any other pejorative term.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. When he says that the
414
relevant codes of practice will be laid before the House, does he also have in mind paragraph 39 of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Bill? It states:
"We recommend that the Government should place before each House whatever information is available about the nature and content of the training which such officers would be required to undergo"—
when they exercise their functions under the codes of practice.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, without having been given notice of that question, I cannot be certain. All that I can say is that previously—certainly in Committee—we discussed the new organisation for police training. Everything that can be placed in the public domain will be. We do not intend to keep anything back from Members of the House at any point.
We are discussing with the police training providers and the Metropolitan Police what areas and competences will need to be covered in training for community support officers and accredited community safety officers. Those will include training on understanding the extent of their powers, as well as on communication, first aid, understanding diversity and conflict resolution. It is crucial that training is conducted professionally, and I have every reason to believe that the police themselves are at the Forefront in that. That is why the new organisation—whose acronym I can never remember; it has about five letters; but I think that it goes under the working title of Centrex—will deal with that. Without warning, I cannot tell my noble friend what will be available for publication.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, did not refer specifically to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, but I am happy to speak to them because they are relevant. They would restrict escort officers' powers to conduct a search by restricting the grounds to search to situations in which the escort officers reasonably suspect a person to be in possession of an object likely to cause harm or injury. If those amendments are not to be moved, I shall not waste the House's time.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, they will not be moved.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, then I shall not waste the House's time. I have a good case, but I am not being allowed to make it. I do not want to speak for the sake of speaking.
On Amendment No. 52, we have the matter covered in the narrow and specific group of circumstances that I have again put on record. No doubt the matter will also be discussed in the other place, but I genuinely hope that I have given the noble Lord a reasonable explanation of the matter that he has legitimately raised for the third time.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. There are some deeply held principles to which we all hold, and it is for that

415
reason that we ought to have on record our concern about the clause. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
6.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Addington, L.

Monson, L.

Avebury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barker, B.

Newby, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Northover, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Razzall, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rennard, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Fearn, L.

Russell, E.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Sandberg, L.

Fookes, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Goodhart, L.

Selborne, E.

Hamwee, B.

Selsdon, L.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Sharman, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jacobs, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lyell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNally, L.

Walmsley, B.

Maddock, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wigoder, L.

Methuen, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Desai,L.

Alli, L.

Donoughue, L.

Andrews, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Blackstone, B.

Filkin, L.

Borrie, L.

Gale, B.

Brennan, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brett, L

Gilbert, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goudie, B.

Brookman, L.

Grabiner, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grenfell, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Grocott, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hardy of Wath, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harrison, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Haskel, L.

Condon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Crawley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hylton, L.

416

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Prys-Davies, L.

Puttnam, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Radice, L.

Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Jordan, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Richard, L.

Layard, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Rooker, L.

Lipsey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Sewel, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Massey of Darwen, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tenby, V.

Mitchell, L.

Thornton, B.

Morgan, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Whitaker, B.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Parekh, L.

Wilkins, B.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.54 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 60 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Powers exercisable by accredited persons]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 141, line 11, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 61 returns to the theme that we adopted in relation to community support officers. In this instance, we are concerned with accredited persons.
We still think that it is inappropriate to give the power to detain to people who are not proper police officers. One can envisage considerable problems over time, as accredited people detain people here, there and everywhere. That act of detention will be completely ineffective without the fairly rapid attendance—within 30 minutes—of a police constable. We have argued all along that we ought to use any resources available to the police to bring more constables onto the streets.
This measure is, at best, a stopgap. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made the important point that the power to detain and arrest is immensely significant. Such action should be undertaken only by a constable. In any event, the power of arrest can be exercised only by a constable, which negates the rather feeble power to detain given to the accredited persons.
There is no point in detaining the House any longer over Amendment No. 61. Amendments Nos. 62 to 67 pick up some of the powers of the community support officers and would make them applicable under the supervision of a constable. There might be circumstances in which that was helpful. However, those are, in a sense, secondary issues, compared with the first issue, which we regard as a matter of principle.

417
I hope that enough has been said on the subject at previous stages and already today to remove the need for me to say more. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the amendment. As has been said, accredited persons will have powers to stop someone whom they suspect of having committed an offence and hold him for 30 minutes, while they call for a constable.
Only real policemen should have the power to detain. In any case, I do not believe that one could get a constable to attend a low-level crime within 30 minutes: ask anyone who has had his car radio stolen or his fence broken. The warden will hold the person for 30 minutes, looking at his watch every second. If the constable does not arrive in time, the warden will have to let that person go. That is plain daft.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this last group is a somewhat strange group of amendments, bearing in mind some of the debates that we have had.
There is a recognition in some of the amendments of the enhanced role that the accredited persons can play. In fact, some of the amendments add to the powers that the Government wish to make available to chief constables; that might be a way of telling us that we have got our approach right, notwithstanding the speeches made by noble Lords. Some of the amendments would add to Schedule 5 and, therefore, they go against the thrust of amendments proposed by noble Lords that sought to remove powers from community support officers. It is an astonishing group of amendments, if taken literally.
Although there are just a few amendments in the group, there are some that add to the powers in Schedule 5, some that remove the powers and some that limit the powers. In preparing the schedule, we worked hard to ensure that we extended to those people not employed or deployed by the chief constable only strictly limited powers. Thus I do not think that any of the amendments in this group which seek to add to the powers for this group of people, who are not part of the police service, are at all appropriate.
There is a massive contradiction here. The noble Lord seeks to confer powers that we have defined as those which should be given only to people employed by the chief constable—community support officers—on people who are not part of the police. It does not matter how closely employers might work with the police, they retain responsibility for their employees. I do not think that even local authorities would be willing to accredit their own staff undertaking, say, community regeneration work, powers such as, for example, the ability to enforce cordons under the Terrorism Acts. It is weird.
Although these provisions are enabling, I do not think that chief officers would want someone outside their direction and control, even if supervised by a police officer, to perform such essential functions. The strength of warden schemes, shopping centre security guards and others outside the criminal justice system who contribute to community safety is that they are
418
committed to their communities. They tackle issues and concerns which are important to them. We believe that Schedule 5 is tightly limited to people in those roles.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out in his brief contribution, it is true that the power to use reasonable force to detain a person in order to prevent him or her from making off is there for a community support officer, an employee of the chief constable, but is not there for an accredited person. However, it is true that the power to ask a person who has refused to give his name and address to wait for 30 minutes is available to both. The noble Lord cited an example of where that might not be practicable. Ultimately, it will come down to training and the choice of chief constables as to which powers they will seek to deploy.
I shall keep my remarks brief, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. However, I have to say to the House that, as was the case with an earlier grouping, Amendments Nos. 62 to 67 are not consequential amendments. If Amendment No. 61 is carried, I shall have to ask the view of the House on the other amendments. Because the amendments are not consequential, I have no authority whatever from the Home Secretary simply to cave in on them. It would not be appropriate.
Because I have not been in this House for very long and because the procedures at Third Reading are not quite the same here as they are in the other place, I appreciate that this may be the last time today when I shall be on my feet to address the House. Although later I shall move a technical privilege amendment on the final part of the Bill, I should like to take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for all their contributions to our many debates. To put it at its mildest, I have found this to be quite an interesting Bill.
I thank also the Bill team. The excellent staff have given me first-class notes, some of which I have used and some of which I have not. In particular I should like to thank my colleagues on the Front Bench, my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lord Davies for their contributions. I should like also to thank all those who actually voted with the Government. It goes without saying that that has been very helpful, although at the moment we have a bad track record of votes.
To that end, I must give notice that in the other place the Home Secretary will seek to restore, whether in the same or in an amended form, most of the provisions that have been removed from the Bill. At some point in the summer, probably when we should all be elsewhere, I look forward to coming back to the House to debate with noble Lords some of these issues.
In the meantime, I ask the House not to accept Amendment No. 61. If it is carried, then we shall have to seek further opinions on the remainder of the amendments in the group.
7 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has made a powerful case in relation to the amendments following Amendment 61 in this group. He will be

419
relieved to hear, therefore, that we intend to withdraw them, thus eliminating one of his concerns. I can see that relief reflected on the face of the Government Chief Whip on the Front Bench.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord would have to move the remaining amendments in the grouping before he would be able to withdraw them.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 61, we have devoted a great deal of time to the question of the power to detain. Again, I see no point in repeating those arguments. However, before I come to the crux of the matter, because the Minister has offered his thanks and rather than speak on Bill do now pass, I should like to place on the record the fact that it has been a great pleasure to deal with this Bill.
In all seriousness, I would like to thank the Minister for the many concessions he has made throughout the Bill on consultation and so forth. He has proved to be a listening Minister and he has paid attention to what has been said. Although we have not always agreed, our disagreements have been amicable. As it leaves the House, the Bill is different and much-improved.
I now return to Amendment No. 61. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Elton for a little piece of doggerel which provides a happy means of closing my remarks. It runs as follows:
"'The power to arrest's not invested In you,' my young suspect protested; So I thought it best To sit on his chest— 'Tweren't 'im but 'is 'eart was arrested".
I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Burnham, L.

Addington, L.

Buscombe, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Byford, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chadlington, L.

Attlee, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Avebury, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Barker, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Blackwell, L.

Colwyn, L.

Blaker, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Blatch, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Boardman, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

420

Falkland, V.

Noakes, B.

Fearn, L.

Northesk, E.

Feldman, L.

Northover, B.

Ferrers, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Flather, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Fookes, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Onslow, E.

Freeman, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Geddes, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Glentoran, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goodhart, L.

Patten, L.

Goschen, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hamwee, B.

Peel, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Plumb, L.

Haslam, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Quinton, L.

Higgins, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Razzall, L.

Hogg,B.

Reay, L.

Holderness, L.

Redesdale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rees, L.

Hooper, B.

Rennard, L.

Howe, E.

Renton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Roper, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Jacobs, L.

Russell, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Sandberg, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Jopling, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

King of Bridgwater, L.

Selborne, E.

Kingsland, L.

Selsdon, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Sharman, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Liverpool, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lucas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Luke, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lyell, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stewartby, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Strathclyde, L.

Swinfen, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Vivian, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wigoder, L.

Monson, L.

Wilcox, B.

Montrose, D.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wolfson, L.

Newby, L.

Young of Grafmam, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Brennan, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brett, L.

Alli, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brookman, L.

Andrews, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Bach, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Blackstone, B.

Condon, L.

Borrie, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

421

Craig of Radley.L.

Lipsey, L.

Crawley, B.

Listowel, E.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai,L

Massey of Darwen, B.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morgan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pendry, L.

Filkin, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Gale, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gilbert, L.

Radice, L.

Goudie, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grabiner, L.

Richard, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grocott, L

Rooker, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hollis of Heigham.B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tenby.V.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Thornton, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hylton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Weatherill, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitaker, B.

Kirkhill.L.

Whitty.L.

Layard, L.

Wilkins, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.16 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 67 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Speeding
7.17 p.m.
Viscount Tenbyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what long-term plans they have to deal with the problems of speeding by drivers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to have a brief debate on speeding. No doubt some of the far-reaching views expressed today will not, for various reasons, find favour, but I wish to extend our horizons in considering this most intractable of problems.
422
I begin by declaring an interest. Like perhaps 90 per cent of all noble Lords I have been guilty of speeding, and it would perhaps be ungenerous of me to suggest that the remaining 10 per cent of us who deny it are being economical with the truth. So we have a problem, but one which is more insidious and difficult to resolve than, say, drink driving which, through the goodwill of the public and their gut feeling that the practice was generally unacceptable, has, in the relatively short period of about 30 years, effected a complete change in the attitude of society.
Speeding is not regarded in the same light. So much so indeed that any attempt to enforce limits is somehow regarded as unfair and an underhand method of raising tax. What a load of—I am trying to think of a suitably serious parliamentary word—tosh. I wish all tax were like that— payable only through one's own choice. I can think of no other area where the law is ignored to such an extent, either through defiance, carelessness or ignorance.
That inevitably leads one to the conclusion that either the law is wrong or that people's perceptions are wrong and must be changed round. Hand in hand with enforcement there must be what Mr Edmund King, the director of the RAC Foundation, has called,
"an intelligent and flexible approach to speed limits".
I do not have the time to refer to statistics, although I am sure that others will do so today. But it may be worth reminding the House that speeding contributed to more than 1,000 deaths and 12,500 serious injuries last year. Were either the railways or the domestic airlines to produce even a quarter of those figures there would rightly be an outcry, and, in the case of the former, almost certainly the virtual closing-down of the system once again.
Before dealing with specific suggestions for discussion and evaluation, perhaps I may refer in passing to the role of the car manufacturers and the advertising industry. To put it candidly, sex and speed sell cars. Leaving aside the first, about which, alas, I am not qualified to speak, I find it hard to accept the social responsibility of car makers who produce models capable of going at twice the legal limit on any road outside a German autobahn, and advertisers who aid and abet them in their promotion, sometimes with the weasel provision—I take a phrase at random—"where, of course, such speed is permitted". Ha, ha! Perhaps manufacturers could make a start by emphasising the illegal zones on a car's speedometer—and the cynics among us may add, "and perhaps pigs may fly".
I am a firm believer in the use of speed cameras nay, in their proliferation. I congratulate the Government warmly on getting the Treasury to agree to hypothecation in this respect. It was a notable triumph which had eluded most governments previously. Of course, the value of speed cameras lies not only in the primary objective of deterring speeding, but strategically placed—that is, at road junctions, roundabouts or crossings—they can deter other forms of anti-social driving behaviour as well.

423
Some 50 per cent of police forces have now signed up to the "netting-off" scheme, which has already produced considerable results in accident reduction. On average, 47 per cent fewer people are killed or seriously injured at the camera sites, and there has been an average decrease from 55 per cent to 16 per cent in the number of drivers speeding there. Can the Minister and his colleagues persuade the remaining forces to follow suit? The greater the number of fines imposed, the greater the number of cameras coming on stream.
Let us not have too much huffing and puffing about either resources or finding appropriate sites. In the first instance, I should have thought that the use of speed cameras is the one area of police activity that does not require the use of front-line personnel. Surely, administrative staff or retired officers could be used to load and unload cameras correctly. As to the positioning of such cameras, while I commend the Government's initiative in reducing accident figures by urging local forces to identify black-spots and to target them, the whole point about hypothecation is that it enables forces to be proactive rather than reactive. Why should a community have to wait for a death before a camera is installed?
It is, of course, essential that cameras should be clearly visible in every case, but let us please do away once and for all with siting them on the same old patches which were simply convenient for the police in helping them to get a conviction under the old measuring methods and which often bear little relation to real danger areas.
Police resources are often referred to as "stretched", and not having seen a speed trap for over 10 years I can believe that. So perhaps we can take down and brush the dust off the daring plan of floating off a separate traffic force, leaving the police to deal with crime. A useful spin-off would no doubt be the removal of any residual bitterness towards the police as a result of prosecution for a motoring offence and, in consequence, a greater willingness to co-operate with them over criminal matters. It would also mean that whenever there was a manning crisis—in the wake, for example, of an event such as took place on 11th September—our roads would not be stripped of officers.
On the same note, if the use of cameras on a large scale becomes a reality in the years ahead, there will justifiably be concern about the alienation of drivers. I understand that. That is why I ask the noble Lord and his colleagues to consider very carefully the following: the re-evaluation and reassessment of all existing limits on a national basis, bearing in mind that many were established when the biggest threat to safety was from Mr. Toad; the speeding up of the process by which limits may be changed, which, of course, might be up as well as down; simplification in the presentation of signs, coupled with, wherever possible, a commitment to dispense with a multiplicity of different limits within a comparatively small area; and a review governing the restriction on repeater signs. Lastly, before leaving the topic of enforcement,
424
have the Government any observations to make on the development and use of so-called "smart" cameras—ones that could, say, film and record during a sensitive time, such as 7 a.m. to midnight, but not be activated in the early hours when excessive speeding is less likely to have adverse social repercussions?
It may well be that the law, too, has a part to play if more rigorous enforcement of the speeding laws results, as it surely will, in a steep rise in speeding tickets. Already, there is a welcome development in that some of the hypothecated funds are being diverted to magistrates' courts' committees in order to enable courts to engage extra staff to deal with the increased workload. But I should like to make two further points. First, zero tolerance, as police forces throughout the country have sensibly and quietly concluded, is simply self-defeating, no matter what pressure there may be from various interest groups, and indeed from Europe. Secondly, the present elasticity given to Benches in the award of penalty points for speeding offences may have to be reexamined if we are not to have half the population in danger of disqualification as "totters".
Clearly, excessive and deliberate speeding must be dealt with severely, but what I would call routine, almost absent-minded speeding should be dealt with by using common sense as to disposal in local courts. I say this even though I am aware that the end product of an unwelcome accident will often be the same whatever the state of mind of the driver causing it. I believe that the best way to bring about acceptance of limits is through the pocket and not by wholesale disqualification through the totting-up of penalty points, because that will only lead to far-reaching consequences in enforcement and the possibility of far more serious motoring offences being committed as a result.
This is a serious problem and part of that seriousness lies in the refusal of people generally to accept it as serious. The all-pervading presence of the car, coach, van and lorry, to say nothing of today's equivalent of the light tank, the off-road vehicle, which is much more likely to be found in Chelsea than in the Grampians, poses a threat not just to sensitive urban, and particularly deprived urban, areas, but also to rural communities. It is essential that we begin to get to grips with the problem, and to do so as part of a deliverable and acceptable national policy in relation to excessive speed. I look forward to hearing tonight that the Government accept that challenge with imagination and resolve.
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I congratulate my good friend, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, not only on introducing the debate, but on the fact that it has been extended to one and a half hours. That was a stroke of genius! But, to be very serious, I am not quite sure why we are having the debate in the first place. After all, no one exceeds the speed limit—it is always the other driver who exceeds the speed limit, not me!

425
I should advise those noble Lords who may not know, that, as a civilian, I obtained the Class 1 police driving certificate many years ago; that I examine advanced motorists; that I go on traffic patrol with many constabularies on a regular basis; and that my next police driving course is booked for early June.
In London, in the year 2000, there were 284 collisions which resulted in fatalities, and there were 14 collision investigators. In 2001, the number of fatalities had increased by 33.2 per cent and, in slightly in excess of that 12-month period, the number of traffic officers had been reduced by approximately 50 per cent. Currently, because of the Safer Streets initiative, there has been a further reduction in traffic officers and accident investigators. In contrast, in the year 2000, there were 171 murders in London, and approximately 1,200 detectives to conduct investigations. If my maths is correct, that equates to 11.69 detectives per murder and 20.38 road deaths per investigator. In each case, the individual is equally dead and, as a direct result, each accident investigator is working flat out because each crash resulting in either death or serious injury has to be investigated, whereas there is a team for each murder investigation.
It is also worth mentioning that there are slightly fewer than 400 police officers currently employed on traffic duties in London, whereas in 1983 there were about 1,200, and that is despite the number of vehicles on the roads increasing dramatically. It is ironic to recall the words of a friend who retired from the police as a traffic inspector many years ago. He always maintained that the easiest way to murder someone without much chance of detection was in a road crash.
So, is speed an issue? Consider this: which will cause more injury and damage, a car travelling at 30 miles per hour or the same car travelling at 60 miles per hour? The laws of physics dictate that the latter will do more damage than the former. How many people are killed or injured by a stationary vehicle? Not many, I can assure your Lordships, who might have overlooked people falling off buses.
The media seem to glorify speeding. I have been told that the presenter of a programme on BBC2 on Monday spent several minutes throwing two production cars around a racing circuit. Who in their right minds would contemplate that style of driving on our roads? But the media do! To inform us that a car has a top speed of 250 mph and can accelerate from 0 to 100 miles per hour in 1.8 seconds is of extreme importance to a racing driver but has no relevance to everyday driving, especially when one is stuck in a traffic jam.
I admit that television programmes are supposed to attract viewers and that newspapers and magazines are there to make a profit for their company, but when will they take road safety seriously? Probably never, or at least not until they are no longer allowed to worship the concept of speed. When will we legislators, the media and police officers realise that the egos of drivers are not worthy of consideration? We need to stop people from dying on our roads or from ending up in wheelchairs. For the gain of a few extra seconds,
426
saved by exceeding the speed limit, it is just not worth playing with someone's life, including that of the speeding driver.
Again, the media would have us believe that the police are interested only in raising revenue for the Treasury. That is not true. They are interested only in reducing casualties. One of the worst jobs that a police officer has is to deliver news of a road death to relatives. I have experienced that and assisted officers in the unpleasant but necessary duty.
It has been acknowledged that speed is a contributory—I stress the word "contributory"—factor in a third of traffic crashes. The Transport Research Laboratory has produced a paper that indicates that a reduction of only 2 miles per hour over all types of roads would result in 200 fewer road deaths.
There is much misunderstanding about camera enforcement. There are those who say that it is a tax on motorists, as the noble Viscount has said, but it is a voluntary tax. Obey the speed limit at all times and one does not have to pay that tax and one does not have to watch out for the cameras. There are drivers who say that they always drive at 80 miles per hour on motorways and that, if they had to drive at the legal limit of 70 mph, they would have to look at their speedometers all the time. If that is so, how do they know that they always drive at 80 mph? Exceeding the speed limit is a criminal offence, just like any other criminal offence. The sooner drivers acknowledge that the better.
Perhaps it is relevant to point out that camera enforcement is effective only against Mr Middle England who owns and uses his own car. Far too many people avoid prosecution because they use a company vehicle or because the registration details are incorrect. The courts still take the view that excess speed occurs by accident or by stealth. When will they learn that every turn of a wheel demands a positive action by the driver? Further, the cost of a fixed penalty ticket is equivalent to a tank of petrol for the average large car and that penalty is reduced when the tax or cost of fuel is increased.
Earlier this week I received a letter from a gentleman about all kinds of matters including speed cameras. Among other things, he noted that in one of the pilot areas for netting-off camera fines—Essex—the number of people killed had actually increased last year. He said that proved that cameras were of no use. However, perhaps he did not know that fewer people were killed on Essex roads where cameras were present but that there was a dramatic increase on other roads. Also, the number of motor cyclists killed in Essex was—this is from memory and may not be accurate—25 per cent more than in the previous year.
From time to time we have heard the term "joined-up government". In 2000 in London about 6,000 people were seriously injured in road crashes. Each road traffic casualty who is seriously injured takes up an average of 10 to 14 days of hospital bed space. Just

427
think of the number of hip replacements or heart by-pass operations that could be done. Those figures relate to London alone. Just think about the ramifications for the health service.
A study of people dealt with for minor traffic offences revealed that four out of 10 had significant criminal histories. Police officers stopping vehicles as part of their duty are more likely to come across criminality than in any other way and they tend to arrest more criminals than their detective colleagues. Most drivers are not criminals but most criminals are drivers. People committing criminal acts against the person or property more often than not travel by car and the sooner that is realised the sooner more traffic officers will be back doing what they do best.
A recent run of Australian and Irish television advertisements made much of asking drivers to think about their responsibilities and posed such questions as: "Before you start your car think about your responsibilities. Could you face up to the spectre of killing another human being? How would your family and friends cope without you?" The advertisements are shocking. Perhaps they should be shown in this country too. They might just make people think.
Until quite recently motorists reduced their speed when they saw a marked police vehicle, but not any more. Speed kills and the sooner the glorification and tolerance of inappropriate speed are curbed the better for everyone.
7.36 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, a number of noble Lords will remember the days after the Second World War when cars were in short supply, the Austin 7 and the Morris 8 were fashionable and how pleasant and quiet the countryside was. As we move into the 21st century every day of the week we put up with traffic congestion and late-running railways.
I speak as an everyday motorist who suffers the everyday problems on the roads and occasionally on the railways. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, initiated this debate because he spent many hours as my passenger trying to keep down my blood pressure as I became frustrated in the traffic. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for raising the issue.
A fact of life is that there is more and more traffic. Nowadays, instead of families having just one car and being grateful for that, they have two or sometimes three and they have 4x4 cross-country vehicles that never go across country. I can claim only to be a tank driver, of a Centurian, a Chieftan and a Challenger, and as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, knows, not a very good one, so I do not have much good reason for speaking in the debate.
Technically, vehicles are now capable of greater speeds. ABS brakes are standard on most cars; diesel engines are much more efficient; there is better acceleration; and everyone likes to drive fast and to show off more than they ever did in the past. Unfortunately, apart from motorways, our roads,
428
byways and lanes have not become straighter; they are very twisty and on approaching a T-junction one has less time to react to avoid the man who is about to chop off the nose of one's car. Recently I had the back of my car sliced off by a horsebox driven by a young man who was late for an event. I knew him well so I was able to give him a good dressing down and send him on his way. But he did a lot of damage to my car.
Nowadays one's speed of reaction has to be reduced to an absolute minimum. It is very difficult to join a main road at a T-junction unless one is extremely careful. One almost has to ask one's wife to get out of the car and stand in the middle of the road. Habits are rapidly changing and speeding is of great concern to many. Tailgating on motorways drives me absolutely up the wall. One has to put up with drivers of transit vans, carrying possibly one letter or one package, travelling at 80 miles per hour, hooting their horns and flashing their lights. Lane switching, cutting in and the use of mobile telephones bore your Lordships rigid. There are repeated cases of untaxed and uninsured vehicles and it is time that a hard line was taken. There must be a clamp-down on driving without due care and attention and using an untaxed vehicle. There is no easy solution but the time is rapidly approaching when one will have to be found.
Cameras are effective but everyone knows where they are—and now that they are to be painted a light colour, motorists will slow down, then speed up—causing a ripple effect. There is a plethora of signs on all our roads. A village near where I live has no fewer than four changes of speed-limit signs—starting at 40 mph, dropping down to 30 mph, falling again to 20 mph when the road passes a school, then back up to 30 mph past the school, and up again to 40 mph before reaching the derestriction sign.
In another village in the same area, there is a mass of speed bumps, sleeping policemen, rumple bars, choke points and chicanes. People thought those restrictions were wonderful when they were first introduced, particularly old ladies, who were not disturbed when they went shopping, until the local farmer took out his combine harvester and realised that he would have to try to make hay with oak posts instead of straw.
Another problem rearing its head is the theft of traffic signs. Some people seem to think that they are good for resale—perhaps because of their aluminium content. I am not technically minded but perhaps there is a way to stop such thefts. It is off-putting when one knows that there should be a restriction but all that one sees is naked posts. It is high time something was done to solve the problem of stolen road signs.
Any measures that the Government introduce must be effective and enforceable. I suggest some limitation on speed restrictions. On the motorway one gets flashed for driving at 70 mph even in the slow lane. On minor roads and side roads perhaps there should be a speed limit of 50 mph—30 mph in built-up areas.
Electric signs could be erected to inform the motorist that he is going too fast or driving too close to other vehicles. Some months ago I was driving up from Dover. After passing out of the fog I forgot to

429
turn off my fog lights. A police car passed me with an illuminated sign in the back saying, "Turn off fog lights". When I did so, another sign was displayed, "Thank you". I thought that was most innovative and could be developed.
If motorists knew that they could be fined on the spot by two policemen in a patrol car, they would not be quite so likely to break speed limits. Perhaps there could be confiscation of the vehicle in the case of people who fail to pay road tax, and maybe there is a case for number plates that incorporate an electronic tax disc, rather than the paper version that is currently used.
Perhaps the Minister will answer this question. Is the use of unmarked police cars still extant? One used to see them regularly. Up to about a year ago, one was able to identify them and avoid them. I have not seen one for a long time and wonder whether they are still in fashion.
Not all complaints should be laid at the door of the motorist. Often, road construction contractors leave behind their signs long after the work has been finished for the day or altogether. That all too often leads to congestion and the occasional shunt. Firms should be required by contract or regulation to indicate the true position of any motorway works—including speed restrictions currently in place. If that is not done, they should be fined.
Much has been said about road congestion, which is nearing gridlock. The Government need a bold approach—possibly a road supremo within the department. The problem will not go away but get worse. I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will make fresh efforts to relieve the congestion on our roads.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on putting an important Question this evening. He is adopting a rather more robust approach than his distinguished grandfather. In 1908, the Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"whether in view of the fact that the Legislature only passed the Motor Act 1903, under the express provision that in no case should the speed exceed 20 miles an hour, and that provision is entirely ignored by owners, drivers, and manufacturers, and cars are built to travel up to 100 miles an hour on the public roads, he will consider the advisability of taxing such cars at a prohibitive rate".
Mr. Lloyd-George replied:
"the policy of His Majesty's Government is not to impose taxes for purposes other than that of raising revenue, and this object is not conveniently attained by imposing taxes which are prohibitory".—[Parliamentary Debates, 19/5/1908; cols. 57–58.]
I declare an unpaid interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It has been around for more than 80 years—back to the time of Lloyd-George as Prime Minister if not as Chancellor—campaigning for better roads and safer driving.
430
Speed is a contributory factor in about one third of all road collisions. In the year 2000, about 72,000 reported road accidents were due at least in part to someone driving or riding too fast. Those accidents caused the deaths of about 1,100 people, serious injuries to about 12,700 people and slight injuries to about 900,000 people. Underlying those statistics are stories of pain, heartbreak, loss of earnings and misery. The matter needs to be taken seriously, which is why the noble Viscount is right to have initiated tonight's debate.
If average speeds were reduced by one mile per hour, the accident rate would fall 5 per cent. Drivers who speed are more likely to be involved in collisions and to commit other driving violations such as ignoring red traffic lights and driving too close to the vehicle in front. The effect of impacts at higher speeds are more severe than at lower speeds, so lead to more serious injuries. At 35 mph a driver is twice as likely to kill someone as they are at 30 mph.
On 18th January the noble Viscount asked a pertinent question about self-financing roadside speed cameras—which revealed that while many more cameras are being installed they will he concentrated on so-called accident hotspots and be painted yellow. My noble friend Lord Rooker, in response to a suggestion that motorists were being persecuted, said:
"No surreptitious photography takes place. The cameras will be highly visible and they will be well signposted in advance so that motorists can slow down. That is part of the issue. If they do not slow down, they will be photographed and subsequently prosecuted".
The Minister said also:
"Cameras will not be placed on certain roads, such as motorways, which are the safest roads in the country".—[Official Report, 17/1/2002; cols. 1180–81.]
I am puzzled by that approach. Road safety campaigners and the Government are at one in believing that speed kills and that to exceed the speed limit should be an offence punishable by a fine and, in extreme circumstances, imprisonment—plus the imposition of licence penalty points. However, many people believe that it is acceptable to break the speed limit on roads not covered by cameras and that on roads where there are cameras it is sufficient to slow down when they are seen. For many motorists, the observing of speed limits is seen as entirely voluntary: they are aware where the cameras are, and know to slow down when they approach the white dashes painted across the road, and then accelerate away afterwards.
On motorways, which we are told are so safe that they do not need cameras, motorists who observe the 70 mile-an-hour limit are now in a tiny minority, as the noble Viscount Lord Allenby observed a short while ago. I was driving back from Oxford this lunch-time. Because of today's debate, I stuck rigidly to the 70 mile-an-hour limit. In a 23-mile stretch, I was passed by 70 other vehicles—I counted each one of them—and no private car, bar one and myself, was observing the 70 mile-an-hour limit.
Vehicle manufacturers also have a much more prominent role to play in reducing the number of people killed and injured in speed-related road

431
accidents. National governments and the motor industry must work together to develop restrictions on the top speed and power of new cars and motorcycles. As modern cars are so comfortable and powerful, drivers are often insulated from any real sensation of the speed at which they are travelling. Manufacturers should consider how they can design cars so that drivers have more awareness and receive better information about their actual speed. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said earlier, they should also abandon any advertising campaign that promotes speeding, because a number of them continue to do so. I checked with the Advertising Standards Authority, which confirmed that it still adjudicates on complaints in cases where members of the public complain about advertisements that encourage or condone speeding by motor cars.
There are a number of other initiatives that should be taken to tackle the problem of speeding. For example, it is worth looking at the development of intelligent speed adaptation (ISA), as this offers very significant opportunities for influencing drivers' choice of speed. We need to know whether taking some vehicle control away from drivers would have any adverse effects, but, in principle, we should encourage the development and implementation of this technology.
Then there is the issue of safer car fronts, which can be summed up in the phrase "bull bars". As I have said previously, I regret that the Government have supported a negotiated agreement proposed by the motor industry rather than the much more stringent mandatory European directive based on the four crash tests developed by the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee Working Group. Outlawing unsafe car fronts would save about 2,000 lives and 18,000 serious injuries annually on EU roads. It could also reduce serious and fatal pedestrian injuries in Britain by 20 per cent.
However, at the heart of this issue is driver training and driver education. Education is vital in trying to change attitudes towards speeding. Those who drink and drive are seen as behaving in a dangerous, anti-social and selfish manner with little regard for the safety of other people. But those who speed are not regarded by the public or by the media in that way. Therefore, it is essential that the dangers caused by driving at inappropriate speeds are clearly explained and demonstrated—in the way that has been adopted for drink-driving—so that we can work towards a general public acceptance of the problem of illegal speed, as well as an acceptance that something must be done about the situation.
Speeding is a symptom of a more general poor attitude towards driving. One of the weaknesses of the United Kingdom's driver licensing system is that the driver is licensed, virtually for life, with no requirement and very little incentive to develop his or her driving skills any further. Drivers can voluntarily take further training, such as Pass Plus or courses offered by driver training providers, but there is little incentive to do so. Indeed, only three per cent of drivers take further
432
driving instruction after their test. Everyone is indebted to my noble friend Lord Simon for his work in promoting further driver education.
There is clearly a need to develop new ways of encouraging drivers to continue to develop their driving skills after they have passed their test. Graduated licensing systems offer opportunities to provide phased driving experience for new drivers during the period when they are most at risk of being involved in an accident, which is very soon after they have passed the test. They can also reduce their exposure to the factors that are most dangerous to them, including speed, alcohol, night driving, and when carrying passengers.
Systems vary across the world. It is not yet clear what form would be the most feasible and effective in this country. Research is certainly needed to assess the benefits of graduated licensing in Britain, and in its best form. The Government's recent consultation paper, Introducing a More Structured Approach to Learning to Drive, is a good step in the right direction.
So what conclusion can we reach? Certainly our death and injury statistics are better than those of many other countries, but clearly more needs to be done. For example, instead of reducing the number of traffic officers, police forces should be set casualty reduction targets, which could be included in their performance indicators. Although it is obviously sensible to work with the manufacturers on as many agreed approaches as possible, there will be occasions when their interests and those of the public do not precisely coincide. I believe that stronger action is required. When he replies, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say that the Government agree with that view. I should add that we are most grateful to the noble Viscount for raising tonight's debate.
7.56 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for introducing tonight's Unstarred Question. Road traffic accidents are the most common cause of premature death for youngsters. The noble Viscount talked about speed cameras. I fully support the introduction of such cameras, with the one proviso that they are only installed in order to reduce accidents and not to raise revenue. They certainly work; indeed, the statistics are incontrovertible.
The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred to the problem of tailgating. I believe that they underestimate the significance. An expert or advanced driver never drives so fast that he cannot stop within the distance that he can see to be clear. Clearly, tailgating does not comply with that. It is particularly prevalent among HGV drivers; indeed, as far as I am aware, it is the only thing that they always do wrong. They always tailgate. I am not sure about the solution to the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, referred to motorways. He will be aware that 190 people are killed on the motorways each year. Many of those are hard-shoulder accidents, or those caused by

433
someone falling asleep while driving. The emphasis on speeding should not only apply to motorways; it should apply also to built-up areas and other high-risk locations.
The noble Viscount's Question asks what we are doing in the "long-term" to solve the problem of speeding. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, touched on ISA. Can the Minister tell us something about those possibilities? In this system, road-side transmitters are installed at high-risk locations, like schools and junctions, which compel the engine management system of a car to reduce the speed of the vehicle to the legal limit, or perhaps even lower. Some might argue that there is a requirement to be able to give a small burst of acceleration and, therefore, temporarily exceed the speed limit. But that can be provided by way of an over-ride system in a similar way to the kick-down provision on an automatic car. Of course, it is easy to record the use of an over-ride in the electronic system.
At some stage, this system could be fitted to all new cars. There would be a problem with older cars, but differing rates of insurance premium tax could be introduced for vehicles that are not fitted with ISA. Most modern vehicles have electronic engine management systems. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred to the manufacture of very fast cars. Can the Minister tell the House why we do not have speed limiters in all cars? To be both realistic and practical, perhaps a limit in the car's design of 80 miles an hour might give some flexibility.
About 50 per cent of candidates fail their initial driving test. However, none of the top 10 reasons for failure features in the top 10 causes of serious accidents. For example, one common cause of failure in a driving test is failure to make normal progress. This evening we are talking about people doing precisely the opposite by speeding.
The Government have published a paper on the issue. I confess that I have not been able to study it yet, but I suspect that it may contain some welcome original thinking and I look forward to studying it in detail.
What are we to do with speeding drivers? How are we to deter them? There is a hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, but that is not constructive or practical. Like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I believe that speeding offences are symptomatic of poor driving skills. I know that speeding saves a negligible amount of time on a journey, but I am a well trained driver, thanks to the wonderful instruction I have had in the Territorial Army. If I were asked how I would make further substantive reductions in the accident rate, I would go for compulsory retraining for all drivers every five years. The only problem is that that would be political suicide. It would also be expensive and, in the short term, there would be insufficient trainers to do the work.
However, we could make a start with errant drivers, by which I mean those convicted of speeding or careless driving offences. In the case of youngsters,
434
who are at the highest risk of being involved in a serious accident, perhaps only one conviction for speeding or careless driving should get them locked into continuation training. Your Lordships should note carefully that I am talking about retraining, not retesting. I am suggesting a requirement for an errant driver to be retrained within six months, otherwise he loses his licence.
Some non-statutory pilot schemes have been very successful. The students have approached the training with the right attitude. I am not suggesting a soft option. This is not an alternative to the existing range of punishments; it is in addition to those punishments. I want to take steps to prevent further poor driving, which would result in more accidents. I hope that the Minister can respond to my points.
8.2 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I shall speak briefly in the gap, because I felt that someone had to speak up for the motorist who drives long distances from time to time. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for the chance to speak. The object of a journey is to get there and do something at the end of it. If we all slowed down to a snail's pace, perhaps there would be fewer accidents, or fewer deaths from accidents, but the country would grind to a standstill because public transport will not get people to their final destination—certainly not since Dr Beeching. I am afraid that I have to drive to go the last 100 miles at the other end.
Nearly all people speed occasionally. Even the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, tacitly admitted—
Earl Attlee: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl should get out of bed 10 minutes earlier and then he would not need to speed.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Earl, if someone is driving 300 or 400 miles, we are not talking about 10 minutes. Averaging an extra 10 miles an hour over that distance can make a significant difference. I shall deal with that quickly because I am speaking in the gap and I want to be brief.
I was interested that even the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, tacitly admitted to speeding when he said that this time he had kept his speed to 70 miles an hour because of the debate. We all know perfectly well that speed does not kill; inappropriate speed at an inappropriate moment kills. I was interested to see some figures the other day that showed that most accidents happen at a not very large number of known accident blackspots around the country. Sorting out 150 or 200 of those would almost halve the death figures. That is why I think that the statistics are very dangerous. If we added up all the figures for how many are killed by alcohol, how many are killed by speed, how many are killed by tiredness and how many are killed by blackspots, we would end up with a death toll at least two or three times higher than the real figure. Some statistics have to be looked at carefully.

435
That brings me to my main point, which is about long-distance driving. Tiredness kills. As the noble Earl said, there are only 190 fatal accidents a year on motorways. Slowing down long-distance drivers will not reduce the number of deaths—it will probably put it up. There is a good case for increasing the speed limit on motorways, particularly at times when they are not crowded. Of course we should hit dangerous driving, but that is another matter.
I have one more issue to raise about totting up penalty points. If someone is caught on camera speeding three times on one journey, they could lose their licence at the end of that journey. For some people, that would destroy their life—it could destroy their job; losing the job may destroy the family because of loss of income; and that could destroy a life. We have to think about these things. It is not as simple as saying that speed can kill someone else. Someone might lose their life indirectly, in another way, as a result of not inappropriate speeding.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for introducing the debate. I shall bring in a few other elements. I do not drive a great deal, so I cannot recount my stories of being passed on the motorway or not being passed on the motorway.
The Government lost a huge opportunity presented by all the protests over fuel. They should have pointed out to people the link between speed and fuel consumption. It is very important to bring home to people how much more fuel they use when they go fast. The Government could publicise that a great deal more than they do. People could do five or six more miles to the gallon not by driving slowly, but by driving at a reasonable speed rather than very fast and by using the accelerator more gently.
It is also wrong that in 30 miles an hour areas where there are street lights, the safe speed is not indicated repeatedly. A 30 miles an hour limit is signposted when you enter it, but you can then go for miles and not see another speed limit sign. That would simply require an amendment to the regulations. In a 40 or 50 miles an hour limit, the signs can be repeated, but that is not allowed in a 30 miles an hour area.
Several noble Lords have mentioned speed as the subject of advertisements. I tore an advertisement out of a magazine that I found on the train last night. It is headlined "Driving by numbers" and its main feature is that the car has a top speed of 135 miles an hour and can go from 0 to 60 in only 5.6 seconds. That speed is certainly not legal anywhere that I know. The Advertising Standards Authority has a duty to intervene with car manufacturers who make high speed the subject of advertisements.
I should also like the Government to have a rebuttal unit. I am not talking about a spin unit or an anti-spin unit. Most of the information about speeding in the newspapers and the media comes from the AA, the
436
RAC, the Association of British Drivers and others. Nobody prominently argues a case in the opposite direction. That case needs to be argued.
The Government should think seriously about the national policing plan, which the Home Secretary is about to unveil. There should be an acknowledged expert on road safety on the board that sets the plan. I was talking to the chief constable last night. He said that he has to concentrate on four main areas, one of which is road safety. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, far fewer people are murdered than are killed in road accidents. The police are the managers of the road and they have to target resources at the problem.
In Oxfordshire we had our own system for locating speed cameras. The primary location would be a place where, over one year, there had been five speed-related accidents over a distance of one kilometre. Cameras could also be placed where there had been three speed-related accidents or—this is the marginal category—where there had been one such accident. The Government, however, have commissioned an investigation into the issue by PA Management Consultants. I do not know why that firm was chosen; it would not have been my choice to do this type of work. Nevertheless, the firm has identified new criteria for siting speed cameras, recommending sites at which, over a three-year period, four or more people have been killed or seriously injured in a speed-related accident over a distance of one kilometre. Those criteria are much more stringent than Oxfordshire's criteria of three perhaps relatively minor speed-related accidents. My worry is that cameras will be placed at sites only if there is a trail of blood leading to them. Will people have to be killed or seriously injured before a camera is installed?
Cameras in Oxfordshire, in accordance with the instructions, are being fitted with bright yellow covers that almost shout at the driver. However, what happens to the money raised from the fines? Some money goes to cover police enforcement costs, although almost no policemen are used to operate the system. In Oxfordshire, almost everything is done by civilians with the exception of one officer located in the Banbury ticket office. When a camera shows a very serious incident in which the driver will be prosecuted for dangerous driving, that officer must produce the picture that will be used in evidence. He has nothing to do with speeding incidents.
As has been said, some of the money goes to the magistrates courts committee and some goes to the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the rest of it—and it is a lot of money—goes to the Treasury from where it will disappear. I believe, however, that cameras would be much more acceptable to motorists and local authorities if some of the money were spent on traffic engineering. There is a huge list of engineering schemes to implement, such as straightening out bends, staggering junctions and installing pedestrian crossings—a long list of small schemes that are always the first cut when money is

437
short. I do not think that anyone would doubt that implementing those schemes is a good use of the money.
I also underline the need not to think of traffic policing as an extra that can be cut or raided when there are competing priorities. Our traffic police detect more criminals than any other specialist branch. They are the most productive policemen. Some people think that they spend all their time waiting for speeding motorists, but that is not true. They are policemen first and traffic policemen second. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, much of their time is spent investigating accidents for the coroner's court. The fewer traffic policemen there are, the more time they will have to spend working for the coroner rather than performing useful services for others.
Logistics firms and hard-pressed local authorities are prone—although the food industry is particularly guilty of this—to offering tenders with terms that can be met only if the driver speeds. As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, congestion in towns and on the roads is so great, and schedules are so tight, that some parties assume that, to meet delivery schedules, speed limits can be routinely exceeded. Unfortunately, in Oxfordshire, that applies also to published bus schedules. The other day, I saw a bus schedule showing 57 minutes driving time in each hour. It is simply not physically possible to maintain such a schedule. Buses will be held up somewhere, after which time can be made up only by speeding. It is a major cause of speeding on our motorways. I am out of time and must stop there.
8.16 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for giving us this opportunity to discuss speeding. I shall start with the issue of speed cameras as that seems to be the topic of the evening.
We on this side of the House have always been concerned that speed cameras are being used as revenue raisers rather than to improve road safety. Since the Government came to power, the money raised from speed camera fines has doubled, as has the number of motorists caught, whereas road safety has deteriorated and the number of driver casualties from road accidents has increased. There are lessons to be learned. Speed cameras have an important role to play, such as at accident black spots and near schools, but are they being used to the best advantage? Should there be more cameras, and should they be better placed and more obvious?
Does the Minister agree that the ultimate objective of speed cameras is to ensure that motorists keep within the speed limit, rather than to catch speeding motorists or raise revenue? Moreover, many people accused of speeding say that it is difficult to obtain information on the alleged offence, and the police seem unable to send them a copy of the photograph detailing time and place. What information can be given to those unsure of their whereabouts on the given day and about whether to plead guilty?
438
When I looked into the subject of speed cameras, I discovered—as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said—that there are plans to paint all of them yellow. It seemed to be a good idea at first sight, until I discovered that it has been a particular problem in Scotland. It seems that some Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament have suggested that the Day-Glo yellow being used for the purpose is the colour of the Scottish National Party., and Scottish Ministers have demanded that the cameras be repainted. Can the Minister tell us, without betraying too much of a confidence, what colour he would recommend to his compatriots north of the Border?
Viscount Simon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, in one constabulary, the colour of the cameras is blue? In the hours of darkness, they are totally invisible.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for those comments. Should the cameras be red or would that be regarded as promoting the Labour Party? I always thought that yellow was the colour of the Liberal Party. The cameras clearly could not be green as that would promote the Green Party.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. He will be amused to know that in the Edinburgh area the cameras are now yellow and red. I suppose that that symbolises the coalition.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for those enlightening remarks. Perhaps we have solved the Minister's problems in that regard. Fortunately, no right reverend Prelates are present or I might suggest that cameras should be painted purple to represent their Benches. Will the Minister confirm that there are no plans to change the colour in England from yellow or, if there are, will he tell the House what colour is proposed?
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned 30 miles an hour limits and repeating signs. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that my honourable friend in another place, the Member for Epsom, introduced a Private Member's Bill which will shortly be debated on Second Reading. I hope that the noble Lord's party will support it. As he said, the repeater signs mounted on lampposts can be used to remind drivers of 40 and 50 miles an hour speed limits and, indeed, national speed limits but cannot be used in areas with 30 miles an hour speed limits. My honourable friend's Bill seeks to rectify that. As I say, I hope that the noble Lord's party will support that Bill. I should be interested to hear the Minister comment on the Government's view of that Bill and whether they will support it.
The Government have introduced various measures to control speed. I believe that my party first introduced speed humps. I should be interested to know whether the Government still think that they are a good idea. Should speed humps be round, sharp or narrow or should they comprise posts such as the

439
traffic calming posts that invariably catch one's wing mirror when one goes through them even when one is travelling at a rather slow speed? It is clear that such measures work only as part of a local plan.
We are concerned that spending on roads has fallen since the Government have been in power. Less money has been spent on relief roads and bypasses and the road building programme has been curtailed. However, in spite of the increase in fuel duty, the number of road users has gone up. I believe that the number of road users has increased by 11 per cent in the past few years. More motorists are on the roads and the situation is becoming more difficult. However, as I say, the Government have reduced spending on roads. They are not spending money on relief roads and congestion is getting worse. It is getting worse in rural areas where heavy costs are involved in this matter.
The Government published a road safety strategy in March 2000. They aimed to create more 20 miles an hour limits near schools, for example. Does the Minister think that has been a success? Have sufficient 20 miles an hour limits been created? Is that purely a matter for local authorities? What advice does his department give on the matter? Does he believe that there should be more such limits?
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred to magistrates' courts and fines. We know of his experience in that area. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to the evil of speeding and, if I understood him correctly, the dangers of watching "Top Gear" on television when one sees expensive cars that no one I know can afford. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, gave us a useful history lesson. I am not sure I entirely followed his logic when he said that the more one cuts speed limits, the more one reduces the number of accidents. Therefore, if we returned to the speed limit in force when the first car appeared on the road, there would be almost no accidents. However, I submit that congestion would be even worse.
The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, mentioned road rage. I see the noble Viscount driving his car every Saturday in the winter as he follows my local hunt in Oxfordshire. I am usually on a horse when I see him. I am rather proud of the fact that I can still get from A to B across country on my horse faster than the noble Viscount can drive that distance.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned driving tests. He raised a serious point. What is the Government's attitude as regards drivers who have been fined or disqualified for a serious offence retaking tests? Will the Minister comment on that?
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made some interesting points about road safety and policing. This is a serious subject. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments bearing in mind that while the rest of us will go home this evening either on the train, the bus or the Tube—although some may drive—the Minister will sink into the back of his ministerial limousine.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I wish that that were true but I shall follow my usual mode of transport and walk to Pimlico.
The Question tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, is timely given that the department recently gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry on traffic speed. The department submitted both written and oral evidence. First, why does this issue matter? A number of noble Lords have already asked that question. It matters because 3,500 people die on our roads each year, 40,000 people are seriously injured and 300,000 casualties occur in total. As has been said by a number of noble Lords, if that situation were to arise due to other causes it would be considered a national scandal and would not be allowed to continue.
We are aware of the distress that that situation causes. However, we are probably less aware of the financial costs involved. The estimated cost of every single death is well over £1 million, as one would expect of a reasonable costing basis, not that costing is the issue. Noble Lords also raised a point that needs to be made—although the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, may have adopted a rather different tone—that is, that accident frequency rises with the unit of speed or, to put it another way, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, did, a 1 per cent reduction in average speed cuts accidents by 5 per cent. I believe that our financial colleagues would call that gearing, but it is a remarkably positive gearing ratio.
The seriousness of accidents also rises with speed. I believe that I said in answer to an earlier Question that if one is hit by a car travelling at 35 miles an hour one's chances of survival are about 30 per cent; that is, one has a 70 per cent chance of being killed. However, if one is hit by a car travelling at 25 miles an hour one's chances of survival are vastly higher. We may not yet have got that point across to the general public. We need to persuade drivers that they are not invulnerable and that we are not just concerned about their safety but also about the harm they may do to innocent people. If drivers reduced their speed by five miles an hour, the chances of their ruining someone else's life and perhaps their own would significantly reduce. However, that message has not yet got across to the general public.
As regards speed limits, drivers tend to drive at the speed that they judge is safe according to the road they are on. There is plenty of evidence to support that. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, will be glad to know that the speed policy review concluded that speed limits should be set at levels that are suitable for the road function and at levels that are most likely to be respected. Officials in the department are now working on improving information and guidance to local authorities on setting local speed limits. Currently the advice includes the circumstances in which setting different speed limits on short stretches of road might be necessary. We believe that it remains by and large good and helpful advice but there is a need to build into it the additional experience and best practice that

441
have emerged over the past 10 years or so. I shall ensure that the department considers the points that have been made in the debate in that respect.
The use of repeater signs is a difficult issue. There is a Private Member's Bill on that matter, but an environmental issue is also involved. If the street is lit, most people know that there is a limit of 30 mph and that if t he street is not lit, the limit may be higher. If we allowed or even encouraged the use of repeater signs, one would have a more confused situation, unless one put repeater signs almost everywhere on the street scenery. We do not have time to debate those issues tonight but they will be considered in relation to the Private Member's Bill. Before consideration is given to changing that rule, we would need to be certain that that would result in a clear improvement on the present situation. I do not say that the department's mind is closed; I am simply marking the reality of some of the challenges.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in the villages around where I live, where there is a limit of 30 mph and there are no street lights, we have repeater signs, and where there are a few street lights, there are no repeater signs. That is a matter for local judgment. We should allow local authorities to use either repeater signs or signs along the road. That is not a matter about which the Government know best. That is a matter for local authorities.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I note that point, which will be given consideration.
Introducing separate policing units was suggested in order to better enforce road traffic law. The short answer is that all police will and do enforce all traffic laws, including driving without due care and attention. London was mentioned earlier. In terms of the numbers of road traffic police, London has just been accepted on to the safety camera netting-off scheme, and police officers will be dedicated to it. We expect that to save many lives in London.
We must recognise that technology can make a major contribution to road safety in ways that 15 or so years ago we would have believed impossible. One should not understand by that that police action is limited. In 2000—the latest year for which statistics are available—official police action or penalty charge notices resulted in more than 10 million actions. That is the largest number of offences that have been recorded to date. There is plenty going on.
I underpin what the Government are doing with the commitment that was set out in the road safety strategy in March 2000. One of the characteristics of the Government's approach is the willingness to make clear statements about where they need to get to in relation to a number of issues so that success or failure can be assessed. There is a target of a 40 per cent reduction in the numbers killed or seriously injured and a higher target of a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed by 2010. If, as I hope, we achieve that, it will make a phenomenal difference to
442
the figures. The numbers are very significant if one adds them up, which, in view of the tightness of time, I cannot do.
As part of our strategy, we undertook and published a fundamental review of speed policy, which several noble Lords will have read—it makes interesting reading. The House will recognise that a range of tested road safety measures is available for local authorities to use. They include the very successful introduction of 20 mph speed zones, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred—they have been successful—and road bumps, to which the noble Viscount also referred. They have proved to be very effective at improving safety, particularly for children, pedestrians and cyclists. The key to their success is that they are self-enforcing and are activated all the time. They do not need highly skilled, high-cost police.
The issue of cameras has rightly been debated at significant length. We are in the very early days of that revolution—I believe that it is a revolution. They were introduced initially as a pilot but the success of the first eight pilot sites was so significant that the Government decided to move fast and to open up their use to any police force that wanted to enter in to a partnership. We expect, within 18 months, that virtually all the police forces in the country will have taken up partnerships that basically allow netting-off to operate. There will be a substantial expansion in the number of speed cameras. They have already led to a reduction of nearly 50 per cent in the number of people killed or seriously injured in the areas in which they have been placed. That is a phenomenal impact. They have also led to an 18 per cent reduction in the wider area in the pilot sites. Their effect is not simply in the zones in which the cameras are used. They also produced evidence for 800,000 motoring offences in 2000.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, rightly said that the aim of speed cameras is to reduce speed, not to increase revenue. To put it baldly, the Government would be well pleased if we got no revenue al all from speed cameras because all were being observed and there was no need to fine motorists. They are part of a strategy to shift behaviour rather than to raise revenue per se.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about netting off for road engineering safety measures. As he will know probably better than I do, Treasury rules currently govern that approach. We are at the early stages of quite a significant shift. The approach has been going for barely a year or two. It will go nationwide shortly and we shall study its impact and effectiveness. We shall review what lessons we learn from it in the wider scope in the coming year or two.
In that context, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked what someone should do if they are unsure. In short, if any of us feels that we are not guilty, we should plead not guilty and take our chances of persuading the magistrate. If we think that we are guilty, it is usually efficient, in relation to fixed penalties, to pay up and, one hopes, shift one's behaviour.

443
The community more generally can benefit from a reduction in road accident casualties, which the increased use of cameras is bringing about. There is already some evidence to suggest that that is lightening the load on some accident and emergency departments.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, challenged us to think about where the technology appears to be moving. He referred to what I believe are called speed limiters or intelligence speed adaptation. This is rather complex stuff but, as I understand it, it basically fuses the technology that GPS devices use to let people know exactly where they are and how fast they are going, with speed limiting devices, which, as the noble Earl knows better than most in the House, are applied to coaches and commercial vehicles. It is theoretically possible to combine those technologies and to know whether a car should be going at 30 mph, whether it was going faster than that and to signal to the driver. Perhaps even bolder measures could be applied. That is what technology allows. These are major potential issues and the department at this stage is undertaking some live testing of how driver behaviour is affected by those issues. I should not want to delude the House into thinking for one second that these are immediate issues—they may well take decades to roll out. However, they are obviously worthy of serious test and intelligent debate.
These issues are not simply for government: local authorities play a significant role, together with the police in what is almost a tripartite arrangement—with health authorities, there would be a quartet of authorities. We hope that they recognise the continual support from the Government to address the problems of excessive and inappropriate speed. They are, through their local transport plans—I was asked about this—required to produce casualty reduction targets. They are therefore already a significant component of those actions.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, also asked about the 20 mph zone. Time does not allow me to go into much detail, except to say that there is much more discretion for local authorities to introduce such zones. The evidence is that when they are well applied, they produce significant benefits.
I should also mention speed humps. Yes, they were introduced by the previous government but they are not universally blessed. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I frequently debate them. Next time that we do so, I should point out that they appear to produce significant benefits. I commend the initiative—they do reduce casualties and are worth it for that.
Vehicle-activated signs are another issue. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, gave a rather nice example of a police car activating a sign. The type of vehicle-activated sign that is also of interest technologically is one that can sense when a car is approaching a bend too fast and can signal to the driver. Such things are possible and I believe that they are seen as useful by drivers, in particular if they are viewed as providing advice and information rather
444
than signalling impending prosecution. Therefore, that is a further example of where we must make a sensible assessment of how technology can help to reduce deaths caused by speed.
I do not believe that there is time to talk about some of the demonstration projects for improving safety on mixed-priority urban roads. However, these are some of the most intractable problem areas and they contain a concentration of mix. As has already been said, we know that motorways are not totally safe but they are a great deal safer than most other roads. It is the mixed urban situations and some rural situations that cause the problems.
The issue at heart, as has been mentioned by almost everyone who has spoken in the debate, is the strange disassociation that most of us seem to go in for—myself included—when we get behind the wheel of a car. Because of air bags and seat belts, perhaps we tend to believe that the risks that we face are less great than they might have been in the past; and they are. However, the risks to others are not. Yet we still tend to believe that the possibility that we shall kill or injure someone is remote, and thus it is difficult to believe in the immediacy of such an occurrence. Therefore, we all carry on as though it will not happen.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, argued that case clearly. I did not agree with him for a second, but I considered it useful to have that input into the debate. He expressed the mindset that most of us have at some stage: we are rushed; we are late for an appointment; and we must push on.
I was—this is self-confession time, which is highly dangerous—stopped by the motorway police once and cautioned. I spent the rest of the journey calculating how much time I would have saved by going at the speed at which I had been travelling compared with the speed at which I travelled subsequently. That occurred on a drive from, I believe, Reading to London, and it was not worth the candle. I would have saved about five or six minutes. I thought, "I'm off my head". Yet we have not yet managed to understand that or, in particular, the damage that we would cause to other people by killing or injuring them.
I believe that retesting—voluntary or compulsory—and retraining are both—
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I was emphasising retraining rather than retesting.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, indeed so, but I felt at liberty to mention the other word. They are issues which the Government are considering in a variety of contexts in their reviews of both speed policy and penalties. They are part of any sensible strategy of behaviour shift. It also appears that retraining or rehabilitation techniques can lead to behaviour shifts in relation to drink-driving. We must bring about a behaviour shift in the most flagrant speeders as well as in the general attitude. Clearly we should also give consideration to other issues, such as two-tier fixed penalties.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said that one should recognise that the loss of one's licence can lead to the loss of one's livelihood. He is absolutely right. But it

445
can also mean that someone else loses his life. That is why we must try to get across to people that they are at serious risk. If they repeatedly exceed speed limits and get caught, they will not be able to drive on the roads. Most people would consider that to be only fair and reasonable rather than inappropriate.
However, behaviour shifts do not happen easily. It has taken us 30 years to bring about a general, if not a universal, consensus in the country that drinking and driving is unacceptable behaviour. I believe that, as a society, we must recognise that this is not an issue simply for government and that we must try to bring about a similar shift in behaviour in relation to speeding.
I note the point about the national policing plan. In a sense, we have already made that commitment as part of the national road safety strategy. We have already set a national commitment to reducing those levels. I believe that shifting attitudes and publicising the reality of the situation are among the most difficult and sensitive issues. I hear the point that was raised
446
about a rebuttal unit, and I shall give that consideration. But we must think about how we—not only in government but all of us—get the message across. Ultimately, that is what must be done, reinforced by technology, deterrents and a whole range of measures. But, basically, we must internalise the message in all of us.
I very much thank the noble Viscount for providing the opportunity to set out these issues.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Lords consequential amendment agreed to.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  GCHQ
  GCHQ
  Subject Access Requests
  Subject Access Requests
  House of Lords Appointments: Applicants
  House of Lords Appointments: Applicants
  Home Office Race Equality Scheme
  Home Office Race Equality Scheme
  Invest to Save Initiative
  Invest to Save Initiative
  Government Departments: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Government Departments: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Instruments
  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Instruments
  Gulf War Veterans
  Gulf War Veterans
  MoD Proposals: Gender Impact Assessment
  MoD Proposals: Gender Impact Assessment
  A12 Witham Bypass
  A12 Witham Bypass
  National Parks: Telecommunications Development
  National Parks: Telecommunications Development
  Rail Freight: 10-year Transport Plan
  Rail Freight: 10-year Transport Plan
  Road Congestion: 10-year Transport Plan
  Road Congestion: 10-year Transport Plan
  Cefn Croes
  Cefn Croes
  Rural Proofing
  Rural Proofing
  Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries
  Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Sheep Annual Premium
  Sheep Annual Premium
  Defra Publication Essentials of Life
  Defra Publication Essentials of Life
  Bovine Embryos and Live Cattle: Imports from North America
  Bovine Embryos and Live Cattle: Imports from North America
  Climate Change
  Climate Change
  French Poultry Slaughterhouses
  French Poultry Slaughterhouses
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Repubic of Ireland Residents: British Passports
  Repubic of Ireland Residents: British Passports
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support