Sitting of 10 December 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

    QUEEN'S SPEECH
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income)(Taiwan) Order 2002 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House on 30 October 2002, in the last Session of Parliament.
    I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

    Iraq
    Mr. Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of Iraq's compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. [84320]
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: If he will make a statement on progress made by UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. [84321]
    Mr. David Ruffley: What recent discussions he has had with the US Secretary of State about UN weapons inspectors in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [84326]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I apologise for the non-attendance of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, and the spokespersons for the Opposition parties received notice of that.
    138
    Inspection activity in Iraq resumed on 27 November. To date there have been no reports of serious or deliberate obstruction of the inspection teams. The teams have so far principally concentrated their efforts on revisiting sites identified as being of concern under the previous inspection regime, although they have also gained unrestricted access to a presidential site that had previously been denied.
    Under the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, Iraq handed over a declaration running to more than 11,000 pages to the UN in Baghdad on 7 December. It is now being analysed by UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency. This process will take some time.
    We maintained regular dialogue with the US Secretary of State and with other countries throughout the drafting of resolution 1441, and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Luff: Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements made by the Security Council and with the United States of America for consideration of the 11,807 pages, 352 pages of supplements and 529 megabytes of data are satisfactory and will enable a full and transparent interpretation to be made in good time?
    Mr. O'Brien: Yes, I am satisfied that the process is being handled properly. At the request of the Security Council presidency, the United States is helping with the formidable task of reproducing the documents for the permanent five members, who will then be in a position to assist UNMOVIC and the IAEA in removing material of proliferation concern from the declaration, before it is circulated more widely. There is no question of denying or delaying access. Copies were handed to all the P5 in Washington or New York last night, and I understand that we now have a copy here in London.
    Mrs. Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and hope that the UK will support the inspectors in their work and not denigrate them, as is happening in some quarters in the United States. Will he explore all possible alternatives to war, including using international law to indict Saddam Hussein and his regime for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide?
    Mr. O'Brien: We certainly do strongly support the inspectors and want their tasks to be carried out to the full: there needs to be a full and proper inspection to ensure that Iraq is dealt with in terms of its development of weapons of mass destruction. Resolution 1441 is an opportunity to find a pathway to peace, disarming Saddam Hussein and removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We want him to take that pathway, which we have made open to him, to avoid war and ensure that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is dealt with. In that sense, the ball is in Saddam's court. We need to ensure that we are not threatened, and we hope that the pathway to peace will be taken.
    Mr. Ruffley: Does the Minister truly believe that 17 weapons inspectors constitute an adequate number to do the job, and if he does not, can he tell the House what Her Majesty's Government will do about that?
    Mr. O'Brien: Seventeen weapons inspectors are there, 25 are in transit, and 100 should be there before

    139
    Christmas. If UNMOVIC and IAEA require further inspectors, they will be in a position to request them. Obviously, inspectors need to be properly qualified. They are not that easy to come by, but opportunities do exist to recruit further inspectors, and to request members of the UN to provide qualified people. At this point, we believe that a steady increase in the number of inspectors, allowing for the capacity of equipment and buildings available to them, is the proper way to deal with the situation, and we hope that they will be able to do the job efficiently and effectively.
    David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1995 two sons-in-law of Saddam Hussein defected to Jordan and revealed the extent of the biological weapons programme that previously the regime had strenuously denied having? Why should we believe that this hide and seek game with the inspectors will lead to anything, bearing in mind the amount of time that Saddam Hussein has had to conceal the weapons of mass destruction? This is a murderous and lying regime that cannot be trusted under any circumstances.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is true that defectors revealed the development of weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons, in 1995. This should not be a game of hide and seek. Let us be clear: UN resolution 1441 places the obligation on Saddam Hussein and Iraq to show that they are not developing weapons of mass destruction. The obligation is not on the inspectors; they are there to verify claims made by Saddam Hussein, and we need to ensure that we support the inspectors, and that the threat from Saddam Hussein is dealt with.
    Mr. Michael Moore: The Minister will be aware that resolution 1441 requires the Iraqis to supply an accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of their programme to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Does he agree that American interference in the distribution of the Iraqi submission will undermine the United Nations process, weaken the international consensus against the Iraqi regime and offer Saddam Hussein a completely unnecessary propaganda victory?
    Mr. O'Brien: Frankly, what the hon. Gentleman has just said is complete nonsense. The Americans have not interfered; at the request of the presidency of the Security Council, they have assisted it in distributing the material. As far as we are aware, and according to the evidence available to us, that has been done entirely properly. We have a copy of the documents here in London, and the suggestion that this constitutes American interference that will somehow weaken the coalition is complete and utter nonsense.
    Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): Despite my hon. Friend's reply, surely it is US insistence—under the guise of assistance—that has limited access to the Iraqi declaration to the five permanent members of the Security Council. The entire Security Council voted for resolution 1441, and the rest of the world will undoubtedly see this as the exercise of undue influence
    140
    by the US Government, who still seem absolutely determined, regardless of the evidence, to go to war against Iraq.
    Mr. O'Brien: There is concern about proliferation information that may be contained in the declaration: in other words, concern exists that Iraq will be supplying information on the whereabouts of materials, equipment and other issues—dual use or otherwise—that may be of interest to terrorists or to other countries. The view has therefore been taken that the five permanent members—they are nuclear powers—should have a full copy of the declaration. On that basis, distribution is being examined to see whether the material can be passed to members of the Security Council that are not nuclear powers, and to ensure that, if appropriate—this issue has yet to be determined, but the Security Council will look at it—some of the material in the declaration is not widely distributed. The concern is proliferation, not any attempt by the Americans or anyone else—as far as we are aware, there has been no such attempt—to prevent proper application of the terms of resolution 1441, or of the wishes of the UN Security Council.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: If there are discrepancies between Iraq's declaration of last weekend and the Government's dossier of 24 September—in connection, for instance, with the existence of the 20 al-Hussein missiles, the L29 jet trainer or of VX nerve agent, all of which were mentioned in the dossier—is the onus on Iraq to prove that the dossier was wrong, or on the Government to show why their dossier should be believed? Do the Government consider that the assertions in the dossier would be sufficient, under paragraph 4 of resolution 1441, to constitute a material breach, if omitted from the declaration?
    Mr. O'Brien: Paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 requires that, for there to be a material breach, the declaration should be false and there should be a failure to cooperate. So far, Iraq has put forward a declaration, which we are examining. That will take some time. It is true that Saddam Hussein has a record of lying, so we should be sceptical about the information that he provides. However, we will examine seriously the documentation that he has provided, and see how it stands up to the information that we have received from various sources. We will then consider how to proceed. Obviously, it is for the inspectors to examine whether Saddam Hussein and Iraq continue to possess weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Ancram: I must press the Minister further. Surely he stands by the dossier that he published on 24 September? He told us that there was evidence that the weapons that I mentioned were in existence. If those weapons are omitted from the declaration made by the Iraqi Government on Saturday, is that a material breach? If the Minister insists that his information is correct, there must therefore be an omission from the declaration and, under paragraph 4, that would constitute a material breach.
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have listened to what I said. Paragraph 4 of

    141
    resolution 1441 contains a requirement that, for there to be a breach, the declaration of information must be false and there must be a failure to co-operate. We shall examine the contents of the declaration seriously. The Government certainly stand by the contents of the dossier, but we also know that there is some recent information that Saddam Hussein has been seeking to hide weapons of mass destruction. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether the fact that the items that he mentioned are not in the precise place specified in the dossier proves that Saddam Hussein does not have them, my response is that we must look at all the evidence. We must consider all the intelligence information and look at the detail of the dossier. That must be done carefully. These are serious matters and they need to be dealt with seriously. This is an attempt to avoid going to war yet achieve the end of ensuring that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction. That is an end that we will achieve.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Is there not a danger that our rightly firm resolve to make Saddam blink may leave us unable to recognise our success? If there is no material breach or nothing disclosed, can we remind the US—and, indeed, the Opposition here—that that should be a cause not of disappointment but of rejoicing? Will my hon. Friend the Minister say what is pencilled in the diaries of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to ensure that discussions are held with the US before that country fires off its judgment without consulting its very loyal and patient allies?
    Mr. O'Brien: I assure my hon. Friend that we are in full consultation with the US. We will look at the declaration and consult on the issues that it raises with the US and other permanent members of the Security Council, and indeed with other members of that council. If it were found that the declaration was genuine and full, and that the inspectorate was able to carry out its inspections completely unhindered and for a prolonged period of time, that might represent some evidence that Saddam was prepared to follow the pathway to peace.
    I hope that we can avoid war and that we will find a pathway to peace. I know that the choice rests with Saddam Hussein.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister refers to the pathway to peace, and I am sure that we all agree with that. If there is an alleged breach of resolution 1441, will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government's view that any further action should be a matter for the Security Council, because many in the United States Administration view resolution 1441 as the pathway to war, not to peace?
    Mr. O'Brien: Resolution 1441 does not stipulate that, for example, there needs to be a second resolution to authorise military action. It says that the UN Security Council must be given the opportunity to consider any report or other information. As the Foreign Secretary has said, in the event of a material breach, the Government's preference is for a second resolution. So far the Security Council has, as Kofi Annan said, faced up to its responsibilities, and we believe that it will continue to do so. However, we must reserve our
    142
    position in the event that it does not. Iraq should be in no doubt that the message of resolution 1441 is clear and that any failure to comply will have serious consequences.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of allied countries on extending the mandate of the international security force in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [84322]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): On 27 November, the UN Security Council agreed to extend the ISAF mandate until 20 December next year. The area of operations remains Kabul. We are discussing with other coalition members ways of getting what is called an ISAF effect in areas beyond Kabul.
    Mr. Mullin: What role are the Americans playing? Are they still floating around the country handing out bin bags full of dollars to warlords and shooting up wedding parties, or has it been possible to engage their attention in nation building?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am pleased to report that the Americans are very much engaged in nation building, in that they are putting substantial amounts of aid money into Afghanistan and are looking at ways of improving the security situation. The US has recently proposed having small civil military teams of 40 to 60 strong to work with the Afghan national army regional leaders and non-governmental organisations to help to improve security in areas outside Kabul. Substantial sums are going into Afghanistan from the United States and the US is working with other countries to improve the security situation. It is also working closely with President Hamid Karzai's Government. I visited President Karzai recently and he was very grateful for the help that Britain as well as the United States has provided to Afghanistan.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I, through the Minister, congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on asking one of the great, classic, perennial parliamentary questions? Does the Minister recall that when the viceroy of the day posed the question to the great Lord Salisbury, the Foreign Secretary advised the Viceroy's Council to study Afghanistan on a larger-scale map—a piece of advice that is of general application today?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) welcomes the hon. Gentleman's advice. I, too, will ensure that I study all the maps that I need to study.
    Joan Ruddock: I think that my hon. Friend is aware of the concerns of the NGOs and their workers outside Kabul. However, does he know that one of Mercy Corps' veterinary surgeons was shot dead in Kandahar province when he was attending to his duties as a livestock support worker and that three other Afghans working for Mercy Corps have been

    143
    kidnapped? Fortunately, they have now been released, but that has led them to consider whether they can continue their operations. When will a demilitarisation programme begin in Afghanistan?
    Mr. O'Brien: As I have already indicated, the coalition is looking at ways of extending the ISAF effect to improve security in the provinces beyond Kabul. We need to demobilise and disarm the militias, build an accountable Afghan national army, create an effective police force, stamp out the drugs trade and construct a legal system. We are in the process of nation building, and I cannot tell my hon. Friend that we will achieve that overnight. I wish that we could do it more quickly, but these things need to be built brick by brick. It takes time, but doing it properly will lead to more effective and solid results for the long-term future of Afghanistan. Rushing to judgment and being too quick to put in mechanisms that do not work could be detrimental and counter-productive.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: We are not asking the Minister to achieve anything overnight, but we have heard both from him and from his colleague the Secretary of State for International Development that the ISAF remit might extend beyond Kabul. Does he agree that, for every delay, there is an increase in heroin production in Afghanistan, which has a direct impact on the amount of drugs available on the streets of the United Kingdom? The Minister must make the connection between the power of the territorial warlords and the failure to tackle them. When can we expect positive action?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a link with the disorder in Afghanistan—a country ravaged by war for 25 years. We are in the process of re-establishing law and order in parts of Afghanistan around Kabul and in some other regions. That will be done over a period of time. However, it is wrong for a Government to say that, in a massive country such as Afghanistan, we can make changes within a few days or months, or even a year. The programme does not only address issues with regard to poppy production, which means providing alternative lifestyles for people who grow poppies and using a forced eradication programme. We are supporting such policies not only because they are right for Afghanistan but also because, if they are successful, they will prevent people from dying on our streets. However, we cannot promise to do that overnight; it will take time. I suspect that poppy production will rise before it falls, because we need to establish substantial controls and building an Afghan national army requires time, effort, resources and facilities. It cannot be done overnight.

    Terrorism
    Mr. David Chaytor: What links he has identified between Iraq and al-Qaeda. [84323]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We know that al-Qaeda operatives have been in Iraq. It is not clear what links they have with the Iraqi regime.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree with the United States Government that military action against Iraq would be part of the war against terror? If so, does he think that war can provide the solution to terror?
    Mr. O'Brien: The objective of our involvement in Iraq is to ensure that Saddam Hussein is prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction. That is clearly the objective set out in UN resolution 1441. We know that, in the past, Iraq has supported terrorists such as the Abu Nidal group and Mujahedin-e Khalq—the MEK—and that Saddam Hussein gave money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine. Saddam Hussein has been involved in terrorism, but whether he is involved with al-Qaeda is another matter.
    We hope that the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq can be achieved by peaceful means. I hope, too, that we can deal with the problems of terrorism worldwide, but I fear that it is possible that our means may not always be peaceful.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister keep in mind when exploring those links the fact that many of us will have great difficulty in finding a proper moral justification for war against Iraq unless we can properly invoke the principles of self-defence, which can be properly invoked only if the threat to ourselves or our allies is both grave and imminent?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is our view that resolution 1441 provides a legal basis for ensuring that the inspectors go into Iraq. We seek to provide a way to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not create the circumstances in which war happens. Our objective is to achieve disarmament. We shall work towards that end.
    Resolution 1441 was good enough for Syria, France, Russia and all the members of the Security Council. I am not sure why it is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I would not have fancied being an al-Qaeda representative in Sunni Iraq. Will the Minister put the names of those operatives, if he has them, in the Library?
    Mr. O'Brien: No.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Is it not clear from all the Minister's answers that there is no link between al-Qaeda and the regime in Iraq and that, whereas there is a perfectly good case to pursue terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, and there is probably an equally good case to pursue the Iraqi regime, to link the two together simply does a great disservice to truth?
    Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman obviously knows more than those who are a lot better informed than him. It is not clear that there are links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. We are still examining some

    145
    evidence that is available to us. We know that al-Qaeda operatives have been in Iraq, and we also know—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) should not shout at the Minister.
    Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    We know that there have been al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq. We are not sure what the links are, so it is right to investigate them. The right hon. Gentleman makes an assertion that there are no links, but I could not possibly make that assertion based on the evidence that I have.

    Sudan
    Mr. Harold Best: What help he is offering to further the reconciliation process in Sudan. [84324]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): In 2002, there is a new window of opportunity for peace in Sudan and a new round of peace talks led by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. The United Kingdom has played a major role in the peace effort so far, through its role as international observer at the Machakos talks. This year, we have committed about £10 million to support humanitarian work and the peace process itself.
    Mr. Best: I am very pleased to hear the report from my hon. Friend the Minister, but does he share my concern about the damage that might be done to peace in Sudan if war were to break out in Iraq? That seems not to be the kind of development that most of us who are interested in peace in Sudan would want to see.
    Mr. Rammell: Our aim in Sudan and Iraq is to secure peace and security. In Iraq, we face a threat from weapons of mass destruction. We are trying to resolve that issue peacefully. Saddam has the opportunity to do that by complying with resolution 1441. Although I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, I do not believe that we would sustain human rights in Sudan by failing to stand up and ignoring the very real danger that exists in Iraq.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: May I address the question itself? Although I recognise that the key to resolving the conflict in Sudan lies mainly in achieving an equitable sharing of power and wealth between the north and south, does the Minister agree that the lasting solution must also depend on trust and respect for human rights? Is not one of the grave human rights problems facing the people of Sudan the incidence of slavery? Will he therefore agree that that issue must be addressed during any future negotiations? What are the Government doing to try to ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Rammell: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. We have much contact with the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children, which is making significant
    146
    progress. Already, more than 600 abductees have been returned. We are concerned, however, that a market may be created by paying for the return of abductees, but that is a real issue, which must be taken into account in the eventual peace settlement.

    Brazil
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Brazil and the election of President Lula. [84325]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): Before I specifically answer the question, I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our concern and sadness at the news that 36 people have been killed overnight by a mudslide in Brazil.
    We congratulate President Lula on his convincing victory in Brazil's fully democratic elections, and we look forward to working closely with him and his Administration to deepen further our excellent relations with Brazil.
    Lawrie Quinn: Given the important trading relationship between the United Kingdom and Brazil—I think that we are the eighth largest exporter to Brazil—will the Minister outline to the House what he will do to encourage that relationship, make sure that we increase the trade opportunities for British companies, and assist in the continuing development of Brazil, the fifth largest economy in the world?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his keen interest in our relationship with Brazil. We certainly believe that Brazil is a good place to do business. It is the UK's largest export market in Latin America, and, so far this year, our exports are up by some 16 per cent. Indeed, over the last year, more than 100 British companies have invested in Brazil, indicating strongly that they regard Brazil as a good place to do business. We will continue to support those efforts.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Minister's response, will he confirm that fears that the new President might change the economic pattern of Brazil are unfounded, and that he is continuing to lead his people to a better way of life?
    Mr. Rammell: I certainly feel able to do that. Whatever initial concerns existed, the whole international community is now reacting favourably to the way in which President-elect Lula is forming his Administration. Indeed, the recent International Monetary Fund delegation to Brazil reacted very positively to the developments that are taking place.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Despite the Government's substantial efforts since 1997 to encourage British business to engage more readily with Brazil, it is fair to say that the response has not always been as good as that for which we hoped. Business often cites the complexity of the regulatory regime in Brazil as off-putting. When the Minister has the opportunity to

    147
    discuss these matters, will he make that point to his counterparts, and will he also encourage them not to be tempted down the route of protectionism?
    Mr. Rammell: The point is well made. As I said, the 16 per cent. increase in exports in the last year is very positive. I am visiting Brazil next week, and I will meet representatives of the British business community there. I look forward to discussions within that forum.

    Health Service Workers (Sub-Saharan Africa)
    Dr. Evan Harris: What recent discussions he has had with governments of sub-Saharan African countries about the import of their skilled health service workers into the UK. [84327]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The recruitment of staff for the national health service is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his Department.
    Nevertheless, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in October 2001, the Department of Health published a code of practice for NHS employers who are involved in the international recruitment of health care professionals. The publication provides a detailed explanation of the processes that must be carried out when recruiting from overseas to ensure that those developing countries suffering significant staff shortages of their own are not targeted.
    Dr. Harris: Surely the Minister understands that his Government's view that this is simply a matter for the Department of Health shows that there is an unethical black hole in the middle of their foreign policy. South Africa, which has already requested this country not to recruit its hard-trained nurses and doctors, has seen the number of its staff recruited by this country increase from 393 in 1997 to 2,114. As for Malawi, 43 out of the 235 nurses that it trains per year are now working here. Surely foreign Governments have told him and his colleagues that that is unacceptable. Until the Government keep an exact record of the extent to which we are destroying the capacity of foreign countries' health care systems, and offer to put something back, we will not be behaving ethically in this area.
    Mr. Rammell: With the greatest respect, to describe that as an unethical black hole is exaggeration even by the standards of Lib Dem "Focus" leaflets. We are firmly committed to ensuring the protection of developing countries. That is why we have developed the code of practice, in which we are ahead of the game—no other country throughout the world has done that. On what the hon. Gentleman says about putting something back, through the Department for International Development, we invest £30 million a year, 30 per cent. of which goes into the South African health system.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is, however, possible, as my hon. Friend will accept, to provide proper training and assistance to African nations while not denuding them of desperately needed staff. Real problems exist in southern Africa,
    148
    particularly in relation to those groups affected by AIDS, and it is essential that they are not deprived of their health care professionals.
    Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend makes an important and serious point. AIDS is the scourge of southern African. Through the Department of Health, we have constructive programmes that we are developing with the South African health department. We will do everything that we can to help. On the specific issue that has already been raised, the code of conduct offers the best protection available for the recruitment of health care professionals from developing countries.
    Tony Baldry: This is truly disingenuous. The national health service does not have to recruit these nurses, because they are recruited by agencies. If the Minister wants to see hell on earth, he should visit the Lilongwe general hospital where practically every nurse who was trained last year was stripped out to come to work for agencies in this country. The Minister's answer was accurate but totally disingenuous.
    Mr. Rammell: Agencies and organisations working with the NHS have to comply with the code of practice that we have established. We take the issue seriously, and we would all want to operate in an ideal world. The fact remains that the code of practice that we have already established is the most advanced in the world. The Government will not apologise for the fact that we are expanding our capacity in terms of the number of nurses in a way that the Conservative party consistently failed to do.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Eric Joyce: If he will make a statement on the forthcoming enlargement of the EU. [84329]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I hope that we will complete enlargement negotiations with 10 candidate countries at the Copenhagen European Council this week. That will allow us to meet the aim, first set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of reuniting Europe in time for the European Parliament elections in 2004.
    Mr. Joyce: My hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous contribution that Turkey has made to the security of Europe over the years. Does he agree that the best way to encourage human rights and the Europeanisation of institutions in Turkey is to give it as soon as possible the beginnings of a move to a start date for negotiations on its entry to the European Union?
    Mr. MacShane: Very much so. Turkey is at the crossroads. It can look west towards Europe to modernise and democratise its institutions and political processes, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have been in the

    149
    van of arguing within Europe that Turkey should be given at Copenhagen later this week a clear and proximate date for the start of entry negotiations.
    Mr. Richard Spring: I am mindful of the concerns of some accession countries about securing support for entry in referendums, but will the Minister tell the House if and what the Government's objections are to the latest Danish financial and common agricultural policy proposals? Does he agree that new flexibility on direct farm payments would be advantageous to the accession states?
    Mr. MacShane: No, because the accession states have negotiated in good faith under what is called the Berlin ceiling, which was the package set. That means that all of them will be better off once they are inside the EU. They have to absorb the money as part of a process of reform and modernisation. That it is precisely why, in the Financial Times today, four Prime Ministers have argued the case for a yes at Copenhagen and for the reuniting of the European family of nations.
    Mr. Wayne David: My hon. Friend referred to the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 and to Turkey. Does he agree that it is also important to consider the enlargement of the EU in 2007 when I hope that Bulgaria and Romania will join?
    Mr. MacShane: Yes, indeed. I am keeping my fingers crossed that, at Copenhagen, we will also confirm 2007 as the target date for Bulgaria and Romania. That is the new Europe of the 21st century, united as a zone of peace, prosperity and democracy.
    Angus Robertson: Does the Minister share the concern of many of my constituents in fishing communities that the Copenhagen summit, which is rightly trying to expedite the enlargement of the EU, does not have the fishing crisis on its agenda? Will he explain to my constituents what efforts the UK Government are making to ensure that fishing is on the agenda at the summit, or do the Government think that the crisis is not important enough for them to press for the issue to be on the agenda in the first place?
    Mr. MacShane: No. No Government have done more to raise the plight of their fishermen than Her Majesty's Government. Of course every one of the 15 EU member states will have pressing problems that it will want to place on the agenda at Copenhagen. What is important is that the Fisheries Council deals with the matter and that the reform of both the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy is maintained. For the first time in 20 years, this Government are doing something about that in a serious, professional and coherent manner.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Dr. Desmond Turner: What assessment he has made of the implications of the policy statements made by the new leader of the Israeli Labour Party for the peace process. [84330]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): It is for Israeli voters to decide which party's policies are most likely to bring them peace and security. We look to the next Israeli Government, whoever leads it, to engage with the Palestinians and the international community in the implementation of the Quartet road map within the time frame set out by President Bush on 24 June.
    Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the emergence of Mr. Mitzna offers us new hope for restarting the middle east peace process and for withdrawal from illegal settlements on the west bank? Does he also agree that whether Mr. Mitzna becomes Israel's next Prime Minister or the leader of the Opposition, this Government should do their utmost to support his efforts towards a peaceful and political settlement in the middle east?
    Mr. O'Brien: We certainly want a peaceful settlement of the middle east conflict. Our policy on settlements is clear. They are illegal under international law and are an obstacle to peace. Israel should freeze all settlement activity, including road building, because it is creating facts on the ground. It breaks up Palestinian territory throughout the west bank and makes the possibility of a negotiated settlement much more difficult to reach. We have consistently called on both parties to refrain from unilateral acts which prejudice the outcome of the permanent status negotiation. Each brick in a settlement is a barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Mr. Mitzna said that if he were Prime Minister, he would immediately begin talks without condition. Whichever candidate wins the forthcoming Israeli elections, does the Minister agree that with attention largely focused on Iraq, the international community, especially the United States, must actively re-engage in pushing for a resumption of the middle east peace process? Does he agree that a continuing stand-off is simply not acceptable and that there is a moral compulsion on all parties to make every effort to engage in dialogue based on a genuine desire to reach an agreement? Who is he in touch with on each side who might actually be prepared to talk to each other?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is the case that we need to resume the talks. The process would be enhanced if the suicide bombings stopped and the Israelis were able to remove their forces from the large areas of the west bank that they occupy, which disrupts activity among Palestinians, so atomising that society. We are in regular contact with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Indeed, this week I met Palestinian representatives and this afternoon I will meet the Israeli ambassador. We are also obviously in contact with representatives of the Quartet who are working hard to create the road map that we hope will be the basis on which a peace process will be constructed. A great deal of discussion is going on and there are many contacts between various Israeli and Palestinian groups. It is important that we

    151
    encourage a process of dialogue because it is only through negotiation and dialogue that we will secure peace.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Have the British Government made representations either to the new leader of the Israeli Labour party or Mr. Sharon on the illegal building of the great Israeli wall? It is illegal from end to end because it is built 6 or 10 km within Palestinian territory, thus confiscating 10 per cent. of the total land.
    Mr. O'Brien: Only a small portion of the wall is built. I have seen photographs of it, but I have not been to see it. The wall is clearly wrong. We have made strong representations to the Israelis that it should not be constructed. Israel has a right to protect itself from terrorist activity, but, frankly, building barriers and walls is not the way to go about creating long-term security for Israel. The Israelis will get long-term security when there is a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and when a middle east peace process brings about a two-state solution—a state for the Palestinians, but also a secure and peaceful state for Israel.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Endorsing what the hon. Gentleman has just said, has the Foreign Secretary told the leaders of both major parties in Israel that the constant flouting of UN Security Council resolutions is not conducive to peace in the middle east?
    Mr. O'Brien: Both parties are well aware of our view that resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 are the basis on which any peace process needs to go forward. We have made it clear that flouting or ignoring those resolutions is not acceptable, but we also know that those resolutions require a peace process. That is why the discussions in the Quartet are important—they will provide the road map to peace. We hope that both parties—Israel and the Palestinians—will work with the international community to ensure that that road does lead to peace.

    Colombia
    David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Colombia. [84331]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The new democratically elected Colombian Government face enormous challenges, particularly in their fight against terrorism and the illegal drugs trade, as well as over human rights and Colombia's humanitarian crisis. We support their efforts to tackle all those issues.
    David Taylor: The United States of America has earmarked $1.3 billion for Plan Colombia, of which 80 per cent. is destined for the military and the police and a pathetic 1 per cent. for the peace process. Can the Minister reassure the House that the millions of euros pledged by the EU nations will be used for the search for an economic, political and social solution to the complex difficulties in Colombia, which have worsened
    152
    with the endemic violence in that country and the ambivalent attitude of President Uribe to the trafficking of heroin and cocaine?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in those issues. I should make it clear to him that the British Government and the EU more generally have no involvement in Plan Colombia. The British Government are committed through the EU process to a package of €330 million to support humanitarian development, the peace process and, particularly, projects involving the rule of law and the defence of human rights. I heard what he said about President Uribe and his alleged past associations. However, despite exhaustive investigations, no evidence to support those allegations has been produced. Nevertheless, we constantly urge Uribe to tackle paramilitaries, collusion and impunity, and we will continue to do so.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister give the Government of Colombia, who have been democratically elected—there is nothing better than the rule of law throughout the country—the fullest possible support, especially in the war against terrorism? Is he aware that hundreds of distinguished Colombian citizens—bishops, priests, mayors, congressmen, judges, senators and countless others—have been kidnapped or have lost their lives as a consequence of terrorism? Can he therefore assure the House that, on behalf of the Government, he will proscribe FARC and the ELN in both Colombia and the EU? Without the elimination of those organisations, the drugs trade will not be eliminated and peace will not be restored.
    Mr. Rammell: We have already introduced a number of the measures that the hon. Gentleman has called for. I very much share his view that we are dealing with a true humanitarian crisis. The statistics show that 2 million people are displaced, 60 per cent. of whom are under 16. More trade unionists were killed in Colombia than in the rest of the world put together last year. The crisis is appalling, and we must support President Uribe's Government. On the point about democratic legitimacy, we certainly take account of the fact that Uribe got 53 per cent. of the vote and has a 70 per cent. approval rating, so there is clearly support for the measures that he has introduced to tackle the crisis. At the same time, however, he must respond to legitimate concerns, especially from non-governmental organisations engaged in the country.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposal from human rights organisations for an exchange of kidnapped people for political prisoners in Colombia? Would the Government consider and support such a proposal?
    Mr. Rammell: I am not aware of that, but if my hon. Friend speaks or writes to me about it, I would be more than happy to discuss it.

    Al-Qaeda
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What assessment he has made of co-ordinated al-Qaeda activity against British interests abroad. [84332]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We constantly monitor the threat to British interests posed by all terrorist groups worldwide. All the intelligence that we receive is sifted and carefully assessed by the intelligence agencies. All the resulting threat assessments are then passed to policy makers.
    Dr. Lewis: Given that the Australian Government managed, nearly a fortnight before the event, to pass on a specific warning to their holidaymakers about the threat of a terrorist attack in Mombasa, why did the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with access to the same intelligence, fail to pass on a similarly specific warning to our holidaymakers in the area?
    Mr. O'Brien: There was no specific intelligence of an attack being planned in Bali—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mombasa."] I am sorry; Mombasa. As far as we are concerned, there was no specific intelligence. If there had been, we would certainly have made that information available.
    As the Prime Minister recently said, hardly a day goes by without a terrorist warning of some kind. Indeed, each month the security services get between 300 and 400 pieces of information about terrorist activities. Of those 300 to 400 pieces of information, usually none results in a predicted incident. Some of the information is partial, imprecise, unreliable or deliberate disinformation; rarely is it precise. It is a matter for the intelligence services to give professional advice on their assessment of the quality of that information. The intelligence services are not infallible, but they make the best professional judgment that they can. We support the way in which they analyse that information. Other countries may take a different view about the way in which they give warnings and analyse information. We believe that our intelligence services are doing the best that they reasonably can to ensure that they assess the information in a professional way.
    Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend is aware that for many years a large number of British people have been going on holiday to Kenya. He will also know that last week the British embassy there had to be closed on security grounds. Can he reassure constituents who contacted me last week that he will further consider updating the website that gives advice about the situation whenever circumstances change so that people do not have to rely on press reports or radio broadcasts when they are about to go on holiday and, understandably, anxious about whether they should cancel it, even if they are going to a part of the country far from the incident?
    Mr. O'Brien: We amended all our travel advice on 18 October to warn travellers of the increased threat from international terrorism. The fact that that was a global warning should not detract from its relevance. Travel advice is kept under constant review in the light
    154
    of all the information available to us. It was changed on 28 November to reflect the implications of the Mombasa attack and the risk of terrorist groups carrying out further attacks in east Africa.
    We cannot guarantee that anywhere is completely and totally safe. What we do know is that al-Qaeda is a threat and that there are other terrorists at large in the world. There is therefore a need to be vigilant. We try to assess professionally all the information that we get and make a good judgment about it. We are currently reviewing the way in which we make those decisions to ensure that we improve wherever possible the way in which that intelligence information is assessed and to ensure that we provide information of the best possible quality to members of the public when they travel abroad.

    Burma
    Vera Baird: What advice he gives to British companies with joint investments in Burma with the military junta. [84333]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We do not encourage trade or investment with Burma. We do not offer support of any kind for companies to pursue trade or investment with Burma. Companies that seek advice are told of the appalling human rights situation, corruption and dire economic situation that exist there.
    Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be well aware that almost the only British company still in Burma is British American Tobacco, which jointly owns a cigarette factory with the military junta and clearly generates considerable profit and tax revenue thereby. When challenged, the company says that, in effect, corporate responsibility requires it to stay in Burma to sustain employment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question must be very snappy, but that is not a snappy question. Will the Minister try to deal with that point?
    Mr. O'Brien: I have made it very clear that, as far as we are concerned, Burma is not a place where we encourage any companies to invest. At least, I am not aware of BAT being given any encouragement to continue to operate there and I shall certainly ask officials to identify any information of the sort that my hon. and learned Friend suggests has been given to it. The economic situation in Burma is deteriorating and the Government of Burma abuse human rights on a substantial scale. I spoke yesterday to Aung San Suu Kyi about our wish to ensure that the Government of Burma carry out a process of modernisation and democratisation as quickly as possible. Only then will the economic problems of Burma be resolved and will we have a roadway leading to a process whereby Aung San Suu Kyi and those who represent democracy can feel that Burma truly has an opportunity to rebuild itself after the tragedies of recent years.

Transport Investment
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the next steps in implementing our investment strategy to improve Britain's transport infrastructure.
Our roads and railways are facing increased demands. We are one of the largest economies in the world, and in the past five years we have got more than 1.5 million more people into work. People are better off and travel more often. As we meet the challenges that come from economic success, we are at the same time dealing with the problems resulting from decades of under-investment in our transport infrastructure.
If we look at other countries' successes in transport and ask what they have done, we see that the common factor is sustained investment year on year and over decades. Over this decade, more than £180 billion in both public and private money will be spent on transport, and because we have built a strong economy we can sustain that investment even in the face of today's uncertain and difficult times.
In the past few months, I have announced additional spending on our railway infrastructure, as well as measures to tackle congestion on the roads. Thirty-seven major road schemes have been completed in the past five years, and even before today's announcement we expect to complete about 30 new schemes in the next five years. Work includes major construction on the Al and the M25, which will start next year.
Today, I am announcing the next stage of our investment programme—measures costing £5.5 billion, including the local transport plan settlement for 2003–04, together with my decisions in relation to five studies set up to examine pressures on the strategic road network. I announced the transport settlement for London last week. Our objective is to improve Britain's rail and road network as well as to make use of existing infrastructure, in a measured and balanced approach between road and rail and public and private transport. That includes improvements to tackle congestion, improve reliability and make journeys safer, together with measures to improve the environment and quality of life. The majority of journeys are local trips of less than five miles. Our plans allow for sustained expenditure and a doubling in real terms of local spending. That addresses the consequences of decades of under-investment and stop-go funding.
I can today announce the details of the local transport plan settlement for 2003–04. In December 2000, we announced that we would invest £8.4 billion to implement local transport plans over five years. Today's announcement is the third instalment. It builds on the £1.36 billion and £1.58 billion announced in the past two years. In total, the settlement gives local authorities a further £1.6 billion to improve local transport.
First, let us consider light rail schemes. In Greater Manchester, Metrolink has proved safe and reliable. Last year, it carried more than 18 million passengers, many of whom would previously have travelled by car. Its success means that I can confirm today funding approval for three new lines, which should more than double the number of passengers carried. Construction is planned to start next year.
156
Subject to statutory procedures, a major light rail line will be built in Liverpool. Merseytram will create better access to the city from Kirkby, contribute significantly to regenerating Liverpool city centre, and boost jobs. In Nottingham, the first phase of the express transit system is under construction and is due to open next year. I accept the east midlands study's recommendation that plans for a second phase should be developed.
Buses remain central to the local public transport system, with nearly 4 billion passenger journeys a year. The local transport settlement will enable local authorities to make important improvements to the bus infrastructure, including providing new bus stations with better links to railway stations and other facilities as well as improving access for people with disabilities. The settlement will fund bus priority measures, thousands of road safety improvements and another 900 safe routes to schools schemes.
Next let us consider road maintenance. Improving the quality of local roads is vital not only for the three quarters of adults in this country who drive, but because most public transport depends on them. Tackling the investment backlog on local roads is therefore essential. We are making available more than £600 million of capital to add to local authorities' resource spending on road maintenance next year. In total, local authorities will be able to spend £2.6 billion on road maintenance. That is more than at any time in the past decade.
I am also approving 12 major local road schemes. Those improvements to local roads will tackle congestion, improve road safety and provide much needed bypasses to remove traffic from towns and villages.
Details of the local transport plan allocations will be placed in the Library, and details of my decisions on all the schemes, including light rail, will also be made available to hon. Members.
We are committed to investing in our strategic road network and making better use of the existing infrastructure. The strategic road network carries one third of all traffic and two thirds of freight traffic. In recent months, we have considered five strategic routes in the light of recommendations from studies of the M6 corridor from the midlands to the north-west, the M1 corridor in the east midlands, the A453 between Nottingham and the M1, the A1 north of Newcastle, and routes from London to the south-west and south Wales.
Most of those motorways were built 30 or 40 years ago. Since then, traffic on them has increased to levels that were never anticipated. However, the strategic routes, both road and rail, are critical to our economic prosperity. As the economy grows, pressure on the roads continues to grow.
We are currently spending on rail, and more passengers and freight are being carried by rail since 1997—but we must also spend more on improving the strategic road network. It is inevitable that large-scale developments take time to plan, design and deliver. We therefore need to make decisions in principle now.
The M6 is a vital link between the midlands and the north-west. When it was built in the 1960s, approximately 75,000 vehicles a day were anticipated. However, today, some stretches carry as many as 150,000 vehicles a day. We have already announced a

157
major £10 billion upgrade for the west coast main line. That is an essential part of our strategy to relieve congestion on that critical transport corridor, allowing for faster trains and increasing capacity for passengers and freight.
The M6 toll road around Birmingham is already under construction and due to open in 2004. The link north of Carlisle to the M74 is being upgraded. With continued economic growth, and given the route's strategic importance, I have accepted the study's recommendation to widen to four lanes the M6 between Manchester and Birmingham, together with junction improvements and safety measures.
The study also considered replacing the A556 in Cheshire by linking the M6 and M56 with a new dual carriageway. I am worried about the environmental consequences of such a new road, and I have therefore asked the Highways Agency to examine the alternative of widening the existing motorways and improving the junction between them.
The M1 corridor links the south-east with the midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east. The Strategic Rail Authority has already announced improved frequency and faster trains on the Midland Mainline from 2004 as well as other measures to improve rail links. This is a strategic route, and vital to our economy. I have, therefore, decided that the M1 should be widened to four lanes through the east midlands, with climbing lanes for lorries and improvements to junctions. I am asking the Highways Agency to work up proposals for both the M1 and M6, including associated environmental measures, as quickly as possible. We are on course to deliver the objectives for road widening set out in the 10-year plan.
The A453 study looked at problems between Nottingham and the M1. Large-scale widening of this road in suburban areas would have had serious consequences for the local community and environment, so I accept the recommendation to dual from the M1 to Clifton, with a smaller-scale widening through Clifton itself.
The study on the A1 north of Newcastle rejected the case for dualling the A1 to the border, and the Scottish Executive do not intend to dual all the road north of Berwick. The safety record at a number points causes major concern, however, so I am asking the Highways Agency to develop proposals for significant safety improvements. These include completing the widening of the A1 between Morpeth and Alnwick, rather than widening it to Berwick as the north-east regional assembly proposed. Also in Northumberland, the Highways Agency will add to the roads programme the Haydon Bridge bypass on the A69.
I also have to announce decisions on the routes to the south-west and south Wales. First, I have accepted recommendations to add climbing lanes and to improve junctions on the M4 and M5 around Bristol, which will tackle one of the most congested parts of the motorway network. Secondly, much of the A303 is already a dual carriageway, and I am accepting recommendations to dual the remaining single-carriageway sections east of Ilminster. As well as relieving congestion, these improvements will make journeys safer and more reliable.
158
It is essential that proposals to tackle congestion and improve reliability are consistent with our wider environmental obligations. I have had to consider whether I could accept the south-west regional assembly's recommendation to build a dual carriageway on the A303 and A30 through the Blackdown hills, which are designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. I believe that there must be a strong presumption against building new roads in such areas, so I am asking the Highways Agency to consider the feasibility of an alternative proposal to widen the A358 from Ilminster to the M5 at Taunton.
As the House will know, an extremely busy section of the A303 runs through the world heritage site at Stonehenge. The original cheaper cut-and-cover solution had substantial environmental drawbacks, so my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have decided that a 2 km tunnel should be bored beneath the site at an additional cost of £31 million—a sum that I believe is justified by the environmental gain. This will allow major improvements at this world-famous site. We have a clear duty to protect our heritage and environment.
The five studies made a number of other recommendations, and my full response is being placed in the Library. Some recommendations are for local authorities to develop, and my response makes it clear that far more work needs to be done on a number of other proposals, to establish their feasibility and affordability. I also make it clear that not all of them will go ahead. For example, some proposals, such as the one to widen the M6 to five lanes, will not be taken forward. Further studies will look at the following strategic corridors: from London to the south midlands; along the south coast; from London to Ipswich; on the M60 around north-west Manchester; on the M25; through Yorkshire; through the west midlands; around Hull; and on Tyneside. I expect to report on my decisions on these in the spring. I shall also announce further investment in transport infrastructure at other locations during the course of next year.
The Government are spending more on rail and road to tackle congestion, to improve reliability and to make journeys safer. Under this Government, that investment will be sustained year on year, because it is an essential part of building our economic prosperity and improving our quality of life. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in providing an advance copy of his statement. His announcement of the widening of some roads will be widely welcomed. Businesses, motorists and communities in the midlands, the north and the north-west will undoubtedly welcome the widening of the M1 and the M6, and the south-west has desperately needed the full dualling of the A303 for a long time. His words about light rail, buses and trams will also be welcomed by many.
Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that given the warnings last week from the Strategic Rail Authority that the 10-year transport plan is now effectively in tatters, few will believe that such projects are certain to happen? Does he accept that even after this announcement, his Government plan to spend less

159
on roads in each year of the 10-year transport plan than the average level of spending under the last Conservative Government?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his Government have travelled a long way from where they started on the issue? In 1998, his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"Everyone now acknowledges that we cannot build our way out of congestion; the days of predict and provide are over."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 786.]
Does the Secretary of State remember that? Will he admit that today's statement is a U-turn from that position? Does he remember that the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"I will have failed if in five years time there are not…far fewer journeys by car."?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been a failure and that that approach has been scrapped?
Four times on this morning's "Today" programme, the Secretary of State refused to say that reducing traffic is still Government policy, so will he state clearly that Ministers have definitively abandoned that target? Does he also realise that other parts of his statement provoke a strong sense of déjà vu? He boasts of the amount to be spent. In 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House:
"Let no one say that we are not putting our money where our mouth is. We have made a £1.7 billion increase in public investment for transport over the next three years".
All that time and money, but nothing achieved.
The Secretary of State said today that he would work with local government to improve transport. In 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said of local government:
"This major new initiative will be backed by £700 million, which will enable the development of 150 local transport strategies over the next three years."
Does the Secretary of State remember that? All that time and money, but nothing achieved. He rightly noted that business is worried about congestion. In 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would take action and told the House:
"The Confederation of British Industry complains of the £15 billion cost of congestion."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 784–88.]
Does the Secretary of State remember that? I have news for the Government: today, the CBI complains of the £20 billion cost of congestion. All that time and money, but nothing achieved.
Does the Secretary of State accept that we have had five and a half shamefully wasted years in which motorists have been lectured, penalised and massively taxed; the highest fuel duties in the western world have paid for the smallest road building programme since the second world war; and the average motorist has endured a 16 per cent. rise in journey times and a 50 per cent. rise in motorway congestion while Ministers and their chauffeurs sail past in the bus lanes that other people are penalised for using?
Does the Secretary of State really expect motorists to be grateful for his decision to put back in the road programme schemes that Labour should never have
160
axed in the first place, many of which might have been finished by now if the Government had not got it so badly wrong? Last year, they added not a single inch of tarmac to the national road network—a shocking failure. Is he ashamed of that?
Does the Secretary of State expect the public to believe that he will build the roads that he has promised today when last week the Government had to admit that they could not deliver the rail improvements that he promised only a few months ago? Has he not proven today that, with Labour, all we ever get is the promise of jam tomorrow and the reality of jams today?
Mr. Darling: I do feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, one of his biggest problems is that he does not have a transport policy. He said at the Tory party conference that he would announce that policy before the end of the year, but I note that there are only 10 more announcing days till Christmas, so time is running out.
The hon. Gentleman has another problem. The general thrust of his rant is, I think, that we ought to be spending more, yet I note that the leader of the Conservative party—I know that the hon. Gentleman has difficulties with him, or at least did in the past—said as recently as 8 December:
"We've already said we are not matching the Government's spending plans."
So, whatever else the hon. Gentleman says, he cannot get away from the fact that he would not have the money to spend on any such measures, let alone those that I have announced today.
The hon. Gentleman raised two points that are worthy of reply. First, he complained that there were more people travelling around than there were five years ago. In many ways that is a good thing, is it not? There are 1.5 million fewer unemployed people now. People are moving around: they are better off because of the strong economy. Our job must be to ensure that the transport system enables people and goods to move around. Ours must be a measured and balanced approach. That is why we are investing in both road and rail.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Strategic Rail Authority and rail expenditure. Richard Bowker, the SRA's chairman, made the obvious point that the industry needs to get a grip on its projects and costs. It never did that under Railtrack. It did not do it under privatisation, when the whole system virtually fell to pieces. Richard Bowker was absolutely right: we must keep a tight control on expenditure to ensure that money is spent properly.
As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I think that, rather like his policies, they are best forgotten.
Mr. Don Foster: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving notice of his statement. Although it has already been announced, may I begin by welcoming the money provided for local transport plans? My local authority will be delighted.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that local plans often provide the most balanced and measured solutions to the scourge of congestion and pollution on our roads, not least by focusing on improving public transport? If so, why has he not applied the same

161
measured and balanced approach to major national projects? Why, within days of the announcement that many of the major rail improvement projects were to be shelved and that no money was available for the rail items in the multi-modal studies, are the Government returning to the old failed predict-and-provide approach on our roads? Did the multi-modal studies not show that without matched road pricing and equal action to improve public transport, major road building simply generates more traffic, increases congestion and harms business and the economy?
Why, when we are about to hear more news of train delays and cancellations, has the Secretary of State not reconsidered the balance of Government funding between road building and public transport? What exactly did he mean when he said back in June:
"Britain isn't big enough for us to be pouring more and more concrete over its green and pleasant land"?
Has he not simply given up? Surely all we can look forward to now is worsening public transport and longer and wider traffic jams.
Mr. Darling: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for our proposals, but he says that we should be spending more on rail. Indeed, I saw him on television earlier saying exactly the same. Perhaps he should have a word with the Liberal Democrats' finance spokesman, who has given a warning about Liberal Democrat spending plans. He said that his colleagues could no longer assume that spending pledges could be funded unless they satisfied five tests. Where have we heard that before? The tests include the following: the pledges must be value for money, they must be funded within current budgets, they must be a priority for scarce resources, and—wait for it—the Liberal Democrats must decide whether the pledges could not be better delivered by the private sector. My word! I look forward to that being debated at next year's Liberal Democrat conference.
The hon. Gentleman made a fair point in saying that investment must be balanced and must be measured. That is why we are spending far more on the railways. As I told the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) a moment ago, Richard Bowker's point last week was not that there was a lack of substantial sums. The point is that we cannot return to the situation that was arising with Railtrack, which simply thought of a number and doubled it, which had no control over its costs and which did not get a grip on its projects. Of course we must ensure that money is spent properly, whether it has come from the private or the public sector; but a substantial amount is being invested. The west coast main line is a case in point.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say, basically, that he was opposed to everything I announced today about road improvements. Is he really saying to his colleagues with constituencies in south-west England that the A303 should not be dualled, or to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that he should not argue for upgrading the A1, as he did at a recent Question Time? Does he not want the M4-M5 around Bristol to be improved? He knows in his heart of hearts that Liberal policy on transport can be a trifle muddled at times.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will be aware that his decision to put
162
a lot of money into light rail will be most warmly welcomed. The decision to improve roads, where bypasses are needed or where safety demands that the quality of a road be upgraded, will also be welcomed. However, he will, I think, accept that we cannot build our way out of congestion and that without some commitment towards inter-urban charging or some suitable change in Government policies, this road building programme will not provide the improvement that we expect. Will he please tackle the fact that, over the next 10 years, public transport will become more expensive and motoring cheaper?
Mr. Darling: I agree that transport policy has to be balanced. We have to invest in sensible road improvements—although nobody is suggesting that we should return to the widespread motorway programmes of the 1960s—but we also need to invest in public transport. I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledged that.
I have said on many occasions since I started doing this job that road pricing needs to be debated—it is a subject that people tend to shy away from. There are two problems. The first is whether it is a feasible proposition, as we are talking about nearly 25 million cars, and nowhere in the world has such a proposition been tackled. The second is whether it would be technically possible. I have enough experience as a Minister with large IT projects to be very wary of people who come along and say, "Don't worry, it'll be all right on the night." It does not quite work that way.
I agree that a transport policy should be measured and balanced, and that is the policy that I have been pursuing over the past six months and that I intend to pursue in future.
Mr. Robert Key: My former pupil, the Secretary of State, has scored good marks on this test. Although I regret that he has not seen fit to build a Salisbury bypass, he has taken the right decision on Stonehenge. The fact that there is to be a deep-bore tunnel will put at rest the minds of many archaeologists, for a start. I hope that we can now speed up the process. Is he confident, however, that the unseemly row between English Heritage and the National Trust over the tunnel can be resolved? I will be happy to oblige if I can help. Can I take it at face value when he says that the A303 east of Ilminster will be dualled—and that that will include bypasses not only for Winterbourne Stoke but for Chicklade?
Mr. Darling: I remember that the hon. Gentleman tried to teach me geography for a short time, but I cannot remember whether Stonehenge was included in the syllabus. I am grateful to him for his welcome. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had a meeting with the National Trust this morning and explained that the Government, having discussed the matter with all the interested parties for some time, have come to the concluded view that a 2.1 km bored tunnel is the right way forward. I very much hope that the National Trust, and everybody else involved, can now accept that and get on with it. Any one who has been to Stonehenge will be amazed that, in this day and age, we still have a busy road

163
running right through a world heritage site. If the hon. Gentleman can encourage people to get on with it, so much the better.
I want to ensure that the rest of the A303 is dualled. We are now asking the Highways Agency to work up proposals. Clearly, plans will need to be developed and planning consents sought, but I want to get on with it as quickly as possible. As the House well knows, because of the fact that there are many people along the route who will want to have their say, getting planning permission can be a complex business.
Dr. Gavin Strang: The whole House should welcome this major public investment in road and rail. I recognise the point that my right hon. Friend made about the strategic road network carrying about two thirds of our freight, but will he reaffirm the Government's commitment to major investment in rail freight? I am sure that he agrees that rail freight should not be seen as the Cinderella of the railway business. Will he confirm that the Government will continue to invest and to take all measures that they can to get freight off the roads and on to the railways?
Mr. Darling: The Government are determined to ensure that more freight is carried on rail—indeed, the amount carried on the railways has gone up by about 28 per cent. in the past five years. I certainly agree with the sentiments that my right hon. Friend expresses on rail freight, not least because of the fact that I am speaking at the Rail Freight Group's Christmas lunch tomorrow.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to expanding capacity on both roads and railways; that is sorely needed and it is a good idea. When looking at the need for capacity between the Thames valley and London, will he consider favourably noise-reducing surfaces and noise barriers along any sections of widened motorway that are close to human habitation? On the railways, will he look at better braking and signalling technologies to enable more trains per hour to run at peaks? We desperately need more peak rail capacity, and there is no room for extra track.
Mr. Darling: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says on improving the quality of road surfaces. As existing roads come up for renewal, different surfaces are being applied to them to reduce noise, and new roads also have surfaces that cause a lot less noise. That makes a dramatic difference for drivers and, importantly, for people living alongside such roads. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, about a month ago the Strategic Rail Authority announced major changes to the franchising system. There will be one franchisee for most principal London stations, which will help to deal with some of the hold-ups that are currently encountered. Also, one objective of the review into railway capacity and making better use of railways is to ensure that we make more sensible use of train timetables. I hope that that, together with the gradual upgrading of signalling, will lead to a system that is far more reliable than the current one.
Mr. Keith Bradley: May I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement concerning the metrolink extensions in Manchester? As a result, the light rail system will come to my constituency for the first time, saving thousands of car journeys, particularly to local hospitals and to Manchester airport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these additional routes will lead to other routes such as that through to Stockport via Didsbury being considered much sooner than would otherwise have been the case? Such routes will be welcomed by all the people of south Manchester.
Mr. Darling: The Manchester metro is an excellent example of what can be achieved by investing in public transport and providing a good alternative, so that people leave their cars at home and travel by metro. I am very glad that we were able to reach agreement with the various councils in Greater Manchester on additional funding to ensure that the three new routes are properly served. If the service works well and is delivered efficiently, I hope that we can move on. Where an existing metro is in place and substantial public investment has already been made, it makes sense to develop it further, if and when we can. However, the most important thing is to ensure that the new investment goes in, and that the new system works as effectively as possible.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Surely the Secretary of State cannot be satisfied that the main strategic road from eastern England to his own city of Edinburgh still has such a long and dangerous stretch of single carriageway. If he rests his case for that on the multi-modal study, why is he so lukewarm about the rail improvements contained in it, and why is Railtrack still blocking the reopening of stations such as Belford, which could take traffic off the road?
Mr. Darling: I am rather surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman on his feet, given the injunction imposed on him by the Liberal Democrats' finance spokesman, who said that they must stick to current budgets. The multi-modal study considered whether the A1 should be dualled to the Scottish border. It came to the view that it should not, but it did agree that a number of improvements were necessary. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my home city of Edinburgh, and one of the things that may have influenced the study is that the Scottish Executive do not intend to dual the A1 north of the border. If we dualled it south of the border, the odd situation would arise of the road reverting to single carriageway the minute the line was crossed.
In fact, for many people living in Scotland's central belt, the principal route to the south is now down the M74 and the M6, rather than down the A1. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in calling for that road to be improved. It will be improved, and the Highways Agency will keep the whole matter under review in years to come, but I do not want to hold out false hopes, because that would not be fair to the right hon. Gentleman or his constituents. However, he should acknowledge that substantial improvements are on the way for the section to which I referred, and for the junctions, which I hope will be made safer.
Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing

165
what I consider to be a balanced set of proposals, and in particular on agreeing to fund the Merseyside tram project, or light rail system, as he called it. The project will link Kirkby in my constituency with Liverpool city centre and, just as importantly, will go through some of the most deprived communities on Merseyside. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Merseytravel on bringing the project to the point where it is now a reality?
Mr. Darling: I agree on my hon. Friend's final point. Merseytravel has put a lot of work and effort into the project, and I am glad that we were able to agree the funding. The key thing is to get the link constructed and operating. I hope that the fact that we are giving the go-ahead for Merseytram will encourage others to invest in the city and secure the improvements that we want, not least by ensuring that more people are in work and helping to increase the city's prosperity.
Mr. George Osborne: The widening of the M6 through my constituency will be received as a mixed blessing, but there will be bitter disappointment that we still do not have a decision on the A556M. When will a decision be made about either improving junction 20 or building the new motorway? Enormous planning blight has been caused in my constituency for the people whom I represent.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has craftily refrained from telling us which side he is on in that great debate. I have made it clear that I am concerned about the environmental impact that building a new road would have—and the road would be a new one, as it would not follow the line of the existing road. As I have said today and on other occasions—indeed, I said it as soon as I took up this job—we must consider long and hard whether new roads can be justified. I want to make a decision as quickly as possible, as I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said about blight. Clearly, the Highways Agency has to look at the feasibility of upgrading junction 20 to see whether there might be an alternative. I have asked the agency to look at the matter objectively and come up with an alternative. I hope that that is what happens.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I welcome the report, although I am a little disappointed that the Blyth and Tyne rail link, which runs through my constituency in south-east Northumberland and into Newcastle, has not been mentioned so far. Will my right hon. Friend keep an eye on that link in the future?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will know that the link is one of the matters covered in the report. As I made clear in my letter of response, the SRA will want to consider the matter, but I do not want to tell my hon. Friend, "Not to worry, that link is just down the road." We must be realistic, and we are spending a lot of money on transport. My hon. Friend will know that the costs of running the railway have gone up dramatically—not least because we now have a far clearer idea of the state of the network. I am afraid that we never had that under Railtrack or even under British Rail, and it has complicated matters.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The section of the A358 between Ilminster and Taunton is a
166
legitimate candidate for dualling, but that should not happen as an alternative to dualling the A303 from Honiton to Ilminster. When the Government came to office, that piece of road had been subject to a full public inquiry. The very important environmental issues had been considered, and the contract was due to go out to tender. The economic arguments for another arterial route in and out of Devon are overwhelming. The CBI and the Devon and Cornwall Business Council support the project but, more importantly, so does every parish council along the route. If the Secretary of State is going to listen to local people, will he listen to parish councils and their elected representatives?
Mr. Darling: I drove along that route recently to see what the position was. As the hon. Lady may know, I spoke to representatives of industry in the south-west, so I know people's feelings on the matter. However, as I said in my statement earlier, the location has been designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. Successive Governments have taken a view on the environmental benefits of such designations, and we must think long and hard before agreeing to build a new road through the area. That is why it is right to determine whether the alternative through to Taunton would be better. As I told the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), Governments have a duty to have regard to the environmental consequences of what they do. They must think long and hard before committing to projects that could have an adverse effect on the environment.
Ms Candy Atherton: I warmly welcome the statement, and the news on the A303 will be widely welcomed in the west country. It is an example of the Government delivering for Cornwall. Our periphery means that it is critical that we have first-class road and rail links. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend needs to think long and hard about the Blackdown hills, but can I urge him to think more quickly, because we need an urgent decision?
Mr. Darling: Just a few moments ago I said that my preference as regards the Blackdown hills is to look at an alternative. However, my hon. Friend is right that the Government are doing a lot in Cornwall. A number of bypasses and road improvements are being worked on in Cornwall. It is important to ensure that road and rail links in all parts of the country are brought up to standard, and that those from the south-west to the rest of the country are improved. After all, it is not just a matter of quality of life and convenience—the economic prosperity of the south-west depends on its transport links.
Mr. Simon Thomas: In welcoming the improvements in road links to south Wales, I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that 90 per cent. of journeys in Wales are taken by car in contrast to some 84 per cent. in England, so investment in our rail infrastructure is vital for our economy and our environment. In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to rule out the suggested 10 or even 20 per cent. decrease in funding for the Wales and borders franchise that is being discussed?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome and I am sure that the improvements on the

167
M4 and M5 around Bristol will also help traffic travelling to south Wales—at least, it should do, from my experience. On rail expenditure, as I said earlier, the Government are determined to ensure that we continue to invest in the railways the money that has been allocated. However, some people in the industry—operators as well as contractors—are approaching this as if they can simply ask the Government to write a blank cheque. No responsible Government could agree to that, so although of course we want to make sure that we achieve good quality and better standards than we have at present, we cannot accept a situation in which operators say how much money they want and we hand it over. That is no way to run a railway.
Geraldine Smith: Although my right hon. Friend's statement is most welcome, particularly the improvements to the M6, does he agree that it is important to improve motorway link roads such as the proposed Heysham Port/M6 link road, which will bring massive benefits to my constituency when it is finally completed? Can he give me an assurance that when this scheme is submitted to the Government for funding, he will give it his careful consideration?
Mr. Darling: I always consider schemes, but my hon. Friend knows that I cannot go as far as to say that I will approve them. She is right that although it is of course important to improve our strategic arterial routes, the link roads to various parts of the country are equally important. All proposals will be considered carefully, especially those that ensure the continued economic development of certain areas or that benefit areas that are being opened up for additional development.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the south coast multi-modal study has concluded quite clearly that major improvements are necessary to the A27 between Lewes and Polegate and that they should be a priority? So why is he going to wait until the spring to make a decision?
Mr. Darling: Well, simply because we get these reports from the consultants; they then go to the regional assemblies; and various other people have to have their say before they come to me for consideration. I could have waited and looked at them all together, as some people urged me to do, but I thought it best to deal with them in sensible groups. If I jump the process, I fear that somebody will head off to my learned friends in court—as I found out only too recently—and I do not want to repeat that experience too often.
Mr. George Stevenson: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me a guarded welcome for the M6 proposals? Major projects such as the widening of the M6 have an enormous impact on local sub-regions such as north Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share my concern that the multi-modal study did not consider the potential of such rail links as the Crewe-Derby line, which runs through the whole of the north Staffordshire sub-region and into south Cheshire? Will he undertake
168
to review that serious omission so that the potential for passengers and freight on that enormously important sub-regional line can be considered?
Mr. Darling: The SRA will no doubt want to look at a number of rail projects throughout the country. As I pointed out earlier, the cost of running the railways in this country is greater than was anticipated—mainly due to the state of the track, although other factors are also involved.
In relation to the M6, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's "guarded" welcome, but regardless of our ability to get more people to travel by train, that road was built between 30 and 40 years ago, when not too much attention was paid to the environmental consequences, and it is in need of improvement, so the improvements that I announced today would have been necessary in any case.
The SRA will of course look at particular railway lines but I do not want to tell any right hon. or hon. Member that funding is guaranteed. We shall look into such matters, but we have to operate under constraints.
Mr. Michael Jack: I welcome the Secretary of State's attempt to change the M6 from a car park—as it sometimes is—into a working road. However, one aspect of that endeavour was missing from the right hon. Gentleman's statement: there was no sense of the time scale. When is work timetabled to begin on the improvements and will it be funded by a public-private partnership? Does the Secretary of State have any thoughts about tolling the road when it is completed? Finally, when he considers links between Lancashire and Yorkshire, will he be studying plans for an extension of the M65 through the Aire valley to open up another trans-Pennine crossing?
Mr. Darling: In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's question on the M65, the answer is not at the moment. However, it might be helpful if I write to him to let him know where we stand on that matter.
The right hon. Gentleman should not assume from anything that I said today that the road will be tolled. That is not one of our proposals. We need to examine whether it should be funded conventionally or through a public finance scheme. It might be helpful for the right hon. Gentleman and the House to know that the Highways Agency will work up specific proposals and we shall then have to seek planning permission as almost all of them will involve additional land take. The length of that process is not entirely in our hands but we can speed it up by ensuring that the design, environmental considerations, engagement of contractors and so on are telescoped. We are starting to do that, so the process will be quicker than might otherwise have been the case.
As I said in my statement, we cannot begin such projects tomorrow morning; it will be several years before the work is started and completed. I want to get on with things as quickly as possible. The M6 needs that additional capacity as soon as possible. However, I have not the slightest doubt that in future many Members sitting in the Chamber today will raise the legitimate concerns of their constituents about the environmental impacts of the road—we have to marry up the two objectives.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Secretary of State is aware, a senior member of his Department,

169
Mr. Leslie Packer, last night attended a formidably well-researched presentation by the Motor Industry Research Association and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd at the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on hydrogen fuel cells and their future use. As the British Government are good at handling situations when only one Department is involved, but perhaps less good when several are involved, such as—in this case—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry, will my right hon. Friend, as the lead Minister, pay some attention to the serious proposals, made by serious people, on the non-fanciful development of hydrogen fuel?
Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group that is considering that work. I strongly believe that the Government should encourage the development of hydrogen fuels, and we shall do everything that we can, either directly or indirectly through the efforts currently being undertaken by the industry. Unfortunately, I suspect that it will take time to develop a proposition that is commercially exploitable, but I am sure that most Members will agree that we should be looking into such alternative forms of propulsion. There are huge environmental gains to come and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has my assurance that we will do everything that we can to expedite that work.
Mr. David Heath: I think I can give a wholehearted welcome to something that the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, but will he confirm whether what he said about the A303 means that the on-line safety improvements on the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch in my constituency will now take place? Those plans have been in place since 1996; they have gone through a public inquiry and have been agreed. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, may I thank him on behalf of all those in the local communities who have been making representations not because they want to increase capacity, but because they want to save lives?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his wholehearted welcome. I think we have now had from the Liberals one maybe, one against and one in favour: that sums up the Liberal party quite nicely.
In relation to the A303, we have considered the recommendations and taken a decision in principle to go ahead with the dualling, so we will now ask the Highways Agency to work up proposals. Discussions will have to take place with various people locally, who will have strong views on precisely what is planned, but I am quite happy to set out the procedure in relation to the hon. Gentleman's specific points if he would like me to do so, as that would probably help him to talk to his constituents about them.
Phil Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for this statement. I welcome news of the £12.7 million investment to build the A43 Corby link road, which will bring great relief to the village of Geddington in my constituency. In view of the volume of traffic, particularly heavy vehicles, and the number of
170
fatalities and serious injuries, will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to expedite that project so that it can begin as quickly as possible?
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Yes, the A43 Corby link road has been approved and, yes, I will do everything that I can to bring forward those things as fast as I can. I should just repeat, however, that approving such schemes is the easy stage in some ways; the most difficult thing is to reach agreement on the precise configuration and layout, so I hope that all those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of such things this afternoon will apply their minds to addressing the undoubted difficulties that sometimes arise when people say that they are in favour of a road in principle but do not happen to want it just where we had in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend can help us with that as well.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: When this Government came to office and declared war on the motorist in 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister cancelled a whole series of important road schemes, including the Bisley bypass in my constituency. Now that the present Secretary of State has belatedly seen sense, will he agree that I can bring to see him or one of this ministerial colleagues a delegation of my constituents to raise the issue of the Bisely bypass and a matter that I have raised at two previous meetings with his junior Ministers: the resurfacing and noise barriers that are needed on the M3, which bisects my constituency? At the moment, only one carriageway has been resurfaced. That does not help to reduce the noise pollution from which my constituents suffer, and the Highways Agency tells us that the other carriageway cannot be resurfaced for several years. That is nonsense. Logically, all the work should have been done together.
Mr. Darling: In relation to whether the hon. Gentleman can come to see one of my colleagues, there is never any difficulty with right hon. or hon. Members seeking to see Ministers in my Department. As we are here to represent our constituents, we ought to be able to do that in one-to-one meetings, as that suits most hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is aware of the representations to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first, rather ungracious, comment, I simply make the point, since he raises the issue, that what we need in this country is Governments who are able and determined to maintain spending year on year, decade on decade. It would be very useful if the hon. Gentleman would back that, although it would put him at odds with the rest of his party.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today, but does he realise that he will create a problem on the M6? I welcome the four-lane motorway up to the south of Manchester, but there will be a gap north of Warrington to the south of Preston, where it will have three lanes and become a bottleneck. There is a short span of four-lane motorway between Preston and Blackpool. I wonder whether my

171
right hon. Friend will consider finding the funds to ensure that we have a four-lane motorway all the way through Lancashire.
Mr. Darling: I have already spent quite a lot of money today, and I will be careful about offering to spend more. I know the stretch of road to which my hon. Friend refers, and the Highways Agency will keep the matter under review.
Mr. John Randall: Do the Government have a policy on reducing road traffic?
Mr. Darling: Let me make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, if the economy continues to grow, and if, therefore, more people have more money and more reasons to travel, and if we get more people into work who must therefore travel to work, it follows, does it not, that people will move around more. Secondly, one of the reasons why more people are moving around today than were doing so 10 years ago is that, 10 years ago, we were in the teeth of a recession. Surely it cannot be any Government's policy to try to lock people up in their own homes. Our priority is not to stop people moving around but to make sure that we tackle congestion, improve the reliability of journeys and improve road safety. That is the Government's policy, and it will continue to be our policy.
Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the price of owning and running a car has gone down in the last year? If we are to tackle congestion on our roads, especially in relation to inter-urban transport, we must address that issue. I accept my right hon. Friend's statement that the introduction of interurban congestion charging is a very difficult task, but we need to find other methods to encourage people to leave their cars at home. When he comes to consider the M25 review, it should not just deal with congestion and road size but with transferring people from their cars to public transport. It must also consider major park-and-ride schemes for the London area.
Mr. Darling: I agree with some of what my hon. Friend said, as where it is possible to get people out of their cars and into public transport, our transport policy ought to back that. That is why we have announced funding today for the metro light-rail schemes. In relation to London, for example, my hon. Friend will know that I am anxious to make sure that there are improvements to the Thameslink, and that a workable, affordable and deliverable Crossrail project is worked up. He will also know about extensions not just to the tube but to the docklands light railway. At the risk of raising a sore point, we have, of course, announced large sums of money going into the London underground. My hon. Friend is right that money must go into public transport because people must be given a sensible alternative. Without that, we do not have a coherent public transport strategy. I agree with that, and I also agree that some of these issues are difficult and take time to see through.
Mr. David Laws: Can the Secretary of State tell us how long it will take to make a judgement about
172
the A358 route from the A303 through to the M5 at Taunton? When does he expect to make a decision on that important issue, on which I think he is heading in the right direction? Can he also say whether he remains committed to dualling the rail line between Exeter and Salisbury?
Mr. Darling: In relation to the link through to Taunton, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise time. What is important is that we look at all the implications before coming forward with a final worked-up proposal. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman by giving him an artificial time plucked out of the air.
The rail improvements are matters for the SRA to consider, and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking on that at the moment. What I can say is that it is particularly important to make sure that the SRA and First Great Western concentrate on achieving a reliable service between the south-west and London.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: While I realise that today's announcement is restricted to England and Wales, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had any advances made to him from the Scottish Executive in relation to similar additional funding being made available for roads north of the border.
Mr. Darling: Well, no, because the Scottish Executive must fund its roads programme from the sum devolved to it. Many hon. Members would be surprised if the national Government offered to hand over more money. Road policy within Scotland is devolved. We do, of course, have a clear interest in working with the Scottish Executive in relation to rail policy and aviation policy, much of which are national responsibilities.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Some years ago, the Government promised to resurface concrete roads. The A50 is one of the concrete roads that deserves and needs to be resurfaced. There has been no mention of that in what the Secretary of State has said today. A promise was made, so when can the people of Doveridge expect the A50 to be resurfaced?
Mr. Darling: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked a similar question and I said it was the Government's policy to replace such surfaces. That is part of a rolling programme that will take some years to carry out, because some surfaces are relatively new and the policy is relatively recent. I certainly undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman about the stretch of motorway that he mentioned. However, I remind him and all Conservative Members that, if the work is to get done, it will require sustained public spending. It is an awful pity that the Conservative party's policy is not to match us on that spending. If we return to stop-go policies, all the things about which hon. Members have complained today will continue.

Orders of the Day

  European Parliament (Representation) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(Yvette Cooper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has two clear purposes. The first is to enable us to play our part in supporting the enlargement of the European Union and the participation in European parliamentary democracy by the new accession states. Secondly, it will enfranchise Gibraltar in the European parliamentary elections. Together those purposes will form a major step towards fulfilling UK responsibilities arising from the widening of the European Union democracy to include new member states, and towards ensuring fair representation for those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament.
  I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is here to reply to this debate for the Opposition. We had understood that his colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), might lead on this issue, and I confess that that had surprised me. Given the fascination of the hon. Member for Stone for all things European, I would have been a little startled if anyone had managed to prise him away from a Bill that had Europe in the title. Nevertheless, for all the hon. Gentleman's history on matters European, I hope that this is one Bill on which he and his party can agree, as I believe that its provisions should command all-party support.
  Both main aspects of the Bill are about allowing those who are not currently represented in the European Parliament to vote in European elections and to be represented in the European Parliament. Part 1 establishes a mechanism by which the number of UK Members of the European Parliament can be altered to allow space at the European Parliament for new accession states.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Lord Chancellor's press release of 9 December refers to the notion that Gibraltar should become part of the Welsh region for the purposes of representation in the European Parliament. There is also talk of Wales having four seats instead of five. Will the Minister explain the reasoning behind that?
  Yvette Cooper: We have not specified that Gibraltar should be part of the Welsh region. We have made it clear that the Electoral Commission must come forward with a recommendation as to which region Gibraltar should be part of. That could be one of the English regions or the Welsh region.
  Geraldine Smith: Although it is most welcome that Gibraltar will have representation in Europe, is the time not now right for Gibraltar also to have representation in this Parliament at Westminster? Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?
  Yvette Cooper: The position of Gibraltar is complex and has evolved over many years. Very few areas of
  174
  Westminster legislation affect Gibraltar because much of its legislation is made in the Gibraltar Assembly. That process is important and I know that it receives the support of the people in Gibraltar. Therefore, I do not propose a change at this time. However, I shall come to the issues regarding Gibraltar's franchise under the European elections. That issue has also been discussed in the European Court.
  Part 2 sets out a provision to enable the people of Gibraltar to vote in European parliamentary elections and to have their interests directly represented in the European Parliament for the first time. We intend to bring both changes into effect by the time of the 2004 European parliamentary elections. Both parts of the Bill reflect the United Kingdom's international obligations under the treaty of Nice and the European convention on human rights.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister lays great stress on the need to ensure that the electoral system is working as best it can for all citizens. Does she accept that the system that the Government use for the elections—the so-called closed list system—is supported only by the control freakery tendency in the Labour party? Why is she not taking the opportunity offered by the Bill to reconsider the system so that we can have open lists that give each elector a real influence over the outcome of the election?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows that Parliament has debated open and closed lists extensively. We have no proposals to change the system. A series of other countries in Europe use the closed list system, which has the advantage of being clear, simple to operate and easy to understand. It also delivers a proportionate result.
  Mr. William Cash: Did the Minister note the suggestion in the European Scrutiny Committee's report in June that it would be better to return to the first-past-the-post system for European elections rather than relying on proportional representation?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman has a long history of arguing about such things. He knows that the provision for proportional representation is supported across Europe and, as I said, has been extensively debated in the House and the other place. We have no proposals to use the Bill to change the voting system for European elections.
  Part 1 changes the total number of UK MEPs. The House knows that the European Union is preparing for the accession of new member states. The treaty of Nice was signed on 26 February last year by all EU member states and provides for the EU to be enlarged, eventually to include 12 new nations, so bringing the membership to a total of 27. EU enlargement will bring immense benefits in terms of regional stability, economic security, the economy and the environment.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am surprised that the Minister has so far glossed over the allocation of the seats. She must be aware that the number of MEPs allocated provisionally to each country is a matter of controversy and dispute. Not all member states have accepted it. So why, according to the explanatory notes,

  175
  does clause 4 accept that the European Commission will inform the UK of its representation and that the Lord Chancellor will then act on that information? Indeed, he can anticipate the numbers required. That appears to remove from the House the ability to debate the number of MEPs that we should have. I am aware that we will be invited to agree to an order, but why is the House not given an opportunity to debate and agree the number allocated to the United Kingdom when the procedure starts to roll under the Electoral Commission?
  Yvette Cooper: I have been on my feet for about six minutes, in which time I have taken about four interventions. I intend to deal with the number of seats in just a few paragraphs, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient, and I hope to address his concern then. To suggest that I have glossed over the allocation is a little premature.
  The benefits of enlargement will flow across Europe. We should strongly welcome the gains that that will bring for the accession states, which have worked hard to meet the criteria for joining the EU. Enlargement is in the direct interest of the UK as well. The widening market will bring long-term economic gains for British companies and British investors, and the environmental benefits that will result from accession states tackling pollution will be experienced here too. The benefits of regional stability have direct consequences for UK citizens as well as people across Europe.
  Drawing the accession states into the EU means ensuring that they have proper involvement in European institutions and decision making. In particular, for the purposes of the Bill, it means ensuring that they have fair representation in the European Parliament. During preparations for EU enlargement, it was agreed by the treaty of Nice that an enlarged European Parliament with a maximum 732 MEPs was necessary. Existing member states are obliged to make reductions in the number of MEPs to make space for accession states and ensure that they have fair representation, while keeping the European Parliament at a manageable size.
  The Bill sets up a framework for reducing the number of MEPs representing the UK to a final maximum of 72—a reduction of 15 seats from the current 87. The current number of British MEPs is specified in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, which is amended by the Bill. Along with France and Italy, the UK will continue to have the second-largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament.
  Mike Gapes: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the change in the number of MEPs to 732 is a great opportunity for us to move away from Strasbourg once and for all? We could have one location that was not expensive, inefficient and a waste of time and resources.
  Yvette Cooper: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are strong views in other European countries about that. It has been debated extensively across Europe, and I do not anticipate progress on the matter in the near future.
  The number of seats that we have in the European Parliament will not be reduced all at once. It was agreed by the treaty of Nice that the reduction in existing
  176
  member states' representation will take place as new states accede. It is intended to implement some reductions to account for the accession of the first group of accession states—probably 10 of the 12 candidates—in time for the 2004 election. Final decisions about which countries will accede and the number of seats to which each existing member state will be entitled with the first tranche of accessions will be made later this week at the European Council in Copenhagen.
  Mr. John Redwood: I guess the Minister's refusal to answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about our influence over the matter is a reflection of the fact that the Government have no influence. Does she agree with the Portuguese Government that as long as we stay outside the euro, we cannot possibly hope to provide a lead on or influence over such issues?
  Yvette Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman advocating early membership of the euro? That would certainly be a startling change. I sense a shifting position—any minute now, the right hon. Gentleman will be telling us that the five economic tests have been met. As I have explained, the issues are decided by negotiation across Europe. Opposition Members must accept that that is the case—discussion and negotiation are essential. We must ensure that the European Parliament is an effective size and does not grow ever larger with the accession of each new country. It is important that it is of manageable size and that there is fair representation for all members of the European Union. Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that our Parliament should be able to pick numbers out of a hat and toss them at the European Parliament and that every other country should do the same. However, it is important that the issues are debated.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Instead of caricaturing our position, I wish that the Minister would answer my question. These matters are occasionally the subject of controversy and dispute, as she knows, under the Nice allocation. Why, therefore, does clause 4, according to explanatory notes, allow the commission to inform the United Kingdom what its allocation will be? Apparently, we have to accept that allocation without a debate or decision in our Parliament. I urge the Minister to amend the clause to give member states additional influence over that important matter of democracy. That is a rather modest request. I hope that she accedes to it in the light of her Government's professed desire to give member states' Parliaments additional authority.
  Yvette Cooper: As I have made clear, the proposal for a reduction to a final maximum of 72 seats was part of the negotiations of the treaty of Nice. There will be further discussions at the Copenhagen European Council later this week to discuss which states will accede to the European Union this week. It is important for us to recognise that the pace of change towards that maximum of 72 seats will be determined by the pace of accession of other countries. That needs to happen and it will depend on the discussions that take place across Europe, not just this week, but in future.
  There is an important issue about how those reductions are to be incorporated into the European parliamentary election system. We believe that the

  177
  fairest way to decide where the reductions should occur is to ask the independent Electoral Commission to examine the issue and make recommendations. The commission will report to the Lord Chancellor the results of its review and present recommendations about the new distribution of MEPs across the UK. Clause 2 establishes a mechanism for such reviews. It gives the Lord Chancellor the power to require the Electoral Commission to undertake them within a specified period, and according to the number of MEPs necessary at that time.
  Mr. Robert Syms: There is a great deal in the Bill about the Electoral Commission and Government Ministers, but there is nothing which states that the Electoral Commission must refer the matter to the boundary committee for proper scrutiny and due process. Will that be the case? There may be disputes among regions about the number of seats—on grounds of sparsity, for example. Does the hon. Lady expect a proper process to be undertaken?
  Yvette Cooper: Certainly, we would expect the Electoral Commission to conduct a proper review. We are not proposing to alter the boundaries of the electoral regions to account for the change as part of the process or as part of the Bill. It is right that the independent Electoral Commission should make recommendations on the matter. We have specified factors that the Electoral Commission needs to take into account—for example, in order to ensure proportionality across the 12 electoral regions, we have set out in the Bill the requirement that each electoral region should have a minimum of three seats, irrespective of voter numbers, to provide reasonable scope for proper representation for each region. Clause 2 ensures that while carrying out the review, the commission takes that into account, and that thereafter the proportion of MEPs to electors should be as equal as is practically possible across the regions. Within those parameters, the Electoral Commission can make any recommendations that it considers appropriate.
  Clause 4 gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make a draft order to implement, in due course, the reduction in the total number of MEPs and any recommendation made by the Electoral Commission. The Lord Chancellor will not be able to make an order to change the distribution of MEPs other than one that implements the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, or one that has the consent of the Electoral Commission. The draft order will be placed before both Houses of Parliament for endorsement by affirmative resolution before it can be made and come into effect.
  In addition to those specific reviews, which are necessary as a result of the enlargement of the EU, clause 6 and schedule 1 provide for the commission to undertake periodic reviews of the distribution of MEPs.
  Tony Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the process is basically a simple numerical exercise? We used to have 87 seats, along with France and Italy, and the Germans had 87 until East Germany came in. The number of our seats is going
  178
  down to 72, and France and Italy will have 72. The number of MEPs for each region will be determined by the size of the electorate.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The number will be determined also by the recommendation of the independent Electoral Commission, to ensure that the distribution across the country is as fair as possible.
  Mr. Cash: Can the Minister reconcile her statement with the fact that, under the proposals, the percentage of votes that the United Kingdom will have drops from 13.9 per cent. to 10.1 per cent.?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the premise of all the changes is that new countries will be joining the EU. That is the starting point for the Bill. It is important that those countries' voices are heard and that they are represented in the European Parliament. The shadow Foreign Secretary said that the Conservative party was passionately in favour of enlargement, but perhaps he should have pointed that out to the hon. Gentleman before this debate.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Yvette Cooper: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more go at this subject.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful. I would be very interested if the Minister could find a single reference in any of my speeches or writings about this subject suggesting that I am not in favour of enlargement. The situation is quite the opposite.
  Yvette Cooper: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of enlargement, but he must also will the means and recognise its consequences. Newly acceding member states will need a voice in the European Parliament.
  Let me turn to the second part of the Bill, which deals with enfranchising Gibraltar for European parliamentary elections by 2004. In 1999, in the judgment on the case of Matthews v. the UK, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the people of Gibraltar should be able to participate in elections to the European Parliament and that the UK should take the necessary steps to put that ruling into effect. The UK accepted the judgment of the Court, and the Bill is the means of fulfilling that obligation.
  The Bill will enable the people of Gibraltar to have their interests directly represented in the European Parliament for the first time. We want to achieve that by including Gibraltar as part of one of the existing electoral regions. Gibraltar's electorate consists of about 20,000 voters, while the average electoral region in the European parliamentary elections has 3.7 million, so it would clearly be disproportionate for Gibraltar to form a region on its own. Clause 8, therefore, provides for Gibraltar to be combined either with one of the nine English electoral regions or with Wales, which forms its own region, in what we would call the combined region. We believe that that provides a wide choice of regions with different defining features.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend's Department take any view about which region would be

  179
  more suitable to join Gibraltar and is it aware whether any other overseas territories have made noises or applications with regard to joining the EU?
  Yvette Cooper: I know that my hon. Friend has expressed interest in that issue for a considerable time. The Lord Chancellor's Department has not taken a view about the region with which Gibraltar would best be combined. Many hon. Members will have their own views, but we believe that it is appropriate for a recommendation to be made by the Electoral Commission to ensure fairness throughout the country. The judgment to which I referred does not apply in the same way to areas such as the Channel Islands, which have a very different relationship with the EU.
  Tony Cunningham: At the moment, the Isle of Man has to accept various EU directives as it is trading in the single market, but it has no EU representation whatever. Would it be possible for the Isle of Man Government to have representation if they so wished?
  Yvette Cooper: If the Isle of Man Government wanted us to discuss that possibility with them, we would certainly be happy to do so.
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the Minister give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I need to make a little progress; I shall give way in a few minutes.
  Clause 9 gives the independent Electoral Commission the task of considering with which region Gibraltar should be combined. The commission will report its conclusions with a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor by 1 September next year, in time to enable everyone to prepare for the elections the following summer. After consulting the Electoral Commission, a draft order establishing the combined region will be laid before both Houses.
  We welcome the fact that the Electoral Commission wants to consult widely before reaching its conclusions in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, although the Bill requires formal consultation with only the Governor and Chief Minister before a recommendation is made.
  Simon Hughes: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I shall as I have not taken an intervention from a Liberal Democrat Member so far.
  Simon Hughes: The Bill provides for consulting the Governor and the Chief Minister. No one can argue with that. Does the Minister's statement about the Electoral Commission's consultations imply that the people of Gibraltar, the political parties and other interest groups will have a chance to express their views? Perfectly proper debates are taking place and, given the small size of the electorate in Gibraltar compared with
  180
  those of the regions, it is surely better to do what the people of Gibraltar would wish as well as what would suit our electoral planning.
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes important points. The Electoral Commission is keen to consult widely and not restrict itself to the Governor and the Chief Minister. I shall ensure that the Electoral Commission is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Rosindell: Everyone will be pleased to hear that proper consultation will take place with the people and the elected Government of Gibraltar. Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, not only of England and Wales? Why, therefore, are only England and Wales being considered?
  Yvette Cooper: That is a good question. Consideration is confined to England and Wales for a purely practical reason. To ensure that the secondary legislation is effected in time, and bearing in mind devolution to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it was simpler to limit consideration to England and Wales. That ensures that everything will be in place by 2004.
  Mr. Rosindell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
  Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman is keen to have more detail, I am happy to supply it. Clearly, the matter can be discussed further in Committee. I am also happy to provide more information in summing up, but I must make progress now.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way to an Ulster Unionist this time.
  Northern Ireland has a special relationship with the people of Gibraltar in that many Gibraltarians were evacuated to Northern Ireland during the second world war, and some electors on the Gibraltar electoral role were born in Northern Ireland. Would the Parliamentary Secretary therefore consider amending clauses 8 and 9 to enable the Electoral Commission to include Northern Ireland in the regions with which the Gibraltarian electorate could vote?
  Yvette Cooper: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's points. Nevertheless, there are different legislative arrangements in Northern Ireland and Scotland for elections and judicial matters. They mean that the inclusion of Northern Ireland and Scotland would be considerably more complicated and that it would be difficult to prepare the secondary legislation in time for the 2004 elections. If the outcome of selecting an electoral region could be Scotland or Northern Ireland, it would not be possible to begin preparing the secondary legislation until the decision had been made. That would mean waiting for the Electoral Commission to report, and waiting until next September to begin implementing the necessary secondary legislation for Gibraltar to be covered for the 2004 elections.

  181
  That would make life considerably more difficult for those who organise the election in Gibraltar because a series of practical changes needs to happen.
  The underlying principle for combining Gibraltar with a UK electoral region for European parliamentary elections is that Gibraltar should be treated as if it were as much a part of the region as any other area in it. That means that UK electoral law as it applies to the European Parliament elections must apply as equally as possible throughout the combined region. That is no simple feat because UK electoral law does not currently apply to Gibraltar.
  The Bill therefore makes provision for the application of a number of pieces of legislation—the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002; the Representation of the People Acts; and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—and of many of the statutory instruments made under those Acts, modified as necessary. Modification is necessary to ensure that the law makes practical sense in Gibraltar. Specific circumstances such as location and time difference have to be catered for, and we also need to ensure that there is equality and consistency between the arrangements for conducting European Parliament elections in Gibraltar and in the rest of the combined region. We believe that the most appropriate approach is for this law to be modified for the purposes of Gibraltar by orders and regulations, and the Bill includes enabling powers to provide for that.
  The Bill therefore addresses the key issues in much in the same way as the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 does, leaving the complex detail for regulations. Thus, clause 13 sets out the requirement for Gibraltar to maintain a register of electors for the European Parliament elections, and clauses 14 and 15 cover the franchise and the entitlement to be registered. On the franchise for voters in European parliamentary elections in Gibraltar, we want, as far as possible, to enfranchise those resident in Gibraltar who would be entitled to vote in UK European parliamentary elections if they lived in the UK. Correspondingly, entitlement to be registered on the Gibraltar register is intended to be very similar to that for the UK register, with a slight exception to reflect certain specific conditions, such as the Gibraltar Immigration Control Ordinance.
  This legislation is consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligation, and the changes that the Bill is designed to enact are important. They will allow new member states their voice in the European Parliament, and enable the people of Gibraltar to vote for the first time in a European parliamentary election. We believe that the approach set out in the Bill is both appropriate and sound, and that it will support enfranchisement and greater participation in democratic institutions across Europe. I urge all hon. Members to support it.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. William Cash: Given the intensely controversial nature of the Gibraltar issue, I have to admit to being somewhat disappointed by the way in which the Minister has introduced the Bill, because, in all fairness, she did not really give us an explanation of what lies behind it. For the most part, she gave a mere recital of its provisions, rather than an explanation of the principles that led to its Second Reading today.
  182
  The Bill is like a curate's egg: it is good in parts. However, it must be set against a background of two main issues. The first is the reduction of the number of MEPs for the United Kingdom, the principle and method of which raise some disturbing questions. The second issue is that of Gibraltar. However welcome are the proposals to join Gibraltar with one of our existing electoral regions, they also illustrate the lack of proper consultation—at the level of insult—of the Government and people of Gibraltar.
  On the reduction in the number of MEPs for the United Kingdom, the Minister has not yet mentioned the fact that the Bill does not specifically refer to reductions—I refer hon. Members to its long title, and to the relevant clauses—although this is implicit in the legislation implementing the treaty of Nice. The Bill refers merely to the enabling of alterations to the number of Members of the European Parliament. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:
  "The European Commission"—
  that famously democratic body—
  "will inform the UK what their representation will be (the total number of UK MEPs) for the European Parliamentary elections in 2004, and subsequently."
  Of course, the words "that famously democratic body" are my own. I merely interpolated them to explain the matter as clearly as I could.
  The Conservative party voted against the Nice treaty, and my comments on this Bill are without prejudice to that position. I called for a White Paper during the proceedings on the Bill to implement the Nice treaty, which was supported, on a three-line Whip, by my party. I am glad to say that it was even supported by the Liberal Democrats, on a vote. One of the most alarming features of the Government's position on the Nice treaty—which is now coming to fruition in this Bill—is the wholly mischievous and unwarranted claim, made by a succession of previous Ministers, that, under the treaty, Britain's influence has increased in the European Parliament, not to mention in the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. Redwood: Did my hon. Friend notice that when I asked the Minister a perfectly good question, which she was quite unable to answer, she made an entirely false allegation about me changing my view on a crucial subject, which was not implied by what I said? Clearly, she had no chance whatever of answering the point on the Government's complete lack of influence with their European partners on any of those matters.
  Mr. Cash: I am bound to concur with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, on the realities of influence, one has only to look, for example, at what has been going on in the defence field over the past few days to realise just how little influence the United Kingdom is able to exercise in relation to European matters. That will continue.
  As I pointed out in an intervention, under the Nice treaty, Britain's share of Members of the European Parliament is to crash down from 87 out of 626 from 15 member states, which is equivalent to 13.9 per cent. of the votes, to 74 out of 732. That is a paltry 10.1 per cent., taking into account all the applicants and, barring accidents and democratic decisions if those are made in referendums, the anticipated new total of 27 member states.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: The hon. Gentleman told us that he is in favour of expansion, but is he suggesting that he favours expansion with a bigger and more costly Parliament with more and more Members?
  Mr. Cash: No, I am not. I am saying, very simply, that there is an extremely strong case for maintaining our number of seats and that the European enlargement process, irrespective of whether it takes place, is not a reason in itself for such a reduction. Indeed, as I shall explain, the Government's official position in March 2000 was that there should not be more than 700 Members. They were explicit about that, but, of course, they gave way over an increase to 732.
  There are also, I may say, uncertainties about the extent to which the enlargement will take place. Irrespective of whether one is in favour of it, the reality is that we cannot be certain of how many Members of the new Parliament there could or should be. One has only to read today's newspapers to see, for example, that there are serious political and constitutional difficulties with regard to the Polish position.
  Simon Hughes: I am honestly very confused about the hon. Gentleman's position. If he does not oppose enlargement—he said that he is a supporter of it—there are only two options: either have a bigger European Parliament with more Members, although I have always heard him and his colleagues argue for smaller European institutions rather than bigger ones, or reduce the relative proportion for each existing member state. There is no other way forward. If, for example, Poland does not join, the numbers would not increase by as much and we would not lose as many Members relatively. I need to know which of the two views he supports—a bigger Parliament with the same number of British Members and more Members in total or a smaller Parliament, in which case we would have to take a smaller share.
  Mr. Cash: I am simply making the point, which I shall repeat, that there are grave uncertainties as to how the proposals will operate in practice. Originally, the Government said that they wanted everything to be done in one fell swoop and that they were against the two-stage operation that we now have. I am afraid that I attribute a lot of the difficulties that arise in relation not only to the Bill, but to the whole enlargement process to the fact that the Government have failed to acknowledge the realities of the position and the uncertainties that go with it.
  I shall proceed by repeating another point that I made earlier: the Government said in March 2000 that the ceiling should be 700 MEPs, which they of course failed to insist on. They were also originally opposed to a two-stage transition to a lower limit for the number of MEPs, on which they again failed to deliver, particularly given the new powers of co-decision in the European Parliament and the increasing centre of gravity that is Berlin, which causes a further marginalisation of British influence.
  As I pointed out in the pamphlet that I wrote in July 2001, which even the then Minister for Europe described in flattering terms in a letter to me, that represents a fundamental geopolitical shift in the balance of power
  184
  and the tectonic plates of Europe. The policy of gradual emasculation of British influence and democracy cannot hide the true long-term nature of the new and harsh political landscape that is being engineered.
  The decrease in British influence in the European Parliament is inversely proportional to the increase in the power of that Parliament at the expense of national Parliaments. That is made plain by many of the proposals that are now flooding the convention on Europe.
  In its report this year, the European Scrutiny Committee called for a return to the "first past the post" election system. I mentioned that in an earlier intervention. It reflects concern about the degree of centralised power for the party leaderships in the member states which goes with the rations of party lists, and also the disconnection with constituencies, a tendency to political corruption and a decline in deep-rooted democratic representation.
  Under clauses 2 and 4, the Lord Chancellor effectively becomes king. I would describe clause 4 in particular as "Cardinal Wolsey's revenge", because it goes even further than the Henry VIII clauses to which we have taken exception for many years. It goes beyond giving Ministers power to amend or repeal enactments of primary legislation by order. Although this would be subject to affirmative resolution, in the real world the Lord Chancellor would have a greatly enhanced power to reduce the number of MEPs in conformity with European Community law—as it is expressed in the Bill—not only now but in future. The Bill does not specify what changes would be made, and under what European Community laws they would be made.
  Lady Hermon: Is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of clause 4 and the new powers to be given to the Lord Chancellor that, despite the reassurance that each electoral region will be allocated at least three MEPs, Northern Ireland's allocation could be reduced from three to two, or even one?
  Mr. Cash: That is one of the matters that cause us great concern. Many of the powers are so open-ended, vague and uncertain, and indeed so great, while the means of redress is so little, that it is essential for us to consider them in detail and table amendments in Committee.
  The Bill does not even tell us which Community law would apply. While we must assume for present purposes that this would be done under the Nice treaty, at any rate for the time being, that does not take account of whatever may emerge from the European convention and/or any subsequent intergovernmental conference or treaty. There is a strong case for ensuring that any decisions made by any such bodies are subject to full democratic consent.
  The mere fact that the Lord Chancellor is obliged to consult the Electoral Commission does not provide any satisfactory safeguard. When I communicated with the commission on 5 December, I was told that it had not been involved in advising on the powers for the Lord Chancellor, and that this was an initiative orchestrated by him and his department. I am paraphrasing, but that is what it boiled down to. It seems ironic, to say the least,

  185
  that a decision affecting the influence of the United Kingdom in respect of such an important matter should be made by an unelected Member of the other place.
  Mr. McCabe: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on his answer to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? He said that Northern Ireland's allocation could be reduced to one MEP. Does not the Electoral Commission stipulate that there must be three per region?
  Mr. Cash: It certainly does, but we are dealing with the Bill, and also with the extremely extensive power to be given to the Lord Chancellor by order. In Committee we will be able to consider the extent to which the hon. Gentleman is right. If he would like to be on the Committee, I am sure that his membership would benefit us all.
  It is because the range of powers is so wide that I described clause 4 as Cardinal Wolsey's revenge. I trust that both Houses of Parliament will be sure to exercise their powers under clause 5 with determination and tenacity. Indeed, a Henry VIII clause at least focuses on one Act, whereas these provisions are open sesame for the entire remit of what is commonly regarded as supreme Community law. I trust that the extent and range of the powers will be fully scrutinised in Committee, and thereafter in another place, where there is a Committee that we do not have in this place, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, under the capable chairmanship of Lord Dahrendorf.
  The Lord Chancellor will acquire significant power under clause 2 in relation to the distribution of MEPs in the electoral regions, but there is no proper explanation of the boundaries problems that could arise. The total number of MEPs involved is not specified, and we have to rely on the conclusions of the Nice treaty, combined with the outcome of discussions that are to take place on 12 and 13 December at Copenhagen. As the explanatory notes say, the number will be agreed at European level, or as anticipated by the Lord Chancellor.
  Furthermore, it is the Electoral Commission—which is unelected, as is the Lord Chancellor—that will recommend the distribution, following the Lord Chancellor's specification, and the power is exercisable with a view to implementing any specific change or anticipated change under Community law in the total number of MEPs for the United Kingdom. What is unacceptable, among other things, is that there is no requirement for the recommendation by the Electoral Commission to the Lord Chancellor to be debated, once published by the Commission—it need merely be laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor. I will be grateful if the Minister says that, as I hope, these matters will be not merely laid before Parliament but be subject to a substantive debate.
  There is no specific provision under the clause for any such recommendation to be exercisable by the mechanism of a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution. Will the Minister explain the mechanics of the arrangement, including in the context of clause 4?
  We welcome the proposals on Gibraltar, not least because the Government have utterly failed in their relations with the Government and people of Gibraltar,
  186
  whom they have treated with contempt. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in agreeing in principle to shared sovereignty with Spain, were, and probably still are, perfectly prepared to ride roughshod over the democratic will of the people of Gibraltar, irrespective of the 99.8 per cent. vote in the referendum in November.
  I have to say, with regret, that the Liberal Democrats were no less prepared to sell Gibraltar out.
  Simon Hughes: We should not get into the whole debate here, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the motion passed by our party conference with an overwhelming majority. I know that his party, like the Labour party, has not had a debate in which the membership could take part. If he reads the motion, he will see that we support the people of Gibraltar and believe that it is time for the Brussels process talks to be brought to an end.
  Mr. Cash: I would be extremely glad to read anything that the hon. Gentleman would like to give me, but I must say that there seems to have been less than enthusiasm for the idea that Gibraltar should be given the opportunity, under the arrangements that we have proposed, to ensure that the democratic will of its people is properly adhered to. No doubt we will hear from him later on that.
  There has been a total lack of meaningful consultation by the Government, and the introduction of the Bill has provided further proof that they are recklessly negligent when it comes to consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. Conservative Members would be happy for Gibraltar to have representation in the European Parliament—if it will do it any good—but it is clear that the only reason why these provisions are in the Bill is that the Government were driven to include them in order to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on 18 February 1999, by a massive vote of 15 to two, following the declaration of the Commission on Human Rights on 6 April 1996.
  I say all this without prejudice to the unhappy history of the previous Government in relation to the Denise Matthews case, which appears to have been coloured by an over-enthusiasm for accommodating the wishes of Spain on the part of sources that some might identify. I wonder whether the reality of what happened then will emerge in the debate in another place in due course. Notwithstanding that, right has prevailed and the Bill at last gives Gibraltar democratic engagement in the European Parliament.
  I would add one general word of warning, however, in respect of the uncertain and uncharted waters that lie ahead under the proposals for the federalisation through the convention and beyond. I urge all those with an interest in democracy in Europe to be vigilant about any future attempt to unscramble the Bill's provisions by majority vote, and to bear in mind the words of T.S. Eliot in "Murder in the Cathedral":
  "The last temptation is the greatest treason:
  To do the right deed for the wrong reason."
  We cannot yet know to which region the combined engagement will apply, but it is suggested that it could well be the south-west. Given that the Spanish rejected the British request for an amendment to the 1976

  187
  legislation on direct elections, the Government were driven to take unilateral action in order to comply with their own commitment to the European convention on human rights. This Bill is the result. How uncomfortable it must have been for the Prime Minister to have to choose between Spain and his commitment to the European ideal.
  There are further criticisms—I shall make them now—of the United Kingdom's position in respect of this Bill, which sits uneasily between the Rock and a hard place. Why has the United Kingdom failed properly to consult with the elected authorities on the Rock? Gibraltar's self-government is devolved to a considerable extent. Where does the Minister draw the line between the governmental roles of the United Kingdom and of Gibraltar itself—particularly in respect of electoral and constitutional law—in so far as Gibraltar's own circumstances could justifiably be accommodated without infringing fundamental principles of electoral law? After all, there will be a need for legislation in Gibraltar to authorise the requirements of the Bill. Given that the United Kingdom Government were prepared to come to terms with having to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, surely they could also have accepted that some of the Bill's provisions could be legislated in Gibraltar itself.
  In particular, too much emphasis is placed on the view of the Governor of Gibraltar, and not enough on those of the elected Government of Gibraltar and their Ministers, notably the Chief Minister. Furthermore, it is the Electoral Commission that will be given the power to recommend which electoral region of the UK will combine with Gibraltar. Will the Minister be good enough to tell us today how the consultation process will involve all the interested parties in Gibraltar, and particularly its elected authorities? I heard what she said in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), but it is not just the Electoral Commission that should be engaged in proper consultation across the board; so should the United Kingdom Government and their Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor.
  I censured the Government about the mechanics of part 1 of the Bill, which gives greatly increased powers to the unelected Lord Chancellor and to the unelected Electoral Commission. Similarly, the unelected Governor of Gibraltar—and, rightly, the elected Chief Minister—will be consulted. Why should there not be wider and more substantial consultation in Gibraltar, particularly in the light of clauses 11 and 12? They include, subject to affirmative resolution, an alteration in the law of Gibraltar by the United Kingdom Parliament that could be regarded as sensitive, contentious or even oppressive.
  During my research into the draft proposals for a new constitution for Europe, I discovered a provision that, if adopted, would inhibit the tax regimes of Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and which would bring any such territories, within the overarching ambitions of the new European superstate, and within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I trust that the Minister will assure the House today that the Government have no intention of adopting any such
  188
  proposals. I say that because, although we can understand the reason behind the provisions in the Bill relating to Gibraltar and to certain other arrangements, the overarching question remains of the extent to which the whole matter will be wrapped up in the convention, with potential changes that could unscramble the arrangements now going through. Because of the intense controversy that attends the question of Gibraltar, there is no reason to suppose that those powers would not be manipulated in future, with a view to unscrambling the arrangements. We need to be extremely vigilant on that issue.
  I understand that the Chief Minister is to meet representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department on 17 December, along with the new Minister for Europe. Why was no meeting held between the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Minister before the Bill was introduced? I am not aware that there was a meeting with any other Minister. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary herself has had a meeting with the Chief Minister, but I have not heard anything about it.
  The in-depth consultation that should have taken place already—it may yet happen—must include not only the combined region but the application of electoral law to Gibraltar under clauses 12 to 21. We intend to examine those clauses closely in Committee, and to seek to amend them, as with so many other provisions in the Bill.
  Only the other day, the Foreign Secretary spoke disparagingly of the UK's colonial legacy. He, the members of his Department and now the Lord Chancellor are making a pretty good fist of acting like imperial panjandrums in relation to the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar. If that is an example of the Government's post-colonial, ethical foreign policy—especially following the referendum on the Rock—they stand charged with behaving like the very people from our imperial past whom they have excoriated. If that is new Labour's imperial face, God help the member states of an enlarged Europe under a new Labour president.
  The Parliamentary Secretary will have understood from my speech that we intend to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly in Committee. I should welcome her response to the points that I have raised and the questions that I have asked before the end of proceedings today.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: My brief contribution to the debate concerns the overarching question of expansion. We have talked about that often enough, and there is a simple choice to be made. People can believe that expansion will be good for the EU overall, in that it will boost gross domestic product in a number of countries, not least out own. It will also be good in that it will create more jobs right across Europe, and that is something that we all want just now. Expansion will certainly strengthen our capacity to fight international crime and terrorism, and I think that most hon. Members would agree with that. Despite what has been said about Poland, expansion offers the chance of securing peace and stability across Europe. In all those respects, the argument for expansion should be supported by a great many of us.

  189
  It is self-evident that, after expansion has taken place, some changes or movement will have to be made to accommodate the other countries. I have no problem if that means a reduction in the number of parliamentary seats. That process seems relatively straightforward. If Britain were ultimately to lose 15 or 16 seats, we would still have the second largest number of seats in the European Parliament, alongside France and Italy. That would not cause me to lie awake at night sweating about percentages. Instead, I would say that Britain would be part of a rather large voting block, especially when we combined with some of the other countries.
  Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I am sorry that I am able to ask this question not of an elected Scottish Labour party MP, but of an exile Scot. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the Bill's likely effect in respect of representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? He may be aware that Scotland, with a population of 5 million, has only half the representation of Denmark, whose population is the same size. The proposals mean that that disparity will get worse, to the extent that there may be no proportionality between the various parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McCabe: My answer may explain why I am an exile: from my point of view, in terms of Europe, Scotland is not a separate country. I think of it as part of the United Kingdom and I expect that that is why it has its given number of seats.
  I think that we should be prepared to accept some reduction in representation. I will admit to some parochial interest, and I do not think that I am alone in this. It is conceivable that the number of seats for the west midlands could go down to six. Given that the population is about 5 million and, as the Minister said, the average size for a region is a population 3.4 million, I would be a bit worried if our seats were reduced to reflect the latter figure. However, that is a matter for the Electoral Commission. When we established it, some of us, if not all, recognised that we would have to address that issue in the future.
  I noticed that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was slightly disparaging about the Electoral Commission, and he told us that it is not even an elected body. He is absolutely right, and I am delighted about that. The object was to create an impartial body, independent of Government and political parties, to supervise the administration of elections. The hon. Gentleman may recall that its establishment was recommended by the Hansard Society, the Jenkins commission and the Neill Committee. In fact, we voted for it in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The hon. Gentleman's Government, or, rather his party—that was a Freudian slip, as a Tory Government will be a long time coming—
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCabe: Yes.
  Mr. Cash: My points about the Electoral Commission were not meant to deny that it has an important function to perform. However, in the context of these arrangements, as we are dealing with orders in
  190
  Parliament and the constitutional process, they would much better be dealt with by a proper democratic process through Parliament.
  Mr. McCabe: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I simply repeat that his criticism is that the Electoral Commission is not an elected body, while my point is that that is because we said that we needed an impartial body to deal with such issues. There is a choice, but voting for something and then rejecting it the first time that it is put to the test says something about our commitment.
  I am also struck by the hon. Gentleman's position. He told us that he had never written or spoken against expansion, and I am happy to accept that. However, I cannot understand why he cannot tell us whether he wants a bigger and more expensive Parliament or he wants to scupper expansion through preventing a parliamentary readjustment across Europe. Or does he believe that everybody but Britain should play their part, while we should not bother? That is central to his argument at the outset. If he does not know what he wants or why he wants it, why is he telling us what he wants in the first place?
  On clause 2, I think that there was a fundamental error in the hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). It is clear that the Electoral Commission must make sure that there are at least three MEPs per region. On that basis, Northern Ireland would not lose any of its MEPs under the Bill. We could discuss this in Committee, and I am sure that amendments will be put down to that effect, but it will be time wasted, because we know what the position is before we start. I am tempted to say that if we are not against expansion—if we have never written or spoken against it—why do we want to waste time on matters that we know are unnecessary?
  As for Gibraltar, strangely enough, I have a slightly different recollection, because it seems that the Bill is trying to deal with the consequences of the European Court of Human Rights ruling. Hon. Members will recall that under that ruling the then Tory Government found that they were in breach of their obligations under the treaty, but failed to do anything about it. Strangely enough, the Bill tries to address that problem.
  Opposition Members may tell us that they are not happy about the Labour Government's approach but they had the option to do something when they were in government and chose not to. They chose instead to put themselves in breach of the treaty and when that was pointed out to them they chose not to remedy it, so we were left to deal with the matter and are doing so in a relatively simple, straightforward and pragmatic way.
  Between 17,000 and 20,000 people in Gibraltar have the right to vote in European elections and we have to find a way of making that possible. Because that number is too small to form a constituency on its own, the Government's proposal is that we should pair Gibraltar with another region in order to enfranchise its people. I can see no problem with that—except that, unlike other hon. Members, I am not absolutely in love with Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians, so I am willing to be up front about the fact that I do not desperately want them to he paired with the west midlands.

  191
  We should reflect on what the Electorol Commission said.
  Mr. Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House and to the people of Gibraltar his comments about not being in love with them? They are British people. Does he not agree that they should be treated fairly, decently and in a democratic way—as he would expect for his constituents? Will he also explain to the House why the Government are so enthusiastic about allowing the applicant countries of eastern Europe to join the EU and have representation—as is right—but do not display the same enthusiasm for the British people of Gibraltar, who have been members of the European Union for 31 years?
  Mr. McCabe: I shall deal with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question in due course. On the second part, I repeat that the Labour Government have not denied the people of Gibraltar the opportunity to participate in elections. It was the previous Tory Government who were in breach of their agreements under the convention. They failed to find a remedy and that is why we are holding this debate. I hope that point is clear to the hon. Gentleman.
  There are questions about how the Electoral Commission will address the problem. One of the commission's stated aims is that, as well as trying to find electoral equality, it should reflect community identity and interests when determining regions. I am not quite clear as to the connection between Gibraltar and the west midlands although I am aware that the Conservative MEP, Philip Bradbourn, is very keen on it. However, that may be partly down to a simple electoral calculation. I hope that I am wrong but I suspect that if we were to examine the current situation in the west midlands, Mr. Bradbourn might have a pressing reason for wanting Gibraltar paired with the region.
  In reality, it is difficult to imagine how the Electoral Commission will deal with the problem. However, we have some guidance. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he thought that the south-west region had the most in common with Gibraltar and might be the most obvious choice. Interestingly, the Gibraltarians who gave evidence to that Committee made the same point. They made it clear that their preference was to join up with the south-west region, so the solution may be simple.
  If for any reason that proposal falls through, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind, when the Lord Chancellor finally reflects on the matter, the clarity with which the hon. Member for North Down demonstrated her desire that Gibraltar should be paired with Northern Ireland.
  Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman may have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee that considers the Bill, so may I help him with some additional information? The tallest building in Gibraltar is known as Ballymena house—not Paisley house or Trimble house—which, as the hon. Gentleman
  192
  Will know, is a well known town in Country Antrim. The Gibraltar Government's principal representative in the United Kingdom is a gentleman who was born during the war and was evacuated to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McCabe: With every seductive statement, I am more and more persuaded by the hon. Lady's case, and I totally agree that we should treat it seriously.
  I said earlier that I was not in love with the Gibraltarians, which obviously caused some distress to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). Let me flesh out what I am saying. If the Gibraltarians want to sign up to the European Parliament and be represented in it, should they not agree to sign up in total? Why should they be exempted from the Community customs area or the common agricultural policy?
  Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting statement, but I am sure that he will recognise that countries such as Spain, Holland and France also have overseas territories with completely different fiscal regimes from that in the EU, so we will not be creating something new, but copying a right that already exists in the EU.
  Mr. McCabe: That is absolutely right. I was brought up in a regime that said, "No taxation without representation." I would equally turn that on its head and say, "If you want representation, you should be prepared to co-operate with the tax regimes that other people are subject to." I take a rather different view from that of the hon. Member for Stone, who referred to inhibiting Gibraltar's tax regime. I do not know why Gibraltarians should be exempted from the Community customs area, the CAP or the VAT regime. They are less than enthusiastic about signing up to the EU tax code of conduct or the OECD's harmful tax competition code, which, I presume, the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
  In fact, the Gibraltar Government said that they will not implement or comply with any voluntary code. I am sure that most hon. Members know that the OECD code, which is voluntary, deals with harmful competition. What is the point of being part of the EU and asking to be represented in it if people do not intend to co-operate with its main tenets, one of which involves avoiding harmful, unfair or unreasonable competition?
  In addition, one of the things that I do not love about Gibraltarians is that they continue to enjoy mortgage interest tax relief when no taxpayer in this country is given that benefit. Of course they pay no capital gains tax. In fact, it is the perfect place to go when people want to stash away lots of money. I want to mention another thing that I do not like. I believe that representation should engender fairness and equality. I am happy—
  Simon Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away and becomes too happy, may I ask him whether he remembers how much the United Kingdom Government subsidise Gibraltar? The answer is nothing. If he believes in devolution in the United Kingdom, as I hope he does, surely he also accepts that Gibraltar's domestic policies, including those on tax, should be determined by the Government of Gibraltar, not by the Government of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. McCabe: I was happy until I took that intervention. I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to

  193
  direct subsidy. I accept what he says about that, but it could be argued that Britain contributes to Gibraltar's economy in a number of ways. I certainly accept that the Gibraltarians are entitled to set their own tax rates, but if people sign up to and demand representation in a club, it is reasonable to expect them to abide by the same rules as the other members of that club. Hitherto, the people of Gibraltar have shown enthusiasm only for the benefits that they will derive, but none of the costs that they might be obliged to pay.
  Simon Hughes: I do not want to distract the hon. Gentleman from the main thrust of his argument, but some taxes have EU-wide implications, such as VAT, the money collected from which goes into the EU-wide kitty. I understand that there is a case for everybody who has representation paying into that kitty. Capital gains tax, however, has no EU-wide obligation. It is entirely a domestic matter. I assume that he, like us, believes that such issues should continue to be left to domestic Governments to determine and should not be imposed by the EU.
  Mr. McCabe: If I did not make it clear earlier, let me make it clear now: I was making a specific point about European tax obligations. In passing, I referred to the differences between the experiences of taxpayers here and taxpayers in Gibraltar. I hope that that is sufficiently clear.
  We should all be in favour of EU expansion. If there is a cost in terms of a reduction in our overall number of seats to accommodate our new partners, every sane person should recognise that that is the only way forward. As we are under an obligation to admit Gibraltar, I am happy to go along with that and to leave it to the good judgment of the Electoral Commission, which I hope will have heard the comments of the hon. Member for North Down. I am happy to leave it to the commission to make the decision.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I share the pleasure of the Parliamentary Secretary at seeing the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) leading for the Conservatives. There was a real worry that the hon. Gentleman had somehow been parked in a siding for this Bill, and I am glad that that was not the case.
  As has been explained, the Bill is in two distinct parts, both of which the Liberal Democrats welcome in broad terms: in the case of Gibraltar, because the measures are long overdue; in the case of the European Parliament, because the proposals move towards the necessary adjustments to allow for enlargement, although we would argue that other adjustments need to be made, and that the Bill does not go far enough in that respect. I have a slight quibble with the architecture of the Bill, as the two parts are the wrong way round. Part 2, which deals with Gibraltar, contains consequent amendments that have implications for part 1, although only in marginal terms. Given that one part is contingent on the other, I would have drafted the Bill the opposite way round. I shall follow my own logic by dealing with Gibraltar first.
  The people of Gibraltar have been disfranchised in terms of the European election. As Gibraltar constitutes part of the territory of the European Union, and is
  194
  subject to at least part of the acquis communautaire, it is disgraceful that it has been disfranchised for so long. That it was necessary for an individual citizen of Gibraltar, Mrs. Denise Matthews—whom I warmly commend—to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights to secure any Government interest in the matter, either from this Government or their predecessor, is deplorable. That it is has taken this Government nearly four years, since 18 February 1999, to legislate, all the while protesting the legal impossibilities of enfranchising the people of Gibraltar, is regrettable. Having said that, we now have a Bill that will do the job as far as the people of Gibraltar are concerned. That is to be welcomed, and I believe that it will be warmly welcomed in Gibraltar.
  We have covered this territory many times before in debates. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who is unfortunately not present tonight, led the charge with his private Member's Bill back in 1997. In 1999, the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I was then a member, produced a report that was very stringent in its proposals, and made it clear that it felt that the Government were letting the people of Gibraltar down.
  We also had a debate in 1998 in which I led for the Liberal Democrats. An amendment was tabled that would effectively have brought about the change in status of the franchise of the people of Gibraltar that we are debating now. Unfortunately the Government rejected it, but not before cogent arguments had been advanced on both sides. I remember arguing that the people of Gibraltar should form part of what was then the Devon and Cornwall European constituency—it has now been absorbed in the south-west region—on the ground that Gibraltar logically formed part of the western approaches. I do not take a dogmatic view of that. In the west country, we have experience of dealing with islands—for example, the Isles of Scilly—promontories and peninsulas, so there may be logic to my proposal. However, that is properly a matter for the Electoral Commission to determine.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the issue has something to do with the difficulties between Sir Francis Drake and the Spanish?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman may have a point. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to argue that the problems of Gibraltar go back to the treaty of Utrecht. The draftsmen's lack of foresight in working out future relationships in Europe and the possibility of Gibraltar being returned to the Spanish crown have dogged us ever since.
  Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend makes the perfectly valid point that the Liberal Democrats do not have a view about the region or part of the United Kingdom to which Gibraltar should be linked. We believe that the Electoral Commission should come up with a recommendation. Bids have been made from those representing the capital city and there is logic to them. However, I am also sympathetic to the view that Northern Ireland and Scotland should be included as options. The reasons for not including them do not

  195
  outweigh the fact that the Electoral Commission should have an entirely open choice. We can then all do our own bidding and lobby the commission.
  Mr. Heath: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no logical reason why the commission should not consider any of the regions of the United Kingdom.
  Simon Hughes: Or the countries.
  Mr. Heath: Indeed, or the countries. On the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the specific concerns of the political parties in Northern Ireland may put members of the electorate in Gibraltar in a difficult position, but there is no reason why the political parties in Northern Ireland should not take on a Gibraltarian dimension to their policies. Furthermore, there is an added advantage in that Northern Ireland has a superior electoral process for the election of Members of the European Parliament. That process is exclusive to that region and is unfortunately not available in the rest of the country. I shall return to that point.
  The position of Gibraltar has been dogged with ambiguities because of successive Governments' lack of interest in securing a proper status for Gibraltar in accession treaties or in subsequent European treaties to which we have been party. That is entirely regrettable.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Stone about the lack of consultation with the representatives of Gibraltar. That is not unusual in the British Government's relationship with the Government of Gibraltar. It has been a characteristic of recent years. The relevant parts of the Bill should make explicit the need to consult the House of Assembly in Gibraltar and the wider community there about the Bill's consequences. Specifically, when the Electoral Commission draws up the rules for registration and the electoral process, it must consult the political parties that are currently constituted in Gibraltar in exactly the same way that it would routinely consult the political parties in the United Kingdom. The fact that that point is not made explicit in the Bill is regrettable, but it may be dealt with in Committee.
  The representation of Gibraltar in this House was raised earlier. What we decide has a great effect in Gibraltar, but it has no access even to the Bar of the House and there is no representation for the people of Gibraltar here. The House and the Government need to address that point. We must also consider the future status of Gibraltar in the European Union. If we consider the position of the French Territoires et Départements d'Outre-Mer, the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, the Dutch external territories and the Faroes, we find that Gibraltar is an anomaly that needs to be addressed.
  I want to deal with the extraordinary comments of the hon. Member for Stone about the Liberal Democrats. I do not think that there is any room for ambiguity in
  196
  the many words that my hon. Friends and I have uttered on the subject. We have argued that the people of Gibraltar should determine their future status.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. If he does, I shall describe to him the Liberal Democrats' position as decided in the assembly that determines our policy.
  Mr. Cash: I shall be happy to learn the official position, but I have a couple of quotations from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman. When referring to a referendum, he said:
  "It's plain daft to have a referendum on proposals which have not yet been finalised. Mr. Caruana would have served the interests of the people of Gibraltar much better if he had participated in the talks over its future, rather than carping from the sidelines."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman described concerns over Anglo-Spanish talks as "hysteria". That is what I had in mind. Having said that, I think the hon. Gentleman's remarks today make an awful lot of sense.
  Mr. Heath: Because the hon. Gentleman has couched his remarks in those terms, I find it hard to maintain a grudge against him. It is entirely possible to reconcile my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks with what I have said. Although there may have been good political reasons, it did not make sense to hold a referendum on proposals that had not yet been formulated. However, it makes absolute sense to hold a referendum that is binding on all parties once proposals are on the table. Our policy makes that clear. We are determined that, in accordance with liberal and democratic principles, the status of Gibraltar will be determined by the people of Gibraltar. We shall always put their interests first. That is explicit in our policy, and I think the hon. Gentleman now accepts that.
  Lady Hermon: I wish to pick up on a point that the hon. Gentleman made about the candidates for whom the electors in Gibraltar could vote if they were aligned with Northern Ireland as a region. I assure him that the Liberal Democrats' sister party, the Alliance party, fields candidates in the European elections along with the traditional parties, such as the Ulster Unionist party and the other Unionist parties. The Conservative party might just manage to save its deposit if it too fielded a candidate in the European elections in the region. There is a broad sweep of political parties in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Heath: If the hon. Lady is seriously suggesting that saving a Conservative party deposit is an argument in favour of the proposal, I must say that it is a difficult concept for us to swallow. None the less, I accept her point.
  Let me deal with the reduction in the number of MEPs. There is an orthodoxy that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome enlargement. However, that breaks down when it comes to putting in the necessary preparatory work to allow enlargement to take place. Concerns about that have been explored and

  197
  I do not need to repeat the arguments. There is a long-standing commitment to reduce or cap the overall size of the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Stone referred to the figure of 700, which he claimed was produced by the British Government. Knowing his scholarly love of the subject, I am surprised that he did not recognise that the figure was spelt out in article 189 of the treaty of Amsterdam, about which we seem to have forgotten. The consensus was that that should be the approximate figure for the European Parliament within the enlarged Community. Every current member state must contribute to the reduction to reach that target.
  The EU has not reached the figure of 700. It has listened to the pleadings of the small countries, which believe that there is an irredeemable minimum number of representatives that they should have so that they are properly represented. That touches on what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said when he compared Scotland with other small nations that are member states. We need to recognise the imbalance.
  Angus Robertson: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that neither the Bill nor the Electoral Commission will deal with the problem? Slovakia, which is likely to be a new member, has the same population as Scotland, but it will have 13 seats, whereas Scotland will probably have only five. Lithuania, which has broadly the same population as Wales, will have 12, whereas Wales may only have four. Northern Ireland, which can be compared in population terms with Estonia, may go from three to two seats, whereas Estonia will have six. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only answer to the problem is for all three nations to have the status of normal member states of the EU if they so wish?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. It is self-evident that what he describes is true, but the only remedy—no doubt one that he would advocate—is to split the United Kingdom up so that it is no longer a nation and a member state. It is clear that no one else in the EU will accept the proposition that we count ourselves as four small countries rather than one large one and can therefore have a larger number of representatives. If I thought that the number of MEPs was critical to this country's representation, I would be more exercised by the proposal than I am. I happen to believe that the quality of representation is not entirely proportional to the numbers who are sent to Brussels and Strasbourg. I accept that there is an anomaly, however, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point it out.
  My difficulty is that the Government have not addressed the remaining obstacles to enlargement. I would not expect the Bill or the Minister to deal with those, but until the common agricultural policy is right and we sort out some of the institutional changes, there are obstacles to enlargement and the effective working of the EU after enlargement. Subsidiarity, which we have discussed so often, is more a myth than reality. It is time that we proposed, on behalf of the British people, an effective solution to some of those problems.
  The reform of the European Parliament itself is also an issue. Many hon. Members will be saddened and not a little distressed by the rejection yet again of the reform of the expenses and pay arrangements in the European
  198
  Parliament. That was rejected by an unholy alliance of Christian Democrats and Socialists. Although the British Conservatives did not join them this time, no doubt they still have sympathies with that cause. Until reform is in place, the criticism that MEPs are on a gravy train will persist. It is time that we put that house in order.
  However, it is right that overall representation is reduced if we are to avoid an unwieldy and over-large institution. It is right that the Bill presents the Electoral Commission with that responsibility, and I have two substantive issues to raise on the way in which the commission carries out its work. The first concerns the minimum number of three Members for each region. The figure of three works well in Northern Ireland because of its electoral system, which is not available to the rest of the country. In the case of a party list system, however, the smaller the number of Members on the list, the less proportional it becomes. This is not a selfish argument because on current voting intentions, it would make little difference to us in the regions as they are constituted.
  The north-east runs the risk of reducing from four to three Members. That would markedly reduce the proportionality of the result in that area. While we have the party list system in the regions of England, Wales and Scotland, the Electoral Commission must have regard to the outcome of that system in terms of the minimum number. To provide for a region in which only three Members are elected will produce a perverse outcome.
  Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Electoral Commission should take into account the fact that two parts of the United Kingdom have a four-party rather than a three-party system? Before the argument is put that that is special pleading for the Scottish National party, let me make it clear that if the number is reduced in Scotland, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour will lose MEPs, not us.
  Mr. Heath: The Electoral Commission should take that into account. We could discuss how the figures might work out in a future election, but that is immaterial. What matters is the principle of having a proportional system.
  My second concern relates to the system of election. Although the Minister pre-empted my comments by rejecting that as part of the Bill, I still intend to explore it further. It is time to instruct the Electoral Commission to review the operation of the list system. We argued strongly, with others, that a closed list system was not the right way to introduce proportional representation to this country. We thought an open list preferable and the single transferable vote better still.
  Back in November 1997, we had a great deal of fun discussing the different electoral systems of d'Hondt, Sainte-Lague, Hagenbach-Bischoff and Hare-Niemayer which the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, was keen to discuss. At the end of the day, however, he closed his mind and the result was a closed list, which goes against proper accountability. My colleague Nick Clegg is testimony to that. He is an MEP for the East Midlands and has declared his intention to seek election to this House because the system of closed

  199
  lists within a regional context makes it difficult for him to establish the close relationship with his electorate that ensures proper accountability and democracy.
  It is an opportune time to review the situation, especially as I think that the previous Home Secretary intended to provide such a proliferation of different systems at different levels and in different areas because he wanted to bring the whole electoral system into disrepute. That is the only reason I can find to explain why he introduced different systems for the devolved Governments, for local government and for different parts of the UK. I hope that we will shortly discuss arrangements for the upper House. I shall argue strongly that if we have an elected upper House, its Members should be elected by single transferable vote or, alternatively, an open list system. A closed list is not a good method of selection. I hope that we can put that to the Electoral Commission so that it can make recommendations to the House.
  Finally, like the hon. Member for Stone, I am unhappy about the Lord Chancellor, an unelected Minister in another place who holds a position in the justiciary, having responsibility for those matters. I would be perfectly happy for a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department—the Minister herself or her fellow Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton)—to make those decisions, but I have strong misgivings about the matter being left to the Lord Chancellor, who holds a Government position about which I have grave doubts anyway. Clause 23 makes the powers exercised by the Lord Chancellor concurrent with those of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's Department is not specified—perhaps the Minister can help to identify which Secretary of State would have powers and in what circumstances. These matters are of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, impinge on the democratic process, and are properly the responsibility of Ministers who are accountable to the House. I hope that we will examine them during consideration of the Bill, which I broadly welcome. However, there are details at which we must look very closely indeed.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: First, I am sure that the House is well aware of my interest in Gibraltar. I was a member of the delegation that observed the referendum there.
  Geraldine Smith: May I take the opportunity to add that I, too, was an observer in Gibraltar? I should have made that interest clear when I intervened on the Minister.
  It is strange that we can go anywhere in Europe up to three times a year without making a declaration, but cannot visit Gibraltar, where British people live, undeclared. It will be interesting to see if that changes now that Gibraltar has European representation.
  Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is right—it is rather absurd that people from EU member states have the right to visit other EU countries three times a year without making a declaration. It is therefore rather
  200
  obscene that one cannot visit Gibraltar even once without making a declaration. That fact needs to be taken on board in the future.
  I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, which will guarantee a basic human right to Gibraltarians that has been denied them for decades. I am pleased that the case of Matthews v. UK, which went to the European Court of Human Rights, ensured that that right was included in the Bill. The Government promised in 1999 that a Bill would be introduced to allow the people of Gibraltar the right to exercise their democratic vote in European elections in time for the 2004 elections. We all believe in democracy, and we have an opportunity to demonstrate that in the Bill.
  The Bill raises some interesting questions about the logistics of a referendum and Gibraltar's future, particularly the issue of the region to which Gibraltar should be aligned. Many people have expressed their views, including the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and members of the Scottish National party. I would like to point out that the north-west would benefit from the voters of Gibraltar voting with it, but that is for the Electoral Commission to decide. I hope that it will take on board Members' views before making a decision.
  The Foreign Secretary has said that the south-west is the most obvious candidate. I agree that it has the strongest case of any of the contenders. I accept that Northern Ireland has historical links with Gibraltar, but Navy ships travel between the Plymouth dockyards and Gibraltar, so the south-west option makes sense. Sir Francis Drake's connection with Spain has been mentioned. I am not sure that that is the best reason for alignment—[Laughter.] I thought that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would not be able to resist that little kick at Spain. The Golden Hind Society held a referendum in Plymouth, which showed that the people there believed that the people of Gibraltar should have the right to self-determination, and that they did not believe in joint sovereignty either. My heart tells me to go for the north-west, but I know that the south-west is the obvious choice. Hopefully, the Electoral Commission will allow us to express our preferences, but I am sure that it will make the right decision and listen to all the views expressed in the House.
  Political parties must also consider how the proposals will affect their regional list system. That has already been mentioned, and I trust that the Minister will deal with it later. We should be aware of the change and what enfranchising the people of Gibraltar might mean. Earlier, I raised with the Minister the question of other overseas territories. Who knows, the Falklands or other overseas territories may come forward, although I accept that they have no wish to do so at the moment. France, Holland and Spain, as has been said, have enfranchised the residents of their overseas territories. Will the Minister tell us whether the Bill would allow us to consider such an application from one of our overseas territories or, if not, how we would deal with it.
  As I said, I went out to Gibraltar to observe the referendum on 7 November. The clear result was that its people have no wish for joint sovereignty, so the question is: what next for Gibraltar? We were told by the Foreign Secretary that the status quo is not an option, so we must look for something else. As joint sovereignty was rightly rejected, we must look at alternatives such

  201
  as integration with the United Kingdom and representation of Gibraltar in the House. It has been said that Gibraltar has no elected Member in Parliament, but perhaps we should consider that in future. Independence may be an option or, alternatively, we could consider maintaining the status quo, if that is what the people of Gibraltar wish. Reducing the Governor's powers in Gibraltar and ensuring that there are more powers for its Government may be another way forward. However, we have made a start in looking at issues that need to be considered more carefully in discussions about the future of Gibraltar.
  Whatever we may think, this is a matter for the people of Gibraltar. We need to hold a debate with them on which options should be considered by the House. Eventually, they should be able to vote on them in a referendum. However, it is up to the Gibraltarian Government to make a decision about what they wish to do next—I am sure that the people of Gibraltar will ensure that their Government are aware of what they think. In the Bill, we are recognising the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar and enfranchising them. We believe in human rights and the right to self-determination. The Bill allows Gibraltarians to have a say in Europe, and moves Gibraltar a step closer to the UK. I hope that it acts as a catalyst for discussions about the future status of Gibraltar. We should ensure that its people have the right to vote in European elections and are aligned with a suitable region. I am sure that we can build closer links with Gibraltar, because our Government have failed it in the past. We have been at loggerheads with the people of Gibraltar, but the time has come to reflect calmly on what happened in the past. We in the House must move forward with the best interests of Gibraltar at heart. Successive Governments have kicked Gibraltar around, instead of respecting what it has done for the United Kingdom.
  I cannot think of any other territory that put itself at risk during the second world war, the Falklands war and the Gulf war, and will do so again, whatever happens next in respect of Iraq. Gibraltar has always supported the United Kingdom. Whenever they have been called upon in times of trouble, the people of Gibraltar have always volunteered first. It is important that they now get the recognition that they deserve. We have the opportunity to show our full support. Instead of putting them at loggerheads again with a British Government, let us move forward in unity.
  David Taylor: I apologise for missing the earlier part of my hon. Friend's contribution. What would he say to my constituent, a Gibraltarian who has moved permanently to live in the United Kingdom, Mr. Olivares of St. Denys crescent, Ibstock, who has the qualities that my hon. Friend just described? He demonstrates the utmost loyalty to this country and is deeply disappointed by some of the events that have taken place in recent months. Should he be more encouraged by what my hon. Friend perceives will happen over the months to come?
  Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that intervention because my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to his constituent. It is important that we build close links with the people of Gibraltar for their benefit, not to appease the Spanish
  202
  Government. It was too easy to sell out the people of Gibraltar for new access within the EU, using Italy and Spain. I believe that we will never treat people in that way again, and I hope that we will recognise our previous mistakes and look after those loyal people of Gibraltar, who are part of the United Kingdom. We are therefore their representatives in the House, and I hope that from now on we can ensure that we work for the benefit of the people of Gibraltar and safeguard their interests.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: I welcome the Bill because of the enfranchisement of Gibraltarians for the purposes of European parliamentary elections. It is long overdue and has been rejected by Ministers in the House several times before.
  The Bill is significant for two reasons. First, for all of us who believe in the effective parliamentary supremacy of this place, the very existence of the Bill as it relates to Gibraltar demonstrates what a Government can achieve if they decide to go down the route of unilateral action in the EU arena. Ministers have effectively threatened to take unilateral action to ensure that Spain does not block the enfranchisement of Gibraltarian citizens for European parliamentary elections. Ministers should mark well the precedent that they have set.
  Secondly, the Bill is significant because of the strong message that it sends to the Spanish Government. The passage of the Bill in this place makes it clear that the House sees a more important role for Gibraltar in the life of this country. It certainly represents a move towards closer integration. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is a doughty campaigner and articulate prosecutor of the cause of Gibraltarian democracy. I hope that Spanish representatives listening to the debate and looking at the Bill's provisions will understand the message that is being sent to them in respect of any future negotiations that they may have with Her Majesty's Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  I mention the importance of the threat of unilateral action to allow the Bill to go ahead. History shows some spinelessness on the part of Ministers in previous Governments, as well as the present Government. At the commencement of direct voting for the European Parliament in the 1970s, the Gibraltarians were excluded from any possibility of direct voting. A rather strange distinction was drawn between Gibraltar and the overseas territories of France and Spain, which were seen to be closely integrated with those countries. As citizens of those territories can vote in national elections, there was no problem including them in European parliamentary elections. Even though the people of Gibraltar have strong historical links with this country and are a part of Europe geographically, they were excluded.
  With the increasing importance of co-decision making under the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice, it is little wonder that Ministers in Gibraltar want European parliamentary representation. Remedies for the wrongs done to the people of Gibraltar have been attempted before, as we have heard. The first bold attempt was made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) in his private Member's Bill in 1997. At that time, the

  203
  Labour Government argued that the enfranchisement of Gibraltarians by the means of adding Gibraltar to a UK constituency was not possible because it would involve amending Annex II of the EC Act on Direct Elections 1976. That would have had to be ratified by all member states, and Ministers at the time did not believe that the Spanish would allow it. That is essentially why that Bill fell.
  The second attempt was made during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill in 1997 and 1998. On Second Reading in another place, the Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, raised legal objections to legislating unilaterally to amend the EC Act. He said:
  "If we tried to amend it, it would not be within our domestic competence and it would be open to change at the European Court."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 April 1998; Vol. 588, c. 900.]
  That was an extraordinary example of spinelessness, no doubt not just at the behest of legal advisers, but at the behest of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Thus, the second recent attempt came to naught.
  It is ironic that we needed a claim under the human rights legislation to break the impasse—the obstacle of European Union law, as perceived by Ministers. The human rights claim made in the Matthews case in 1996 came to grief in the first instance, when it was before the Council of Europe's European Commission of Human Rights. On the first attempt, Her Majesty's Ministers countered that the 1976 Act fell within the European Community legal order and was therefore not an Act for which the UK could be held responsible under the Council of Europe convention. Even at that stage, Ministers were not interested in the human rights claim, but happily in February 1999, when proceedings commenced in the European Court of Human Rights, the Court found in favour of Matthews, stating that the British Government were in violation of the ECHR and that they had not made proper arrangements to enable the people of Gibraltar to vote in elections to the European Parliament. At that stage, rather late in the day, Her Majesty's Government acted on the basis of a human rights claim rather than on any robust position on EU law and committed themselves to taking action. It was only at that stage that they showed the moral gumption that I wish they would show in EU negotiations more generally.
  The first sign of any determination to say that we were not going to allow Spain to veto parliamentary will and the desire to enfranchise the people of Gibraltar came when the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers put it to the UK that it had two ways of ensuring conformity with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee suggested that the UK could give effect to the Matthews judgment either by amending the 1976 Act to require the unanimity of EU states—a proposal that was never going to be much of a runner, given the previous attitude shown by Her Majesty's Ministers in not even attempting to take such a route in EU negotiations—or by taking national action. That would involve independent national action—I like the sound of that—using domestic legislation without prior amendment to the 1976 Act.
  204
  There would also be no requirement to ask Spain whether it would consent—something that we all know was never going to happen.
  When the Foreign Office sees such things happening, it can either take a sensible course of action or make life difficult for itself. On this occasion, it appeared to advise the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), now Secretary of State for Wales and the relevant Foreign Office Minister at that time, to take the route of unilateral action. My point is that all that happened late in the day, but none the less, much to my incredulity, in Hansard on 10 December 2001, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The content of this legislation is a matter for the UK alone".
  Amen to that. He went on to say:
  "it does not require the approval of other member states. There will be no additional EU legislation. Consultations are already underway between the Government and the Government of Gibraltar on the practical arrangements."—[Official Report, 10 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 632W.]
  Those arrangements have issued forth substantially in the Bill, which illustrates a very important point: it is significant because it shows the importance of unilateral action.
  I should like the Minister to deal with a puzzle that arises from the provisions on Gibraltar. The point was well made by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which, like me, applauded the use of unilateral domestic legislation instead of any faffing around in fruitless negotiations to try to ensure unanimity among various EU partners. The Select Committee said in its report of July 2002:
  "By acting unilaterally, the British Government will enable Gibraltar citizens to vote in elections without prior amendment of the 1976 EC Act".
  However, the Committee was puzzled by a statement made to it previously by the now Secretary of State for Wales:
  "Spain has dropped its opposition to our insistence on giving the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in the European elections. That is why we have been able to proceed."
  I share the Committee's puzzlement and I would be grateful for elucidation from the Minister on how Spain ever had a veto if we could take such unilateral domestic action anyway, without its consent or that of any other EU member?
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ruffley: I am most happy to give way to my distinguished hon. Friend.
  Mr. Cash: A thought occurred to me as I was making my speech and also just now as my hon. Friend advanced his lucid arguments. To some extent, were not both the United Kingdom Government and the Spanish Government more impressed by the necessity of complying with the Court's ruling and the feeling that it would be invidious, difficult and embarrassing for them not to do so than by the wholly understandable and justifiable position of unilateral action?
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. My assessment is that if Her Majesty's Government had shown at an earlier stage a desire to take unilateral

  205
  action—I am sure that he will agree that they had an opportunity to do so in 1997—the matter could have been resolved more rapidly. As he suggested, the single cause may not have been the Government's threat of unilateral action, but reticence on the part of other countries about being taken to the European Court of Human Rights. I prefer the interpretation suggesting that an independent member state was acting in its interests on the basis of the threat of unilateral action. I am sure that that approach should have been taken earlier, but it sent out an unmistakeable sign, albeit late in the day, to show that if this Parliament and the UK Government dig in, are lucid and clear and draw a line in the sand, they can often get more out of negotiations than by acting in a supine way and relying on the feeding of lines by various pin-stripe-suited types in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  The significance of the Bill is the effect that it will have on Spain. I join the hon. Member for Chorley and other speakers in drawing attention to the referendum result. I hope that the Foreign Office will consider that result and the way in which the people of Gibraltar will embrace their voting rights in 18 months' time and put a stop to any sell-out or mealy-mouthed negotiations that are consistent with neither the British national interest nor that of the overseas territory of Gibraltar.
  The Bill contains an important lesson. Not only in this aspect of European policy, but in others, if Ministers want to do something that might upset some other EU partners, they should do it, because it is remarkable what they can achieve when they keep the British national interest in mind when negotiating in the EU arena.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should consider pursuing our interests by returning to a system of first-past-the-post elections to the European Parliament, rather than by having it decided for us that we should have some crazy system of proportional representation?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The Bill is about representation, rather than methods of election.
  Mr. Ruffley: Hon. Members may not have noticed that I was about to finish my peroration, but I shall briefly be tempted down the path laid out by the hon. Gentleman. Widespread concern has been expressed in all parts of the House throughout the debate about the nature of the closed list system. I know that the Liberal Democrat spokesman has flagged up to the Minister the suggestion that there may be some mechanism to raise that matter in Committee, although when I look at the title of the Bill, it seems to me that that may be rather difficult. Surely, it must be a matter for the House to debate in the near future. In my view, it is inimical to democracy to have a closed list system ruled by party claques, apparatchiks and control freaks, and I am glad that he and other colleagues in all parts of the House steadfastly set their faces against such an approach. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that point.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: Several hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), mentioned our debates on the European
  206
  Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. The Foreign Secretary, in typical fashion, presented his best case for the change in the electoral system, which the Bill seeks to effect. One of his central arguments was that a list system would increase turnout. The House of Commons briefing shows that Great Britain managed a turnout of 23.1 per cent. We should at least mention the total and abject failure of that central objective—engaging the British people—of changing the system. Like many Members, I believe that it would be better if we returned to first principles and considered reintroducing first past the post.
  Earlier, I mentioned the process for reducing representation throughout the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. It is important to consider that. Under current arrangements for the House, the Electoral Commission's boundary committee goes through a special process. First, it sets a quota for England; secondly, it sets quotas for unitary authorities or counties and then it draws up boundaries for seats. Individuals can write in and object. If 100 individuals in a local authority or major political party write in, an inquiry is held.
  Although the process takes time, there is an input from many organisations into the precise boundary and representation for each area. That tradition has existed since 1945, and it has also applied in local government, which had boundary commissions. Local government undergoes a similar process when change occurs.
  In recent years, the Government have tended not to refer electoral matters, especially those that involve proportional representation, to the proper scrutiny of a boundary commission. Instead, they have simply consulted the Electoral Commission. I am worried about that because I am not sure whether proper representations can be made in such circumstances.
  For example, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provided for twinning boroughs and the list system. It was debated in Committee, but it did not undergo the same scrutiny in the country or through an inquiry. The Regional Assemblies Bill involves a similar process. The Government will simply consult the Electoral Commission, but the Bill contains no proper procedure for dealing with the size and precise nature of the electoral boundaries.
  The Bill covers what may prove to be party-political, contentious issues. It was claimed earlier that we were simply considering arithmetic and therefore an uncontentious matter, but that is incorrect. The size of a region and the electoral quota required to win a seat can determine representation between the parties. Although southern Ireland has the single transferable vote system, which the Liberal Democrats dearly love, the size of the multi-Member constituencies and whether they are odd or even numbered determine which parties take specific seats. In the Irish system, increasing or reducing the boundaries and seats can determine political representation.
  It is clear that if one subtracts, for example, nine seats from a specific region, that can have an impact on political representation. It may have a disproportionate impact on one political party. The Bill clearly states that the exercise is numerical. I welcome that principle. If one tries to apportion seats, it is probably best to do that on a numerical basis. However, what happens when two

  207
  regions make an equal claim, or in the case of quotas that are extremely close? How does one determine in a tie-breaker who will get and who will lose the extra seat? That will cause some debate in a system under which the number of constituencies is fixed.
  The Bill does not provide for sparsity. If two regions have an equal claim, sparsity might be a factor. Our first past the post system takes account of it. One presumes that there will be a single enumeration date for the regional electorates. However, some regions are growing rapidly and others are losing population. Will that be a factor in the decision between specific regions? Will Gibraltar be the tie-breaker? That is unclear.
  Assigning Gibraltar to a region could determine whether the region gets an extra seat and another loses a seat. There is a political calculation in that, for example, if the south-west had seven rather than six seats, it would be contentious. The Bill does not provide for an inquiry or some means for political parties, local authorities or people in the regions to make representations. Reference is made only to the Lord Chancellor and the Electoral Commission.
  The Electoral Commission has a general remit to consult, but the Bill does not specify what sort of consultation. I hope that even if that does not appear in the Bill, the Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary's reply or in Committee, will set out the process. Even if there is no controversy in the first round of reducing seats, perhaps it will arise next time. The process will continue as Europe is enlarged. The ground rules need to be clearly set out so that members of all parties know how to respond to a redistribution of seats. I am uneasy about matters being conducted purely between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Electoral Commission. We are considering matters that are more political than numerical. If that is acknowledged, we can get through the process more easily.
  I welcome the fact that the Gibraltarians will be able to vote. Many hon. Members have spoken about that, and I shall not say much more. As a member for the south-west, which, as I have often argued, is not an especially natural region, I suspect that it would be the most logical region to combine with Gibraltar, given the links between them. The Cornish tend to perceive themselves as somewhat different, and the south-west could probably absorb the Gibraltarians easily as we would also have the Cornish. That is my bid for the Gibraltarians to be combined with the south-west.
  I have anxieties about the Bill. It is a small, technical measure, but that does not mean that it does not raise political questions and arguments.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have an opportunity of speaking in the debate. I want to raise three specific issues. The first is about human rights, especially in relation to other overseas territories. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is not in his place, raised that point. Secondly, I want to consider the Electoral Commission and the role of the Lord Chancellor. My third point is about the operation of the combined region and proportional representation.
  208
  We are discussing the matter today because of the European Court of Human Rights and its judgment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Matthews judgment did not apply to the Channel Islands. However, the Bill and the other documentation suggests that the point about the Matthews case is nothing to do with the wishes of the Gibraltarian Government or those of any other Government of a British overseas territory. Two questions are relevant. Had the British permanent representative to the Council of Europe, who makes a declaration about the European convention on human rights, declared specific territories to be within the ambit of convention? Did any of those territories have the right of individual petition before the European Court? So long as both of those conditions are satisfied, and despite the stance, whatever it might be, of the Government of the Channel Islands—the Bailiwicks of Guernsey or Jersey, for example—it might be open to a citizen to petition the European Court, just as it was open to Denise Matthews to do so. Presumably, in the same circumstances, if the convention were applicable and there were a right of individual petition before the European Court, the Court would reach the same decision again. I would be grateful if the Minister would expand on that, because she did not go into the matter in detail earlier.
  My next point relates to the Electoral Commission and the powers of the Lord Chancellor. Many hon. Members have commented that the Bill gives too many powers to the Lord Chancellor. My view is that any man who compares himself with Cardinal Wolsey probably deserves fewer rather than more powers, and that the House should not consider passing any Act of Parliament that might enhance his powers in any way. The Bill says, however, that the Electoral Commission has to consider which of the existing electoral regions in England and Wales should be combined with Gibraltar and, before determining what recommendation to make to the Lord Chancellor, consult with the Governor and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. Under the Bill, the Lord Chancellor also has an obligation to consult the Electoral Commission.
  That raises a number of questions, which I would be grateful if the Minister could answer. First, what weight will the Government give to the opinion of the Gibraltar Government—by which I mean the Chief Minister and the Government, in particular, and not simply the Governor? The reason that I ask the question in that form is that a press release of 22 November—the day on which the Bill was published—from the Gibraltar Government makes it plain that the United Kingdom Government gave no weight to the opinions of the Government of Gibraltar when they presented the Bill to the House of Commons. The press release states:
  "The Government"—
  that is, the Government of Gibraltar—
  "has examined the European Parliament (Representation) Bill published today by the British Government, upon the text of which the Gibraltar Government has not been consulted."
  There are two reasons why that is strange. The first is that the British Government have made a commitment to more pre-legislative scrutiny—that is, more pre-consideration of Bills, so that they will be in better shape when they come before the House.
  Secondly, given the thorough Horlicks that the British Government have made of their relations with the Government of Gibraltar, one might have thought

  209
  that, on a Bill of this importance to Gibraltar, it might have been sensible to show the Gibraltar Government the finished text of the draft Bill before presenting it to the House, and to say, "Here is our draft text; what do you think of it?" According to the Government of Gibraltar, however, that was not done. An explanation from the Minister for that would also be helpful.
  A further question that I would like to raise is on the nature of the combined region and how it will work in practice. With respect to what you said earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker—of course, I respect your ruling. The way in which the combined region that will include Gibraltar is to operate will involve the existing electoral system, and this will highlight the operation of that system more starkly than ever before. In my own electoral region for the European Parliament—the eastern region—there are eight MEPs. In the south-west—part of which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms)—I think that there are seven, and in Northern Ireland, three. I was particularly attracted to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon); she made a very appealing case.
  So far as I understand the Bill, the system will operate in exactly the same way in the combined region, once Gibraltar has been incorporated into it, as it does now in, shall we say, my own eastern region. Each of the eight MEPs for that region, technically, is an MEP for the whole region. Similarly, the seven MEPs for the south-west are all MEPs for all the south-west. Thus, whichever combined region incorporates Gibraltar, all its MEPs will represent Gibraltar. We already understand the difficulties that this causes in practice. In my own area, the MEPs have informally cut up the region territorially, just so that they can begin to get a grasp of the job. I would be grateful if the Minister could address this issue, specifically in relation to Gibraltar. How will this work? If all the MEPs from a region represent Gibraltar, will they all fly off there regularly? Alternatively, will they simply have to cut up their region and decide informally that only one of them should take responsibility for the territory? If so, which one, and from which party? This raises real concerns in relation to the operation of the combined region.
  I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in his place and participating in this debate as a true Eurosceptic. I gather that, at a tea party in his constituency a few months ago, he said that he had always been against the single European currency. It is a great pleasure to participate in a debate on the Floor of the House with him, when he takes such an important position on such an important question. With respect to his position on proportional representation, however, I suggest that the question of how the combined region would operate throws into stark relief the catastrophe that is proportional representation.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Most hon. Members will be aware of my views on Gibraltar, and on how the British people of that territory should be represented at every level of government. It is a pity that they should have to begin by being represented in the European Parliament. I would much prefer the Minister to come to the House to state that she will also give the
  210
  people of Gibraltar the right to make their own decisions on who will speak for them in this House as well. They are British citizens, and they should be treated equally and properly, as we would expect our own constituents to be treated.
  I welcome this initiative, although it is sad that it has taken 31 years for the British people of Gibraltar to be given the right to vote in European elections. They joined the Common Market at the same time as the United Kingdom did, yet they were deliberately excluded from being able to vote in European elections from 1979 onwards. That was shameful, and created a democratic deficit that no party in government has addressed over a long period of time. I sincerely hope that the present Government will address the democratic deficit in relation to this place, and that my own party will consider this a future policy for the next Conservative Government.
  I welcome the Bill, principally because it takes the first step in a long overdue move towards the integration of the British overseas territory of Gibraltar within the United Kingdom. I hope, however, that the concept of giving the people of our overseas territories the right to vote in elections will not end with this Bill. I want to correct one or two hon. Members who have spoken on the subject earlier. Gibraltar is a member of the European Union, via the United Kingdom, but that does not apply to the other British overseas territories or the Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; they are not part of the European Union. Lucky them! While Gibraltar remains part of the European Union, however, it should be given the right to vote and to choose its own elected representatives, and I am glad that there is consensus on that in the House.
  The people of Gibraltar have been treated shabbily. It is regrettable that it has taken an action in the European Court of Human Rights to bring the matter to a head. It is a pity that Labour Members—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is just returning to the Chamber—are not enthusiastic about the Bill. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) said that he did not particularly like Gibraltarians, and had no time for them. He seemed reluctant to give them the vote in European elections. I wish that there were more enthusiasm. I cannot understand any British Member of Parliament being unenthusiastic about giving all British people the right to vote in all British elections. I find it appalling that there is a lack of such enthusiasm among those on the Government Benches. Indeed, the Government have been forced to bring the Bill to the House. They have not done so willingly, as one might have expected from a British Government in relation to their own people.
  The explanatory notes make it clear that the integration of Gibraltar in a British region for representation in the European Parliament has come about through the case of Matthews v. the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights. The referendum held on the Rock only last month—we all know the result, as 99 per cent. of people in Gibraltar

  211
  decided that they want to stay British—clearly showed that the British people of Gibraltar want representation in the European Parliament and here.
  Tony Cunningham: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Why did the House not pass legislation between 1979 and 1997 to give the people of Gibraltar the opportunity to vote in European Parliament elections?
  Mr. Rosindell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was not a Member of the House in that period and I cannot speak for a previous Conservative Government. All I can say is that, as a Member of the House today and one who will be a Member when the next Conservative Government are elected, I strongly believe that it is my party's duty to ensure that that wrong is corrected when we are back in power. The Bill will give the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in European elections, but they must also have the right to vote Members to this House. I look forward to that day.
  Mr. Hoyle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as disappointed as I am that the franchise was not given to the people of Gibraltar between 1979 and 1997, and that he wants to express that disappointment.
  Mr. Rosindell: I am disappointed that British subjects, whoever they are and wherever they may live, have not been given the right to vote in British elections. The previous Conservative Government could have given them that right. Obviously, other matters were on the agenda, but I have no doubt that a future Conservative Government will consider the issue and, as the hon. Gentleman knows more than most on the Government Benches, I am arguing strongly for that in my party. Our Government's attitude to the people of Gibraltar should involve not listening and walking away, but substance and meaning. They are British, as are all subjects in the British overseas territories, and they should be given the rights that are expected in our constituencies.
  I urge the Government to send the people of Gibraltar the right signals. It is important that those in Gibraltar who are watching the debate today do not see a Government who are reluctant to introduce the Bill. I honestly believe that the attitude that they have displayed to the people of Gibraltar has done enormous harm, so this is an opportunity for them to make their peace with the people of the Rock, respect them and embrace their wishes. It would make such a difference if the people of Gibraltar were made to feel that they are wanted by the Government and wanted by the Members of this place.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend not think that, perversely and in some respects, that attitude may have done a lot of good? It has drawn the attention of the people of this country to how shabbily the people of Gibraltar have been treated. The British people have every reason to be concerned about how they are likely to be treated, for example when they are not given a referendum on the Government's proposal for a European constitution.
  Mr. Rosindell: My hon. Friend is correct again. The Government have treated the people of Gibraltar
  212
  shabbily, but that has highlighted the democratic deficit and the importance of giving the vote to the British people in our few remaining overseas territories.
  After an Adjournment debate last week, the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for Europe said to me, "If you give Gibraltar the right to vote in elections, they will all want it." It is as if we have millions of colonies that are all waiting to send MPs to the House. Of course, that is simply not the case. We have a small number of overseas territories—about 12 or 13—with small populations and none has asked for or seems to want independence. They all want to stay under the Crown and they wish to remain British.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the other aspect that distinguishes those territories is that they are not relevant to the Bill.
  Mr. Rosindell: Thank you for reminding me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was responding to points made by other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to referendums on European issues and I endorse everything he said.
  The region in which Gibraltar should be included is a matter for the people of Gibraltar and the Electoral Commission. It should be an independent decision. There are strong arguments for the south-west region and arguments for Northern Ireland. I regret the fact that only England and Wales are to be considered, as I believe that Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore, I cannot understand how, in principle, it is right to exclude any part of the UK from consideration as to the region in which Gibraltar should be included.
  Mr. Bacon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason given by the Minister for why that cannot be done—namely, that it is rather too complicated—is inadequate in view of the importance of his remarks about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the fact that we managed to get a man to the moon in 1969?
  Mr. Rosindell: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. That argument cannot be sustained and it is simply wrong on principle. If a British overseas territory is to be given the vote in British elections and if the Electoral Commission is to decide the region or constituency in which that territory is to be included, we must start from the basis that it can be included in any part of the UK. I cannot understand how it can possibly be argued that Scotland and Northern Ireland should be excluded from consideration.
  I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says and ask the Minister to reconsider. I am not arguing for Gibraltar to be included in Northern Ireland or in Scotland; I want the people of Gibraltar to make that decision with the Electoral Commission. The whole UK should be treated the same way in this respect.
  Once again, it is shabby that the Government have failed to consult the Government of Gibraltar, Gibraltar's Chief Minister and the Gibraltarian people on the Bill. The Minister should understand how profound the matter is to the people of Gibraltar.

  213
  The Bill is not of minor consequence to them; it is of major significance to their lives. The European Union may not be particularly significant, but the fact that the people of Gibraltar are getting a vote in a British election for the first time makes the Bill incredibly important to every person on the Rock.
  Members will be able to imagine the circumstances if a part of the mainland UK that had been excluded from voting in elections were suddenly able to vote. People would be very keen to ensure that they were properly consulted. That did not happen with Gibraltar, although it should have. I hope that the Minister takes note of the comments not just from me, but from many Members who made that point this afternoon. The Government should go to the people and the elected Government of Gibraltar and give them the right to be consulted on this very important issue, which affects their future.
  It is a matter of principle, at least in my view, that all British people—whoever they are, and in whichever part of the world they may live—should be treated equally. This is, I trust, the first rather than the last step along the road to that end.
  Let me remind the Minister that the people of Gibraltar are not just part of the European Union. In many senses, they are governed by the United Kingdom Administration. Tony Blair—sorry, the Prime Minister—may be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom rather than Gibraltar, but he makes many decisions about what happens there, as do the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. Similarly, in respect of higher education, health and many other matters, Gibraltar depends on our elected Government for decisions. That should be taken into account in this and future legislation if we are to deal with the democratic deficit that many of us have mentioned today.
  I welcome the Bill, but I am sorry it has taken a court judgment to force the Government to act. I hope that the necessary measures will be taken speedily, and that the people of Gibraltar will be consulted fully. I look forward to the day when those people elect their own MEP, and indeed their own Member of Parliament.
  7.11 pm
  Adam Price: I apologise to both Front Benches, and indeed to all Members, for my absence during most of the debate. I was at the annual children's reception at 10 Downing street, following what will probably prove to be my only invitation to No 10 during the current Parliament.
  In this vital debate, we have focused on the representation of small polities or territorial communities—principally Gibraltar, although I am glad that the Cornish were given a mention earlier. They would certainly say that the move to a list system has had a negative impact on their voice in Europe. I intend to concentrate on the representation of what might be called the natural regions of the United Kingdom. Wales and Scotland currently have 13 MEPs between them, but the number is to fall to 10. We are, in fact, to experience 20 per cent. of the cut in UK representation, although our population is only 15 per cent. of the whole. That is disproportionate.
  I do not want to adopt a sectarian approach. Although we obviously have a nationalist perspective, Unionists should also be concerned. In a multinational
  214
  state such as the UK, those who uphold the constitutional integrity of the Union should pay particular attention to the representation of smaller nations such as Northern Ireland at all levels, including the European Parliament. To an extent that is reflected in the fact that the devolved Assemblies, very rarely, are given observer status at the Council of Ministers, although they have no voting rights.
  However, it is precisely because Wales, as a small nation, has no automatic right to sit in the Council of Ministers—and no representation in COREPER, the Committee of Permanent Representatives—that the voice of MEPs is so important to us. European Union policies have historically been very important to us in Wales, and indeed to those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The current discussions of fisheries policies interest us greatly; agriculture is disproportionately important to both Wales and Scotland, along with coal and steel. The same could really be said of regional policy in general. That is why we need to maintain the current level of representation for those three parts of the United Kingdom.
  The American political scientist A.O. Hirschmann spoke of the strategies that minority groups could employ in a political system. There were, he said, two strategies, "voice" and "exit". Either the system accommodated minority groups, allowed them to express their distinctiveness and listened to them, or the "exit" door was available. Some of us may wish to approach that door, but I think it is in all our interests, whatever our perspective, to ensure that minority nations in the UK, including Northern Ireland, are given adequate representation. We see that principle in federal systems throughout the world. Members will correct me if my geography is wrong, but I believe that Wyoming, whose population is about half a million, has the same representation in the Senate as California, whose population is some 20 million—or perhaps 40 million; I am not sure. This is not special pleading. I am talking about how we are to ensure political cohesion in a multinational state.
  In the European Union there is, in fact, over-representation of small and medium-sized nations. It is called—this is another wonderful example of Eurospeak, or Eurobabble, depending on one's political leanings—the principle of degressive proportionality. It means the over-representation of smaller nations in per capita terms, in relation to both the weighting of votes—that will apply even under the new proposals, post-accession, in the Council of Ministers—and representation as such. It is important because the proportion of small and medium-sized members of the EU is increasing post-accession. The average population of the current member state is about 24.5 million, whereas after further accessions it will be 8.8 million. The question of how best to represent smaller nations is at the forefront of the enlargement debate.
  Clearly, a rigid numerical per capita rule is not the answer. A more qualitative approach is needed to the representation of political and cultural diversity in the EU. Luxembourg, whose population is about the same as Cardiff's, will have six seats, while Ireland, with the same population as Wales, will have 12—three times as many as Wales. Denmark, with the same population as Scotland, will have 13, more than double Scotland's six.

  215
  According to the Bill a Welshman is worth a third of an Irishman, and a Scot is worth half a Dane. That strikes me as rather bizarre.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is right. We are making an excellent case for full self-government—for Wales and Scotland to be members of the European Union in their own right, and to have the full panoply of advantages in terms of representation. We look forward to seeing the Liberal Democrats join us in supporting that principle at the next election.
  Mr. Heath: That would be an excellent argument if the only question to be considered was the number of MEPs. I suspect that there may be other considerations.
  Adam Price: Matters for another day, perhaps.
  It is reasonable to discuss how the UK seats are to be allocated. The UK is, after all, a multinational state or polity. The EU gives due regard to how minority nations and provinces are given adequate representation; we need to enshrine the same principle in the Bill. Unfortunately, clause 2(4)(b) requires the Electoral Commission to ensure that
  "the ratio of electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same in each electoral region".
  That cannot be right. If we are creating separate regions for the nations and the Province, surely we need a different level of representation. I am a great supporter of English regionalism, but our history of political and cultural difference requires commensurate representation.
  Tony Cunningham: Where exactly is the hon. Gentleman drawing the line? He talks about provinces. Would he give the Catalans, the Basques and the Bavarians greater representation, or is he talking only about nation states?
  Adam Price: I am a great believer in self-determination, but I will not preach to the Spanish on how they should arrange their internal affairs. There is a discussion going on about whether, alongside the process of external enlargement, bringing in the nations of eastern Europe, we should have a process of internal enlargement, giving greater representation to the stateless or submerged nations of western Europe. We would advocate that, but I was making a slightly different point.
  Clearly, if Wales was a member of the European Union in its own right, we would automatically have a right to greater representation. My point is about being sensitive to the political and cultural diversity of these islands when we allocate seats within the United Kingdom.
  Tony Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that we take seats away from other parts of the United Kingdom or Spain, for example? How many MEPs would there be under the system that he favours?
  Adam Price: My position is absolutely clear. I accept that, with enlargement, we have to reduce the number of
  216
  seats for the United Kingdom, but I do not understand why Wales and Scotland should be disproportionately affected. Depending on one's reading of the Bill, it seems that Northern Ireland is protected and cannot go below the floor of three seats, and we would want the same to apply to us, although we accept that there must be some reduction.
  If we are serious about maintaining the political integrity of this multinational state, there must be a certain amount of over-representation for the small nations, as otherwise they will feel dwarfed, whether in the European Union or the UK context.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made the point that we have a more diverse party system in the smaller nations of the UK. In Wales, we have a fully fledged four-party system; in Scotland, we have a six-party system; and if my memory serves me correctly, there are 12 parties represented in Northern Ireland.
  Lady Hermon: At least.
  Adam Price: At least 12, and possibly growing by the day.
  In that situation, we need to retain the existing level of representation.
  Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the individual nations of the United Kingdom are not in themselves homogeneous? In Scotland, there are substantial regional differences that are in danger of being submerged by its being a single political unit. Is not that an argument for breaking up Scotland into a smaller number of first-past-the-post constituencies for elections to the European Parliament?
  Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that the Bill does not cover the method of election.
  Adam Price: It is bizarre that Gibraltar may be included in Wales but not in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The only reason that I can come up with is that Wales has a secondary legislative form of devolution. It seems that Gibraltar could be imposed on Wales but not on the other two parts of the UK. In fact, there will be plenty of difficulty imposing a settlement on the Gibraltarians, let alone imposing the Gibraltarians and the settlement on the people of Wales, even with the well-honed diplomatic skills of the former Minister for Europe, now Welsh Secretary.
  We want to achieve representation for all parts of the United Kingdom, and we will certainly oppose any proposal that would result in less of a voice for what are already under-represented, stateless nations. We need a voice in the European institutions, and that is why we are against the Government's proposals.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Cash: We have had an interesting, wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made a thoughtful contribution, and we look forward to the amendments that will be tabled in Committee. We shall have to see to what extent we can

  217
  find common ground with the Liberal Democrats, as there are some difficulties between us in relation to their overall position on Gibraltar. On other matters, however, and especially in relation to the overarching powers to be given to the Lord Chancellor and the Electoral Commission, we may well reach an understanding,
  The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) made an extremely sensible speech. He is a member of Labour's sensible tendency. He was right to say that a logical extension of the right to European Parliamentary representation is that there should be representation for the people of Gibraltar in this House—not a point on which there is any settled policy, but one that holds great attractions in principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) powerfully endorsed that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) gave us an extremely helpful history of the progress of the Bill with respect to Gibraltar, of which only those of us who had read the excellent Library research material would have been aware. He also emphasised the question of justifiable unilateral action—an issue to which we will no doubt return, not least when we debate human rights. Such points will arise when we discuss subsequent enactments, the European constitution and other matters, as we proceed towards further and deeper European integration, and resistance to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) dealt adroitly with the question of boundary procedures. I was greatly taken with his emphasis on the political consequences for electoral law.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) talked about proportional representation. He was right to raise his concerns about the powers of the Lord Chancellor and the Electoral Commission and the implications for human rights.
  The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made some interesting points about the case for the so-called stateless nations. I am not sure how we might define that in any amendments that may be tabled in Committee, but we shall wait with interest to see whether those issues are pursued at that point.
  I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply to the points that were made. Very important questions arise, and so far, she has given us no more than a sketch of the Bill's content as set out in the explanatory notes. Perhaps she will now explain what really lies behind the increased and rather engrossed powers granted to the Lord Chancellor, which, as she will have gathered, the House is extremely uneasy about. There is also unease about the question of Gibraltar and the lack of consultation with its Government. I look forward to hearing that much more detailed consultation will take place not only with the Chief Minister, but with the wider population.
  7.30 pm
  Yvette Cooper: We have had a very good debate on both aspects of the Bill: the reduction in the number of MEPs to accommodate EU enlargement, and the enfranchisement of Gibraltar. Most Members seemed broadly to support the basic principles behind the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall
  218
  Green (Mr. McCabe) set out clearly the case for reducing the number of MEPs as part of the expansion. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised specific points relating to closed lists—I responded to them at the beginning of the debate—and set out his party's support for the principles behind the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) gave his strong support for the people of Gibraltar. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) have visited Gibraltar, and that they have been very active in supporting its people.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) talked in detail about issues relating to unilateral action. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked about consulting the Electoral Commission, and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) asked about consultation of Gibraltar, and about the Matthews judgment, about which I shall say more in a moment. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale called for representation for Gibraltar in this House, and the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) discussed representation in the European Parliament of Wales in particular.
  I shall try to respond as briefly as I can to the various questions raised by hon. Members. Concerns were expressed about the number of powers in secondary legislation, but I should make it clear that they are very constrained. We are talking about two kinds of powers. Those relating to the reduction of the number of MEPs, which are included in first part of the Bill, are clearly constrained by the treaty of Nice. Reference is made to the reduction in numbers according to the treaty, and to the implementation of the Electoral Commission's recommendations on the allocation of MEPs across the country. It is right that we provide for the Electoral Commission's ability to make recommendations in that way; that is the fairest way to achieve proper distribution of MEPs across the country.
  Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions and he has had various opportunities to make points; however, I shall give way one more time.
  Mr. Cash: I have indeed had such opportunities, but so far I have had no reply to my question about the extension of the Lord Chancellor's powers in respect of the whole remit of European Community law. In particular, the question not just of the reduction in numbers under the treaty of Nice, but of future changes, has not been dealt with.
  Yvette Cooper: I am coming to the number of seats, and to the suggestions that were incorrectly made by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members.
  The second issue relating to secondary powers concerns Gibraltar's enfranchisement and the need to address the many aspects of UK electoral law—the way in which election agents' expenses are paid, and other such details—that must be applied to Gibraltar. It is appropriate that such matters be dealt with through secondary legislation, but it is clear that there will be considerable debate about this issue in Committee.

  219
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked whether the Lord Chancellor will be able to reduce the number of MEPs in Northern Ireland to less than three, and the answer is no. Clause 2(4)(b) and paragraph 1(2) to schedule 1A establish that each electoral region must be allocated at least three MEPs. Opposition Members also suggested that the House was getting no say in the reduction in the number of MEPs, but that is not true. The treaty of Nice sets the final number of MEPs for the UK at 72, and this House debated and ratified both the treaty and that figure. How we get from here to there will depend on the agreement of the European Council this week on how many new states get in, and on what the timetable for the reduction should be. However, all EU members will need to sign up to that interim position.
  Hon. Members also raised the question of consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. Officials have been in contact with the Government of Gibraltar through correspondence, and in direct discussion in meetings. As hon. Members suggested, further meetings will take place before Christmas, including with a Foreign Office Minister. The detail of the Bill will be discussed, as will the way in which enabling provisions can best be applied to Gibraltar, how far such changes can be made by Westminster Parliament, and the extent to which the Government of Gibraltar can legislate. We expect some of these changes to take place through Gibraltar's own legislation, but not everything can be dealt with in that way. For Gibraltar to be treated fairly as part of a UK region, UK electoral law—which is decided by this House—needs to cover Gibraltar as well. We are talking about detailed issues—I have already mentioned expenses and election agents—including sending election addresses through the post, whether schools and rooms can he used for parliamentary elections, and so on. We need to ensure that a whole series of detailed issues concerning the conduct of elections are applied fairly to Gibraltar, so that it is treated consistently as part of a UK region.
  Certain Members wanted to discuss the future status of Gibraltar, but that does not form part of the Bill's scope. I welcome the points that were raised, but I should make it clear that the Government have always said that any proposed change in the status of Gibraltar would be a matter for the people of Gibraltar to decide in a referendum. That has always been the case, and it continues to be so. The constitutional settlement for Gibraltar, which was set out in 1969, is complex, and changing that status does not form part of the scope of this Bill.
  The hon. Member for South Norfolk raised an important question about the European Court judgment. He suggested that the issue is whether the people of Gibraltar have the right to petition the European Court, or whether they are covered by the European convention. My understanding of the judgment differs slightly, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in more detail about this complex issue. As I see it, the judgment concerned whether or not the European Parliament formed part of Gibraltar's legislature, and whether the article and protocol on free and fair elections to the legislature therefore apply. The European Court ruled that they do, but the legal
  220
  arguments do not apply in the same way to the Channel Islands as they do to Gibraltar. As I said, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on this point, because these are complex legal arguments.
  On the points raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, it would of course be preferable to amend the 1976 legislation, but we were unable to secure the unanimous agreement of the Council. That is why we have taken such action through the Bill, and we support the enfranchisement of Gibraltar in this way.
  The hon. Member for Poole asked about the way in which the Electoral Commission should make its decisions and the matters that it should take into account. It does of course need to consult widely, and I am sure that political parties will make their views known as part of that consultation. In raising issues that might be important at the margins, the hon. Gentleman has in some ways shown exactly why it is so important that the Electoral Commission should conduct this consultation. Many marginal issues concerning Gibraltar, or concerning relations between individual regions, could have political consequences. It is therefore right that the Electoral Commission, which is independent and was set up for exactly such purposes, should be the body that makes the recommendation to us.
  Mr. Bacon: Can the Minister confirm whether the decisions and actions of the Electoral Commission are open to judicial review?
  Yvette Cooper: The Electoral Commission is responsible to the Speaker's Conference in this Parliament. I shall have to take advice on that point and write to the hon. Gentleman. It is important that the independent electoral commission should he the body to make the recommendations. I understand that it is subject to judicial review.
  Many points of detail were raised that we can discuss in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Hoyle: One quick point: would the Bill allow another overseas territory to challenge for enfranchisement to the EU?
  Yvette Cooper: The Bill does not cover any other overseas territory. Clearly, if one wanted to have discussions with us, we would agree to that, and many such issues will also be matters for the Foreign Office.
  Many matters of detail and drafting have been raised, and I hope that we can discuss them further in Standing Committee. I hope that we will gain the support of as many hon. Members as possible for the detailed provisions.
  One substantive difference became apparent when the hon. Member for Stone seemed to object to the reduction in the number of UK MEPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green set the position out clearly. He said that supporters of EU enlargement can adopt one of only two positions: either they want the European Parliament to get ever bigger, or they believe that the UK and other countries need to reduce the number of their seats so that the new accession states can have representation.
  In fact, there is a third option—that the new accession states should simply not get representation in the European Parliament. I assume that that is not the

  221
  Opposition stance. It is right that we should give the new accession states fair representation, and that, therefore, means recognising the consequences—as negotiated across Europe—for UK representation.
  The hon. Member for Stone set out his objections to any reduction in the number of UK MEPs, and that seemed to me to be the wrong approach. In the past, he has said that he supported enlargement but not if that meant crushing out the democratic spirit. It is hardly in the democratic spirit to resist all reduction in UK representation, with the knock-on impact that that would have for fair representation for the new states that we should be welcoming to the EU.
  The hon. Member for Stone also referred to his pamphlet on the Nice treaty. That is indeed a weighty tome—50 pages of criticism, to be precise. When I saw it, I thought that the hon. Gentleman must be prolific, and I assumed that he had written equally weighty tomes on other issues of interest to him in his role shadowing the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I confess that I struggled to find any statements at all on those matters, let alone one that ran to 50 pages. In fact, I struggled to find much in the way of letters or parliamentary questions. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's interests lie elsewhere.
  Mr. Cash: I assure the Minister that the shadow Cabinet has ample paper on all subjects.
  Yvette Cooper: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman has been drowning his fellow members of the shadow Cabinet in. I suspect that the answer will not be matters to do with the Attorney-General, but matters to do with Europe. When the hon. Gentleman was appointed to the Opposition Front Bench, a Tory spokesman said that he was instructed by the Tory leader that he would not be discussing European issues or pronouncing on matters European. The hon. Gentleman has in fact been quite restrained in this debate, and I accept that he has said before today that he supports enlargement. However, the logic of his argument is that, although we should welcome other eastern European and accession states into the EU, we should pull the UK out of it. He wants the renegotiation of the treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht, and in fact he believes that we should have a referendum on the entire EU treaty itself.
  A much wider difference has become evident: the hon. Member for Stone and his party want to be outside the EU and shouting from a distance while European states and the new accession states decide matters affecting our future. The Government believe that we should be in Europe, arguing our case, influencing the debate and making a real difference to the issues that affect people's lives.
  That includes supporting the European Parliament, and supporting a voice in the European Parliament for people from the accession states. It also means enfranchising Gibraltar and giving its people a voice in the European Parliament.
  The Bill is important. It will extend democracy and ensure a better and wider EU. I hope that all hon. Members will support that, and that they will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT(REPRESENTATION) BILL [PROGRAMME]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
  That the following provisions shall apply to the European Parliament (Representation) Bill:

  Committal
  (1)The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

  Standing Committee
  (2)Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 16th January 2003.
  (3)The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  (4)Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  (5)Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
  (6)Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Other proceedings
  (7)Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT(REPRESENTATION) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills).
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliament (Representation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a)any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act; or

  (b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act;

  (2)any provision made under the Act requiring sums to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund;

  (3)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund under any other Act;

  (4)the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Joan Ryan.]

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I propose to put together the Questions on the two social security motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Tax Credits (Appeals)(No. 2) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Tax Credits Appeals) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT Ordered,
  Ordered,
  That Mr Neil Gerrard be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr David Chaytor be added to the Committee.—[Joan Ryan]

PETITIONS

  Euthanasia
  7.47 pm
  Jim Dobbin: I wish to present a petition, signed by people across the United Kingdom, against euthanasia and assisted suicide.
  More than 93,000 people have signed this petition, almost twice the number who signed the pro-euthanasia petition calling for assisted suicide. It reflects the concern of members of the public at the activities of
  224
  the pro-euthanasia lobby and the legislation that is imminent from the Lord Chancellor's office and the Department of Health.
  The petition states:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Government to introduce without delay proposals for legislation which outlaw the withdrawal of food and fluid (however delivered) with the purpose or intention of causing death by omission.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hospices
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: This petition was gathered by Mr. and Mrs. Gregory of 10, Bolton road, Chorley, and by Mr. Carl Crook, also of Chorley, with the help and support of their friends. It is thanks to their dedication that I am raising this very important question of funding for hospices.
  The petition of the residents of the Chorley area declares:
  That the St. Catherine's and Derian House hospices carry out important and valuable work in the Chorley area; that they do not receive adequate recognition or funding.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons recognise the importance and the value of the work done by the hospice movement and bring forward legislative proposals to ensure realistic and ongoing funding for institutions such as Derian House and St. Catherine's hospice.
  To lie upon the Table.

Wakefield Prison
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
7.50 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns about proposals by the Angel Group to use the former prison officers' college building at Wakefield prison for the accommodation of asylum seekers. It is a matter of regret that I have been forced to bring the issue to the Floor of the House, but for almost two years I have been unable to get straight answers to straight questions and, frankly, I have had enough.
This saga began in February 2001 when I received a telephone call from someone at a senior level in the Prison Service. He told me that I ought to be aware that the former prison officers' college building at Wakefield prison was to be used for the accommodation of asylum seekers. It was apparent from his remarks that he was deeply concerned from a security point of view about what was being proposed.
I know that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) has been to Wakefield prison, so she will know that the building is located in Love lane, Wakefield, between the prison wall and the main Leeds-London railway line. It is next to the prison officers' club and the only vehicular approach was, until very recently, blocked by a manned traffic barrier. The building has throughout its history been part of the prison establishment and is viewed by local people as an integral part of the prison. I should also add that it is only a few hundred yards from Westgate, the popular pubbing and clubbing area of what has historically been known as the "Merrie City". Generations of young locals have traditionally undertaken the Westgate run, which entails having one drink in each of the numerous licensed establishments from the bottom of Westgate up to the city centre. The prison buildings are passed by revellers towards the conclusion of the Westgate run.
Following the telephone call, I had contact with the local authority, which advised me that a telephone call had been received some weeks before from the Angel Group, making tentative inquiries about the use of the building for asylum seekers. On 12 March 2001, I wrote to the then Home Secretary stating that in view of the sensitivities of the proposal, I would have expected, as the local Member of Parliament, to have been consulted at the very least. I set out my own serious worries about what I believed to be an inappropriate location for the proposed use. By this time, I had been made aware of the local authority housing and social care department's strong opposition to a proposal that it believed would completely undermine a successful local strategy for assisting asylum seekers.
I draw the Minister's attention to the letter of 23 March 2001 sent by Councillor Peter Loosemore, the Wakefield metropolitan district council cabinet member responsible for housing and social care, to Mr. Bob Eagle, the director of the National Asylum Support Service. The letter reiterated concerns that I had raised with the Home Secretary. Specifically, it referred to the inappropriateness of the physical location, saying:
"The proximity to the prison gives an inappropriate message to asylum seekers and to the local community".
226
It said that the local authority had worries that a 200-bed accommodation unit would be excessive in size, with Angel's proposals for an average 21-day stay meaning an annual throughput of at least 3,400 asylum seekers. Councillor Loosemore reinforced my worries about the impact on community safety, as the location would make it easy for asylum seekers to be targeted. He outlined fears about the impact on education and social care services and other agencies.
Two days earlier, following contact with the private office of the then Minister of State at the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), I had spoken directly to NASS. Mr. John Hinchliffe, the NASS head of accommodation, confirmed his comments to me in a letter dated 26 March 2001. It said:
"Angel Properties have reached their contractual limit for dispersal accommodation and on this basis the scheme is unlikely to be approved unless there are particular representations to the contrary from the Local Authority."
The local authority was, by that stage, outlining its outright opposition in direct dialogue with the Angel Group as well as in correspondence to the Home Secretary and NASS. Mr. Hinchliffe concluded his letter by saying:
"I will ensure that a copy of your letter goes to my colleague, Les Hart, who is involved in the local consultation process and either he or I will advise you of the final outcome."
Nearly two years later, I am still waiting.
During the following month, I forwarded to Mr. Hinchliffe correspondence that I had received from Councillor Loosemore and local constituents, evidencing renovation work being undertaken by Angel Group at the building and local recruitment of staff. By May 2001, the Angel Group had asked the local authority whether its proposed use of the building for asylum seekers was covered by existing planning permission. When it was established that it was not, the group subsequently made a formal application to which I and many others, including the local ward councillors who were active on the matter and the housing and social care department, objected.
I received a further letter from Councillor Loosemore dated 14 May 2001, in which he expressed serious concern that, despite two separate letters from the local authority to the Home Office, there had been no response or any formal consultation about the Angel Group's proposal. He said:
"The Council has also held initial discussions with a range of other key local and regional agencies who would be affected by the proposals. Many of the Council's concerns are shared by representatives of those agencies."
I received a letter dated 15 June 2001 from the then Minister for Asylum and Immigration, Lord Rooker, again stating that the Angel Group did not have approval from NASS to use the property as emergency accommodation. He assured me that there was
"a full consultation process in place between NASS and the local authority-led regional consortia."
On 1 August 2001, Councillor Loosemore wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in an attempt to clarify NASS's position. He quoted the comments

227
made in letters to me by Mr. Hinchliffe and by Lord Rooker. He also quoted from a letter to himself dated 9 August 2001 from Judith Simpson, head of support at NASS, in which she said:
"NASS is not therefore in any negotiations for this property."
Councillor Loosemore then asked four very relevant questions which, as I understand it, remain largely unanswered. First, is NASS negotiating with Angel Group about the proposed provision at the college site? Secondly, why will NASS not consider the offer of local authority-provided emergency accommodation from the regional consortium instead of seeking it from private providers? Thirdly, if NASS is considering Angel's proposed use of the building, when will the formal consultation take place with the consortium and with Wakefield council? Fourthly, what weight will NASS give to the views of Wakefield council and the consortium during any consultation?
Over the summer period last year, I had personal correspondence with the Angel Group's managing director, Julia Davey. I stated that I believed that her company had been highly irresponsible in ignoring perfectly reasonable local concern. I stand by my view that the company is exploiting a difficult situation in a grossly irresponsible way, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who is in his place, has similar views from his experiences with that company.
In a letter to me of 8 October 2001, Lord Rooker stated:
"I can confirm that NASS is not negotiating with the Angel Group about the acquisition of Wakefield College for use as emergency accommodation for asylum seekers."
On 18 October 2001, I met my noble Friend at the Home Office where he stated categorically that the Home Office had not asked the Angel Group to convert the building. An official from NASS had visited the building at the request of Angel and had told the company that the building was not required. If the Home Office were to consider its use in future, it would be done only with the support of the local authority.
On 2 November 2001, planning permission was refused and the Angel Group indicated its intention to appeal. On 30 January 2002, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and I met Lord Rooker at the Home Office. He stated that the Home Office had no intention of using the building for asylum seekers. He advised us that the Government would shortly announce the location of a series of new reception centres for asylum seekers. The Wakefield building was not appropriate for that use, being too small for the functions envisaged and sited in an urban area. Interestingly, when the NASS representative at that meeting was asked about the actions of the Angel Group he suggested that it had "an inside track" in NASS and gained information to its commercial advantage.
A further letter from Lord Rooker, of 7 May, informed me:
"Companies frequently buy properties speculatively and, although the possibility of the college being used to house asylum seekers in the future cannot be dismissed, NASS currently has no plans to do so".
That letter suggested to me that there had been a slight change of position, and by then I was beginning to believe that the Angel Group's acquisition was more
228
than mere speculation. It was also apparent from the Minister's reply that perfectly reasonable opposition from a local authority and others did not count for much.
In early June, I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. Robert Austin. I pay tribute to Mr. Austin and to another constituent, Mr. Roy Eyre, for their work on the issue. They are motivated by personal concerns as former prison officers. I also pay special tribute to Mr. Austin. The issue is sensitive and, at one time, the British National party in our area attempted to exploit it. There is no racial motivation in my concerns or those of my constituents. I much appreciate the fact that Mr. Austin gave very short shrift to BNP members who wrote to the local paper expressing their support for what he had done.
As former prison officers, Mr. Austin and Mr. Eyre have particular concerns about the security aspects of Angel's proposal. Mr. Austin provided me with the Land Registry entries relating to the sale of the building by the Home Office to the Angel Group for £1,161,000 on 6 July 2001. Part 4 of the restrictions in the charges register, agreed between vendor and purchaser, outlaws the use of the property for a range of purposes, including accommodating remand prisoners, ex-offenders and those in receipt of psychiatric treatment. However, there was an interesting exemption: paragraph 1.4 states:
"The use of the property for providing temporary residential accommodation solely for persons seeking political asylum or the right to reside (whether permanent or temporary) in the United Kingdom shall not be deemed to be a breach"—
of the preceding restrictive paragraphs.
My hon. Friend the Minister will probably be aware that, due to my concern as to its contents, I passed the documentation to the Home Secretary when I met him on 12 June. In passing, may I say that I hope that my right hon. Friend is making a good recovery from his recent operation?
On 18 September, Sue Goring of the NASS secretariat wrote to Mr. Austin, assuring him that the college building would not be used as a hostel for asylum seekers. She went on to say:
"The site was visited by a representative from NASS and was deemed to be unsuitable for dispersal accommodation. Furthermore, the site is not under consideration for use as an Accommodation Centre."
Interestingly, my constituent, Mr. Eyre, received a letter dated 8 November from the very same Ms Goring. It stated:
"I can only reiterate what I stated in my previous correspondence and add that Angel Group purchased the site without any prior arrangement with the Home Office. However, I must add that it may well be the case that NASS will want to use this site in the future."
The Minister will be aware that a planning appeal was held on 8 October. I was present, along with representatives from the local authority and several local residents, including the two gentlemen whom I mentioned. Among the references provided in support of the Angel Group was one dated 4 October from Paul Winterbottom, the deputy director of NASS, which stated:
"The Group are committed to working in partnership with a broad range of organisations."
That has not been our experience in Wakefield but, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the appeal was upheld at the end of October.

229
I am happy to provide for the Minister copies of the correspondence to which I have referred, as it is worth comparing the initial reply that I received from NASS with subsequent letters. I have come to certain conclusions from this long drawn-out saga. First, despite protestations to the contrary, it seems clear that certain parties in the Home Office were directly involved in the disposal of the building for the accommodation of asylum seekers.
Secondly, it is also apparent that the Home Office went ahead with the sale of the property for that known purpose despite being well aware of the fact that the strongest possible objections to the proposed use had been made by the local authority, the local MP and many other people.
Wakefield already has a hostel for asylum seekers in the city and wants to play its part in addressing the current crisis. However, to have top-security prisoners communicating from their cells to asylum seekers on the other side of the wall does not make sense.
I realise that my hon. Friend's Department has faced unprecedented problems in regard to asylum seekers and that has created great strains. However, that does not excuse the fact that certain officials in her Department have been somewhat disingenuous in their handling of this affair. I hope that, at the very least, my hon. Friend will investigate the actions of those involved and find out why I and others have been given misleading, inconsistent and sometimes incorrect answers to our inquiries. I hope, too, that she will realise that using the building for asylum seekers would be wholly inappropriate.
8.7 pm
Peter Bradley: I did not anticipate that I would have the opportunity to make a speech in the debate. I assure those Members still in the Chamber that I shall not carry on until 10 o'clock. My comments will be brief.
My experience with the Angel Group is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). The company followed a similar course of action when it acquired the Centrex site in High Ercall in my constituency—not on an option but outright, for a payment, which I understand amounted to £2.5 million. That is a considerable amount to speculate on the possibility of winning a contract with the Home Office.
That fact caused great concern in the small rural community of High Ercall. People thought that if Angel was as confident of having its way as it appeared to be something must be about to happen and that a contract between Angel and the Home Office must have been drawn up. It was extremely difficult for me and for others to try to convince the local community that there was a due process through which decisions would ultimately be made and that no decision had yet been taken.
As their Member of Parliament I endured—like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield—a lengthy period, between October 2001 and July 2002, of rumour, scaremongering and speculation as to the future of the site and the consequences for my community. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the opportunity to
230
clarify the situation in July. However, that has not been the end of the story and, again, there is an uncanny parallel with my hon. Friend's experience.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is anxious to add to the remarks already made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), but we are bound by the fact that the debate relates to Wakefield prison. The debate is not about the company or the procedures, but about Wakefield prison's suitability for the purpose identified by the hon. Member for Wakefield. So the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) must have a care. I know that he is going to make his remarks brief, but they must be about Wakefield prison.
Peter Bradley: I will try to be even more ingenious than I have been in seeking constantly to refer to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. I will keep my comments brief and try to relate them to the experience at Wakefield prison.
I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the apparent relationship between the Angel Group and the Home Office in relation to Wakefield prison. I attended the meeting to which he refers and well recall the comment of a Home Office official when he raised his own concerns about that relationship. The official said that the Angel Group seemed to have an inside track—that was the expression he used—and seemed to be able to anticipate the decisions that were being made at official and policy level by the Home Office before anyone else seemed to know about them. That is a very serious allegation coming from any source, but it is yet more serious coming from a civil servant. I very much hope that the Minister will confirm in her reply that, if investigations have not yet taken place, they will be conducted now as a matter of urgency.
The issues that my hon. Friend has raised are extremely serious whether they affect Wakefield, my constituency or, indeed, anywhere else. As we already know, plans to accommodate and deal with asylum seekers are extremely sensitive and highly controversial, and it is extremely difficulty to cope with local people's concerns and expectations.
I had a similar experience to that of my hon. Friend, as the BNP turned up in my constituency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's constituents and, indeed, my own for the fact that, when they recognised who those people were and what their agenda was, they gave them short shrift.
I should like to conclude with the plea that I made to the Minister's predecessor, Lord Rooker, at the meeting to which my hon. Friend referred. My plea is simply that the Home Office should not tolerate lower standards of community relations from the private sector than those that it would adopt itself in dealing with such sensitive issues. As I have constantly said, my experience echoes almost to a fault that of my hon. Friend. It is not enough for a public body, much less the Government, to say that little can be done to influence the conduct of a private sector organisation.
I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to make it clear that the Home Office will inform the Angel Group and any other private sector organisation that wants to be involved in such highly sensitive public

231
issues that, if it has even the expectation of entering into contracts with the Government, it must conform not to the lowest, but to the very highest standards of local community relations.
My experience at High Ercall in The Wrekin is that the Angel Group has treated the local community and its representatives—the parish council, the unitary authority and the Member of Parliament—with utter contempt, and my hon. Friend's experience is very similar in Wakefield. Frankly, that is not the way in which we should pursue such policies, with or without the private sector.
The Angel Group does have form; it does have a record and if the Minister was not aware of that fact before, she will be now. I very much hope that a strong message will go out—not from hon. Members such as my hon. Friend and myself, but from the Minister—to the Angel Group, telling it that the way in which it has conducted itself in the past will no longer be tolerated in the future. Unless it can get its act together and show good faith—frankly, few of us who have had direct experience of the company would accept that at face value—it should be blacklisted and the Home Office should no longer be prepared to deal with it.
8.14 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on gaining the opportunity to debate this important issue this evening. I hope that I can reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I absolutely understand his concerns. Indeed, on 29 October 2001, my right hon. Friend made it clear, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), that a provider would be very ill-advised to buy any property speculatively with a view to offering it to the Home Office for use as accommodation for asylum seekers.
My hon. Friends will understand that we cannot prevent providers buying such property; nor can we prevent them from applying for, or obtaining, planning permission to use a property for that purpose. We are not, however, obliged to accept such properties and, in light of the unequivocal statement made by my right hon. Friend, he and I would certainly be prepared to do so only after very careful consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is primarily interested in the former Prison Service college in Wakefield, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin is equally concerned about a site in his constituency, but I heard your advice on that issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Angel Group was in the process of purchasing the Wakefield site and others, it made it clear that it was doing so with the intention of offering them to the Home Office for use as accommodation for asylum seekers. That is absolutely true, as I understand it. As I have already said, however, we are under no obligation to accept those properties for that or any other purpose.
Let me make it clear that the decision on where asylum seekers are housed does not lie with accommodation providers. That decision is one for the
232
Home Office and ultimately Ministers, and I emphasise that the company did not buy the property at the request of the immigration and nationality directorate. Following the Angel Group's purchase of the former Prison Service college, it sought planning permission to use the property as hostel accommodation for asylum seekers. A member of the procurement section in NASS made an informal visit to the site at that time, but, following that visit, the company was told that NASS did not wish to use the building as dispersal accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has said that he met my predecessor, Lord Rooker, in October last year to discuss the Angel Group's proposal. At that meeting, Lord Rooker confirmed that NASS had declined the offer made by the Angel Group and said that, if the situation were to change, there would be full consultation before the property was accepted if we considered doing so.
My hon. Friend met Lord Rooker again on 30 January this year, when Lord Rooker made it clear that the property was unsuitable for use as dispersal accommodation and that it was not being considered as one of the sites for the trial of accommodation centres, but he said that, although no plans for the site were being considered, it was not possible to rule out its use in some way in the future.
As has been said, the Angel Group's original application for planning permission was refused, but then allowed on appeal. That is a matter for the local authority, as my hon. Friends will know, and I cannot comment on that application. However, the Angel Group has now formally offered the accommodation to NASS. I am happy to assure to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield—I wish to make this absolutely clear—that we shall not use the property as dispersal accommodation or in the trial of accommodation centres.
There is, however, a current need for some additional emergency accommodation, and NASS has been considering whether the sites at Wakefield and High Ercall would be suitable. I have decided that that would not be appropriate in the circumstances because there are significant problems with both those locations, so neither site will be used for our immediate or foreseeable needs. Although I cannot foresee a time when the problems involving both sites will be such that I would agree to use them, I cannot give my hon. Friends a categorical, absolute and indefinite assurance that they will never be used because I cannot predict how the situation that I am trying to manage with officials may change.
I am very grateful that my hon. Friend recognises the inherent difficulty that we face in managing what is and must be seen as a national issue, with some shared ownership, with which many areas will have to help us to deal. As he has acknowledged, Wakefield is already doing so. In the unlikely event that I consider it necessary to use either property, should they remain available, I reaffirm the commitment to consult thoroughly with them and the local parties with as much notice as possible.
My hon. Friend raised a couple of specific issues on which I want to touch. In relation to the contents of the Land Registry record, and the inclusion of an

233
acceptance that use of this site for asylum seekers would be appropriate, as he knows, the college at Love lane was declared surplus during the summer of 2000 and scheduled for closure later that year. Subsequently, it was given over to the Prison Service estates section for disposal. I know that my hon. Friend will argue—in a sense, he is right—that that is part of the Home Office, and therein lies some of the difficulty in deciding whether it is a case of the Home Office trying to sell to the Home Office. The Prison Service estates section, however, is a separate section, and it was dealing with that disposal. Given the college's size and layout, and the pressures that IND was under at the time to provide emergency accommodation, the site was offered to IND, but it decided that it could not make use of Love lane. It was therefore placed with agents to sell on the open market. As he now knows, unconditional offers were received, and it was sold to Angel Group, whose offer was the highest.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's helpful and thoughtful response. Accepting that different tribes operate within the Home Office, may I assume that, if, at some unforeseeable point in the future, a need is perceived to use this particular building, the NASS tribe might consult the prison tribe on the security implications of asylum seekers being accommodated directly opposite the wings of Wakefield prison.
Beverley Hughes: As I said, given the issues raised by my hon. Friend, I think that it is highly unlikely that we would think that that was an appropriate location. I can say with absolute assurance, however, that should such a need arise, however unlikely at this point of time, I will insist on a full appraisal of all of the issues in relation to location, and particularly the security issues, as he raises a valid point in that respect. Arguably, given the concerns expressed to him by people working in the Prison Service, that point should have come to the fore in an appropriate way.
I want to explain the reference to housing asylum seekers as being a possible appropriate use for the site in the Land Registry record. When the Prison Service sells any site, it must ensure that any future use will not compromise the security of the prison, and Wakefield is a high-security prison. That is why several uses have been excluded. For absolute clarity, however, the Prison Service was saying at the time that, of all of the uses that the Home Office might consider, it did not regard housing asylum seekers as a security risk. That does not compromise what I just said about us considering the matter again, but that is the technical reason why that issue was made absolutely clear at the time of the disposal. As a matter of routine, the Prison Service would have to make clear what uses it thought were suitable or not suitable.
In relation to the apparently contradictory information and apparently contradictory statements of intentions by IND officials in various letters over a period of time, I agree that, at the very least, the letters to which my hon. Friend referred were confusing. On the face of it, they are not necessarily evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead. It may be more the case that officials use language very specifically—to them, hostel accommodation means dispersal. Understandably,
234
however, he and residents read that language very generally, so that it may mean accommodation for any purposes. I understand that that is not good practice in terms of communication. As I want to explore the issue, I would be very grateful if he would provide me with all of those documents, some of which—but not all—he was kind enough to fax me this afternoon. I will write to him comprehensively about the issues that he has raised in that regard.
On the question whether there is any kind of inside track for this or any other company, I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. The Home Secretary instigated an investigation into that possibility some time ago, after his previous expression of those concerns to my predecessor as Minister, and no evidence of any relationship or untoward dealings was uncovered. I feel, however, that we need to look closely at the routine procedures that are used in our contracting relationships. NASS is in a difficult situation in the sense that, over the past year, we have needed more accommodation than has been readily available. It is understandable, in a way, if the first port of call to look for additional accommodation is with those who already provide it. I have already made it clear to officials, however, that not only must we be completely above board in those relationships but absolutely transparently seen to be above board. I will therefore ask for an examination of all the procedures that we follow to make sure that they are properly documented and that we can account properly for decisions that are made, notwithstanding the sometimes difficult and fluid situation with which officials must deal when trying to house people who turn up in the country at sometimes very short notice.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the assurances from me, and, through me, from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: first, in relation to the likely future for the building as regards any IND use, which, as I have made clear, is unlikely, although I cannot absolutely rule it out; and more generally, in relation to the efforts that I will make to answer his specific questions about communication levels, and to look at our procedures in detail to make sure that we are seen to be behaving in a proper way and that we can account for our decision making fully and openly.
Peter Bradley: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: I had finished, but I will give way with pleasure.
Peter Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad to hear those assurances, and I pay tribute to the even-handed way in which she has addressed these difficult issues since she has been in office. Can she confirm that the investigation that she mentioned will seek to improve communications between the various tribes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) described them, in the Home Office so that they speak with one voice, and that it will also seek to improve communications with prospective private-sector providers to ensure that, as I have argued, they provide a maximum rather than a minimum amount of information to people who have a right to know?
Beverley Hughes: Yes, I can. I want to provide the assurance not only in respect of private providers, but of NASS and IND more generally. My hon. Friends will be generous enough to accept that this is an inherently difficult issue. Whatever people's genuine feelings about the need to respond to the issue constructively, most people reject the prospect of accommodation of any kind being provided for asylum seekers in their area. They do not want to hear such a message. I hold the strong belief—I may prove to be wrong—that one cannot deal with that difficulty by battening down the
236
hatches and saying as little as possible. We have to face it squarely, provide people with information and argue the case even though people might not want to hear it. IND and the people with whom we work, including the private sector, have more to do to generate the culture of meeting the difficulties squarely and of providing full information. People will still not like the message, but they will not then be able to complain that we have not treated them as adults and given them full and open information.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30 am
Kali Mountford: I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss such an important issue and I am grateful that so many hon. Members have turned out on such a cold and frosty morning to take part in the debate. Now is the right time to consider the new structure that was recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as well as the changes that we anticipate will be made to grant support. The case for grant support is crucial to textiles and it is one to which I shall return.
We are in a post-Doha world and the matters arising from that are also crucial to the textile industry. What makes now a good time to review progress are the recommendations of the textile clothing strategy group. That group was formed in 1998 by the Department of Trade and Industry and it issued a draft consultation report in March 2000. Since then, it has produced other reports and its latest report that was issued earlier this year entitled "Making it Happen" is what we would like to see happen in the textile industry.
The Transport and General Workers Union plays a vital role in the development of textile strategy. I thank Peter Booth, a union representative, for his work and for the information that he has given me about the current state of the industry in preparation for today's debate. He told me that, at a recent TGWU conference, more than 90 per cent. of the textile delegates reported mill closures and job losses in the industry. Even at a time of rising employment, I am sure that we all agree that all job losses and mill closures are sad. We must examine closely the reasons why any industry starts to fail.
There have been job losses and mill closures in my constituency of Colne Valley. Within a week of one factory closing, however, a new purchaser was found for the factory and new jobs were introduced. Thanks to the help and support of the employment agencies, Kirklees council and Jobcentre Plus, each of those who worked in the mill were found jobs elsewhere. We could ask, "What is the problem?" For me, it is that the industry is still in decline. Last year's Red Book showed only two industries in decline—recession decline, not a slow down in growth—textiles and steel. That is important.
Textile production is still a major business in this country. It contributes 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product, a fact that must not be ignored. People in the industry say, "If only we had the same voice as other manufacturers, we would be listened to." As it is, our textile producers are struggling, as are German and French textile producers. However, the Italian market is a completely different model. One of the TCSG's
2WH
recommendations was that we should learn from the Italians' success, and I hope that the Minister will tell us today what progress has been made in that.
Huddersfield's Textile Centre of Excellence is convinced that we can learn a lot from the Italians. It found the Italian manufacturers to be especially helpful and forthcoming. They say that the key to success is co-operation and collaboration within the industry. I despair of some mill owners in my constituency. I do not believe that they have the right frame of mind to be able to collaborate with others. A sense of isolationism and a bunker mentality persist in some sectors.
In Colne Valley, there is a wide range of textile producers, making knitted garments, frilly lacy things, haberdashery, heavy woollens and carpets. We have all the flavours of textile production. We also have the patriarchal background of the industry, which results in producers not talking to one another for fear of people finding out what their company is doing and how it is performing.
Happily, not all producers are wedded to the past and there are good stories to tell. However, some producers still resist trade union membership, and an attempt to get trade unions into some factories failed abysmally. There are those who do not want to fill in DTI forms because they find them too difficult; those who do not want anyone else to know the background to their business; those who still have looms and machines that were built in 1947 rather than 2002; and those who have not invested in new design or produced anything different in the past 50 years. For those producers, the future will be very grim indeed. The industry must adapt and change and the Government must be aware of how they can help the industry to do so.
Money can always help, but how it is spent is crucial. I cannot argue with the Government's investment of £80 million in the industry since 1997, or with the £8 million that was spent between 2001 and 2002 on market development, employment training, the supply chain, design skills, e-commerce and export support. All of that is good; but I question whether we have gone far enough.
The problem for many producers in Colne Valley is that many schemes apply only to certain areas—in particular, to objective 1 and 2 areas. At present, Huddersfield's Textile Centre of Excellence is developing a local action plan. The centre needs to extend its premises, for which it has received £500,000 from Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency, but it cannot go ahead because of state aid rules. Development in Colne Valley is being stymied. Many businesses in Colne Valley are in exactly the same position as businesses that are inside objective 1 and 2 areas. Their market conditions are the same; the conditions inside the companies are the same; the sort of help that they need is the same; and the population of workers is the same. However, they are outside the boundary and therefore not eligible for some of the support and help that is available to other companies. Producers feel that the system contains inequities—inequities that have arisen because of the rules, so those rules will determine which businesses will survive and flourish and which will fail.
The DTI is reviewing the 183 different kinds of funding. It is sometimes difficult for people in the Department to remember and understand 183 different

3WH
kinds of funding, let alone the poor producer who is trying to decide which particular funding the business should apply for. It is no wonder that people sometimes do not receive the help that they might have received or do not know exactly where to go to get help, or that they apply for the wrong help or in the wrong way, and therefore fail. I hope that, during the Department's review, a sensible and simplified way can be found of allowing all producers to receive the help that they so desperately need—especially in investment. The system is a minefield that results in companies putting in a great deal of time and effort filling in forms, only to fail at the end.
I wish to thank the Textile Centre of Excellence in Huddersfield, because it provides an excellent service to local companies by visiting them and helping to fill in the forms, but firms have ask for such help, and often there is a divorce between the help available and the mentality of producers who will not always seek it. Frankly, the system should not be so difficult in the first place.
I hope that the Minister will understand how textile businesses work and how difficult it has been for them during the current grant aid review. The industry seeks not only a level playing field in Europe, but throughout the world. Doha rightly points out that western industries cannot succeed by ensuring third-world failure, and I hope that we all accept that developing nations must be on an equal economic footing to be able to work their way out of poverty. It must therefore be right for British and other western industries to compete not on the lowest common denominator, but on quality.
If the industry is to be supported, however, artificial barriers must not be constructed against British textile exports. For example, in evidence from the International Monetary Fund to the Treasury Committee recently, we discovered that the United States applies for export barriers as if it were a third-world nation. One throws up one's arms in horror to think that the US considers itself to be a third-world country when it comes to export barriers. It cannot be right.
Huddersfield's Textile Centre of Excellence can provide a good model for the rest of the industry. It can show how we can move it forward into a new millennium, leave some traditional, backward-looking thinking behind and build a new and innovative industry. Yorkshire Forward has contributed a budget of £963, 000 over a two-year period. Not all of that will be spent in Huddersfield, but a large amount will be spent in west Yorkshire, as that is the base of the Yorkshire textile industry.
The Textile Centre of Excellence has a seven-point plan that builds on the proposals in "Making it Happen", a report produced by the TCSG, for which I am grateful. But there is a plethora—I have brought only a small number of them as an example—of different reports and plans from different parts of the industry. Different organisations represent different bits of the industry that have grown over the years.
The first—and, from looking at the wide range of reports, the most essential—part of the plan is to bring all of the strands together. The industry needs a single voice. Disparate and separate voices can cry lonely into
4WH
the wilderness, but by speaking with a single voice, representatives could create the same volume as other industries, such as the car manufacturing and energy industries. According to the December 2002 labour market count, the industry supports 430,000 jobs overall in the UK and should be considered a major employer, especially if the industry speaks with a single voice.
The second strand to the plan is to develop a Yorkshire label. We should be proud of the products that we sell, but I recently visited a factory with excellent quality woollen products that were being sold as Scottish. I am told that the wool came from Scottish sheep, so it can be argued that it was ethical, although there were some pretty good Yorkshire sheep grazing nearby. Nevertheless, the company preferred to sell its product as Scottish. That must be wrong. There is nothing wrong with the Scots being proud of their product, but why are Yorkshire producers not proud that their products are made in Huddersfield or Yorkshire? It is something that we must change. If we are not prepared to go out in the rest of the world and to be proud of the product that we are selling, why should the rest of world be proud to buy it?
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I agree with the hon. Lady, who makes the point eloquently. That is true within various parts of the United Kingdom, but it is also true of international intellectual property rights. Perhaps the Department could spend a little time ensuring that those rights, which exist throughout various parts of the United Kingdom industry, are protected globally.
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that I could illustrate by describing a movement from woollens to technical textiles in my constituency. A manufacturer succeeded in registering a product but because of market conditions and because it required investment in new machinery and meant applying for grants, the owner decided to close the business. I was particularly concerned when his son took it to Africa. I do not object to the growth of businesses in Africa, but the new product could have been developed and made in Britain. The product—it is called Leospring; look out for it because it is excellent—could one day change how we address ecological problems, such as oil spills, and it does not produce smoke, so imagine the difference that it could make if it were woven into the seat coverings of planes. It is an outstanding technical advance for textiles, and we have lost out because it will not be made in Britain. I hope that the product will be made one day because it will give advantages to us all, but it is a real pity that it could not be made in Britain.
That leads to the third strand of the plan, which is skills development, because we could not invent or produce such fantastic products as Leospring without skills. However, there are several gaps in the development of skills in the textiles industry. The Government have invested £2 million in strategic training for the apparel and textiles project. That project was widely welcomed but it ended in June this year. Many organisations, including the TGWU, are calling for an extension of the STAT project. However, in Huddersfield at least, there has been a response to fill the

5WH
gap. I am delighted that we have excellent facilities in the Textile Centre of Excellence, which the Secretary of State visited when she was the Minister with responsibility for textiles and e-commerce. The centre is now developing a craft entry training course and we hope that that will be validated soon. It has used an investment of just £120,000 to start to teach students several of the craft-based skills that they need to enter the industry.
We cannot continue to be backward looking. If any hon. Members present were to visit a local textile business, they would find that many people working there would be over 40 or, in many cases, over 50. It is very difficult to find any 20 to 30-year-olds working in mills. However, I am pleased that young people are now coming straight from school to train in the field and that there are new links with universities. There was a time when universities withdrew their training courses in textiles. There is now a development of links between the local university and the centre of excellence to provide degree-level courses, which must be right.
That brings me to the futures programme, which is the fourth part of the plan. The Department of Trade and Industry has agreed in principle—so I hope that it is not improper to say this now—to give £309,000 to a scheme that will cover west Yorkshire, the north-west, the north-east, the east midlands and Scotland. The scheme will allow companies to be selected for a one-year programme during which they will receive the expert advice that they need but cannot usually afford. People from the companies will attend seminars with experts at least once a quarter in order to receive the advice and mentoring that they need to keep their businesses on track and up to date. Additionally, grants of between £15,000 and £20,000 are available as cash for participating companies to help them to develop and grow. The object of the plan is to take companies out of the past, and to encourage a movement away from old-fashioned practices and toward the use of modern production techniques. That will secure the future of the industry.
The fifth and most exciting part of the plan is the incubator unit. A thousand fashion and design students graduate each year in our area—20 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. Hardly any of those graduates stay in Yorkshire; most of them go to London, or go abroad. The centre is now working with the universities and is helping graduates to create their own start-up businesses.
Too many of the catwalk shows have featured quite mad designs that no normal person would want to wear, with models walking down the catwalk wrapped up like Christmas turkeys. We want to buy well-tailored, well-designed, wearable clothing, in which we can go to work and in which we feel comfortable when we go out in the evening. We do not want clothes in which we would feel uncomfortable even when sitting down. We need designers who stay close to producers and work with them to produce a synergy between good quality cloth and good quality design. Accordingly, the centre provides work space, help with portfolios and the technology with which to produce computer-aided designs. The centre intends, through the use of local market intelligence, to set up 12 companies each year. Those could grow design and fashion knowledge that is useful to the industry and create a local outlet for the
6WH
industry's product. No more should we have to go to the south, or abroad. Let us keep our good designers at home.
The centre is also part of the manufacturing leadership programme, which is developing qualifications in manufacturing to degree level. That is not specifically an innovation of the textile industry. It is important for the textiles industry that students understand that manufacturing is a business and that they develop the leadership skills that are needed by all manufacturers. I would recommend that programme to anyone from Yorkshire who is listening. My copy of that programme shows that each faculty should work with the universities and with companies to develop the leadership skills that are obviously needed and to break out of the bunker mentality that we have been used to. The industry is also a significant consumer of energy and it has found it difficult to respond to demands for reduced energy consumption. The industry does not want to be anti-ecology, but it finds the climate change levy particularly onerous.
I have in my hand a note from the Textile Services Association, which is a vital part of the industry. The industry uses a lot of energy and water, from the beginning of the production process, in all its component parts, including laundering, right up to the end. The industry also uses many chemicals in its production processes and it is right to try to control the effects of production on the local ecology. It can, however, be costly for a producer if it has worked hard to reduce its energy consumption but cannot recoup any of the costs through national insurance contributions. The Textile Services Association will attest to that. The centre of excellence, however, tells me that it has been able to help in many cases and has shown some factories how to reduce both consumption and production costs. Much has been learned, but there is still a lot more to do.
The Textile Centre of Excellence has £160,000 to spend in the region to show companies how to respond to the climate change levy. Companies tell me that they are finding it difficult to save money, but the centre says that it can help. The levy needs closer consideration and it should look at it in more detail, so that we can help companies through a period in which we expect them to adjust.
Yorkshire Forward has made available just £150,000 for innovation, and £80,000 has already been allocated to one company, but at least that money is being made available. I have already mentioned the product called Leospring, which, sadly, Huddersfield lost. Such products must be given some support if we are to develop them. If there is to be innovation, there must be support, otherwise there will be a sad lack of innovative products in our country.
I discussed the future of textiles with Bill Macbeth, the outstanding managing director of the Huddersfield Textile Centre of Excellence. Hon. Members can tell from my speech how much I admire the work of that body. Bill Macbeth says that we must change our attitude to textiles. He has certainly inspired me. He says that textiles is a sexy industry. I was not sure whether I would be allowed to say that, but I have done so now. That sexy industry—I think that I would prefer to call it exciting—should be forward looking. If the industry drags its heels, and comes kicking and screaming into this millennium, its future will be bleak. However, if the

7WH
industry is backed by the Government, as is recommended in "Making it Happen", and if the industry co-operates and meets the challenges of a modern world, its future could be secure and exciting. I, for one, hope that it will be.
9.55 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) on securing the debate and on speaking so eloquently in defence of a beleaguered industry. She must have read Hansard before she became a Member of Parliament, because her predecessor, Graham Riddick, was a great champion of the industry, too.
I am interested to hear that the hon. Lady regards the industry as sexy. When I first went to Hinckley in my constituency in 1987, I was invited to attend the "Hinckley Makes It" show, and I was somewhat surprised to see some of the ladies from the factory modelling the local products. I expressed my surprise to the organiser of the show, a lovely man who played a great part in the local industry, Mr. Bill Randells, and he said, "David, you must understand; Hinckley makes progressive underwear." I am not sure what should be read into that.
The Government's approach to hosiery, knitwear and textiles closely mirrors the No. 10 press office—both are totally out of control. I shall not indulge in a lot of corny puns on spin and spinning, but if ever there was an industry to which the maxim of all spin and no delivery should be applied, it is this one. I see the Minister smiling and moving around in his seat; perhaps he is feeling uneasy. He must know, in his heart of hearts, that the Government promised so much for the industry when they came to power, and they have done so little.
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tredinnick: I am pleased that, within 10 seconds, I have provoked the Minister.
Mr. Wilson: I wanted to clarify that that was not why I was smiling; I had just been given a definition of progressive underwear by someone behind me.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am fearful of being called to order, but I could perhaps say a little more to the Minister on that subject later.
I am entertained to know that I am speaking before the cashmere kids. I had never heard that term before, and I did not realise that the cashmere industry had an informal group dedicated to its support that goes by that name.
I represent a famous hosiery and knitwear town in the east midlands, Hinckley, which at one time had 150 factories. It used to have perhaps the highest income per family in Europe, because all the ladies of the town worked in the factories, and many of the men crossed the Waling street boundary into the west midlands to work in the car industry. The textile industry is still thought of as a key industry in Hinckley and the east midlands, but it has suffered grievously. The hon.
8WH
Member for Colne Valley correctly reported that 90 per cent. of the delegates at a recent conference talked about the closure of mills. The terrifying fact is that, whatever the Government say and whatever great schemes they introduce, when one says "Where's the beef?" there is not any. The industry is all closures, it is all downhill, and that is the Government's fault. This Government are entirely responsible for the decline of this industry, regardless of how many reports they publish.
Judy Mallaber rose—
Mr. Tredinnick: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, whose constituency was represented by an eminent Conservative, Phillip Oppenheim, before she took it over.
Judy Mallaber: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us how many jobs were lost in this industry under the previous Conservative Government?
Mr. Tredinnick: It is an old technique of parties in Government to try to blame previous Governments for their own misfortune, but one would have thought that a Government who have been in power since 1997 could do better than merely blame the previous Tory Government, because the fact is that they have done next to nothing for this industry.
There have been many reports; there is another one this year. Fludes is a factory in my constituency. The Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), paid a surprise visit to Fludes, a factory in my constituency, to help to promote the innovative socks that it is making for travellers who might suffer from deep-vein thrombosis. [Interruption.] I am not so uncharitable that I will not also mention the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), even though he does not represent my party. During the visit to Fludes, the managing director of the factory said that the Government put all the emphasis on the relocation of employees after they have lost their jobs. They are backing other industries, and nothing is being done to keep the jobs that exist in this industry, which is why we are seeing this catastrophic decline. The industry is in a very serious situation.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley mentioned the export of jobs. When Pex in my constituency shut down, the idea was that all the equipment would go to Romania. We are suffering from an export of jobs. One of the reasons for that is that it is almost impossible for companies to reinvest—to bring in the new machinery that the hon. Lady so eloquently said that they need—because they are not receiving any help from the Treasury. It also provided absolutely no help to the Textile Services Association when it made representations about the climate change levy. The association said:
"The submission by the industry to the Treasury was summarily dismissed despite having held face to face meetings with the Minister."
That reveals that this is all about saying one thing and doing another. That is disgraceful. We need a coherent, determined and meaningful effort to reverse the trend of decline in this industry. I have no doubt that the textile clothing strategy group's efforts were well intended and

9WH
that they have alerted the Government to some of the problems that exist, but no meaningful action has been taken.
The industry must get added value for products: that is the way forward for it, but to achieve that it will need more equipment. Some companies in Hinckley, such as Davenports, have made great efforts to bring in new equipment at great expense—without any help from the Treasury—so that they can compete with the Italians, who are very effective. That is how the industry can move forward—by adding value.
Some companies in Hinckley are now having to outwork in China. They make some products there, and then bring them back and re-label them. It is regrettable that that has been the way forward for some companies, but at least they are still in business.
Courses at North Warwickshire and Hinckley college have been shut down: the ones that used to train the mechanics who maintain the equipment have gone during the tenure of this Government. The overriding problem is that too much emphasis is put on helping those who are leaving the industry, and not enough is put on helping those who are in the industry and who want to stay in it, and on creating new jobs.
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. TredinnickI will finish now.
10.3 am
Judy Mallaber: I am very disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). I had no intention of getting into a party political debate; the situation is too serious for that.
When the Conservatives were in government, half a million jobs were lost in the industry and no action was taken to bring the parts of the industry together to try to develop a strategy for the future. We are going through a period of incredible globalisation and industrial change—a new industrial revolution. I will come back to that point.
Yesterday, I spoke with Julian Ellis, who chairs the group under the east Midlands regional organisation that looks after the technical textile sector for the industry. He said that the Government could not be doing more, and that it is now up to the firms in that sector to take action. We are going through great difficulties, and now is not the time to talk about party political issues. The textile and clothing strategy group was set up precisely because, after 1997, Ministers talked to different sides of the industry and said, "We cannot tell you what to do. Please come together and tell us what you need and your recommendations for where the industry should go." I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would at least recognise that, because I wanted to start by paying tribute to the group's work. It is a model partnership between trade unions, employers, trade associations and academics working with, and supported by, the Government.
Despite the many problems, the group has produced 55 recommendations on how to take the industry forward, and the Government seek to support those.
10WH
Things are difficult, but we all know that. In our east midlands region, structures have been set up to assist development of the industry. However, after the national strategy was produced, some hon. Members in the region had to talk to the key players and argue with the development agency to take the strategy on board and to do the work that is now taking place. I thank the officials in the unit at the Department of Trade and Industry, who are very helpful and doing a great deal of work to advance the recommendations.
As I said, we have many difficulties. We face a global problem and a change in the operation of the industry. It is the job of those participating in this debate and those of us in the all-party group to stress that the industry has a future. That was one of our main purposes, in addition to ensuring that we had a national strategy and that action would be taken on its recommendations. That is why we are here today.
The industry is still important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) said, it still accounts for 0.78 per cent. of gross domestic product, £15 billion in sales and £6.5 billion in exports, and it employs 250,000 people, so it is still a key player in this country. However, the industry does not have the profile that it should have, and part of our job is to ensure that it has that profile.
The industry is having an incredibly difficult time. Some 75,000 people work in the industry in the east midlands, and there are 2,500 companies, but we have lost 20,000 jobs in the past 10 years and we lost many more before then. We recognise those problems: I believe that the constituency of every hon. Member present has experienced pain as a result of those difficulties. We are going through a relentless globalisation process, and it is very difficult to compete internationally. We must consider those areas where we can still compete and find new ways of competing, new products and new sections of the industry. We face competition and the removal of tariffs, which is a very hard process.
This Thursday, I hope to attend a farewell function for many of the people who are to lose their jobs at a Richard Roberts factory, which is just up the road from where I live. It is a former Charnos factory, and the factory manager lives just a few doors down from me. The hon. Member for Bosworth spoke about the help that is given to people who lose their jobs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, I pay tribute to the work that Jobcentre Plus has done, because most people from the factory have managed to find new jobs.
Interestingly, the only factory that Richard Roberts maintains in the region is the one with a niche market—the firm in Kirkby in Ashfield that makes cashmere products that are sold to Saks Fifth Avenue. That is the only factory where the company can maintain a high-value product in this country and still compete. This is a serious problem: how can we transfer to new areas, where competition can still exist?
Many of the traumas in my constituency came with the job losses at Coats Viyella. In September 2000, we lost 5,000 jobs across the region, which caused us serious trauma. A major economic driver in my area over the next few years will be the development of the world heritage site in the Derwent valley. Ironically, that was the heart of where the Arkwright and Struts mills were

11WH
and the real start of the industrial revolution. We are losing jobs in this sector while praising, applauding and developing tourism and economic growth based on the area's world heritage status granted in recognition of the industry's past. It should make us think about where the industry is going. Attempts are being made to protect and assist companies presently in production, but we also need to move into new sectors: we are on the brink of a new revolution within the industry.
Technical textiles are a particularly important sector and we should recognise that we are world leaders in it. I have recently had the sad job of talking to people who are losing their jobs in one traditional part of the industry that has been unable to compete. By contrast, last weekend I went to see the latest James Bond movie: Nottingham university was consulted about the Aston Martin car's amazing trick of turning over a million times on the ice. A technical process within the textiles industry—a 3-d braiding process—was used to create and strengthen parts in the chassis of Bond's high-performance car. That lies behind the thrills and spills of the James Bond movie and highlights the important work of our local university. One hopes that the process will be used in other cars to make them safer.
Mr. Michael Moore: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge the great promotional tool of the latest Bond movie for the entire textile sector, recalling that the cashmere sweater worn by Bond comes from Ballantyne of Innerleithen?
Judy Mallaber: I will certainly acknowledge that. Yet another aspect of that enjoyable movie is that it features a female spy who is as good as James Bond—and the baddie came from the east midlands, too. The movie is good for demonstrating many things.
Staying with cars, when I first visited Advanced Composites in my constituency, I was amazed to hear that all its material for Formula 1 cars was textile-based. I found it hard to believe, but that is indeed the case, and it shows another important application of the textiles industry.
I mentioned earlier the chairman of the group of technical textiles companies in the east midlands. Those companies are involved in the production of surgical implants, which utilises historic embroidery techniques. His company is also taking part in a £1 million Government-funded project examining urinary incontinence: it is producing a collapsible tract to be inserted into people's bladders to facilitate the use of catheters—yet another example of extraordinary and amazing developments from technical textiles. As I said earlier, the company felt that the Government were providing help through the TCSG. Will the Minister give an assurance that continued funding will be available to that important sector, which should not be allowed to fall short because of lack of investment?
Many positive developments are taking place within the industry, but I have some questions about how best to implement the recommendations in the report. People in the industry have asked me to put some questions to Ministers. First, the relaxation of the three-times rule is welcome, but what action is being taken to
12WH
clarify the rules for 2003–04 to ensure that people can take advantage of international trade fairs, which are so important for export sales? Although the rule has been relaxed for this industry, the amounts that can be used for export fairs are still capped.
Secondly, on public procurement, the Government have been seeking to make the rules more beneficial to British companies. However, all too often there is a feeling that price rather than quality is being considered—I have been given the example of blankets provided for our troops by the MOD. There is also a question of transparency in the tender process in this industry and elsewhere. People do not know, for example, how to get on to the approved list for tenders.
The subject of my third question—the STAT programme—was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. I am delighted that the industry has done so well in achieving trailblazer status for the sector skills council. That is a great tribute to the work done by partners in the industry, but we still want the STAT programme to be continued. It could be a model for other industries; it is employer-based and has enabled companies to work with business advisers to establish their training needs rather than having to adapt their training to the courses available. Some 91 companies have benefited; 1,800 jobs have been secured, 2,500 employees have new skills, and new jobs were created in 41 per cent. of the companies involved.
I would be pleased if the Minister could clarify the follow-up scheme. I tabled questions to the three relevant Departments, and was disappointed that one of them—not the Minister's—told me that we did not need the STAT programme now that we had the sector skills council. The reality is quite the reverse: the council needs to be able to promote and develop this flexible programme. I would also like the Minister to give a commitment on its funding
I have also been asked what happened to the designer study. Earlier this year at London fashion week, which I attended, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry launched a study of the fashion design sector and its impact on the wider textiles and clothing industry. Is that being taken forward, and what help is available for it?
The Minister responsible for the textiles and clothing industry recently re-launched the second phase of the designer forum in Nottingham in the east midlands, which provides facilities and information for designers on fashion trends, start-up units, incubator units and so on. It would be helpful to know how that ties in with the study that Ministers are conducting.
On my next point, I understand that the joint industry fashion team was a Treasury initiative to encourage and help companies to move from the informal economy into the formal economy, and to let them know that they would not be closed down because of previous problems of taxation or the minimum wage. The Evening Standard has reported recently on how Arcadia—a company that has been very involved in Government projects in the industry—was found to have been taking goods produced in sweatshops by workers receiving less than the minimum wage. The initiative is therefore very important.
I reiterate some of the frustrations that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley expressed at the start of the debate about business support and the

13WH
difficulty in accessing funds in areas not obviously eligible for objective 1 or 2 funding. Stevensons Dyeworks, a company that has been involved with some of the Government programmes and is now part of the Quantum group, is concerned about the rigidity of the rules for applying for financial assistance. It is frustrating for that company, which is in a ward in my constituency that was expected to move to tier 3 status. Had it done so, it would have been eligible for some grants, but that has disappeared from the agenda while the review of business support is conducted.
Stevensons raised with me the difficulty of ensuring coherence in the programmes that we are developing in our regions and hoped that the strategy developed by the clothing and textiles group would be taken forward. A considerable amount of work is now being done in my region and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley to set up structures to co-ordinate the work that is being done in the industry. However, it can still be confusing for companies in the region to work out exactly how they access that help, and it is important that we provide that information.
I shall end with an example that illustrates the need to take the industry forward. The person who chairs the east midlands cluster within the region runs a company called Swiss Tour, which manufactures specialised netting, from mosquito nets to parachute lining. It even produces netting that can block mobile phone calls and other wonderful things. Interestingly, that technology has been developed from Nottingham's old lace-making machines, which were invented two centuries ago to replace hand lace making. The problem is how to move on from traditional manufacturing while keeping as much of it as we can. I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth that that means not just giving assistance to those who lose their jobs, however important that is, but also seeing what can be done to make companies move into new niche markets and areas where they can compete. We can assist them in that, but we also need to keep our eye on the current industrial revolution, which can take us into a new sector in the future. It will probably not be called "textiles". The technical textiles people are setting up their own trade association. It is doubtful that people will realise that many of the products are based on textiles technology, but that is how the industry is developing. There is a huge amount of work to do and a painful process to go through. I hope that the Minister can deal with some of the points that I have raised.
10.21 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This has been an important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), my colleague on the all-party group on clothing, textiles and footwear, on securing it. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she does on the Committee and to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), whose chairmanship of the group makes it highly effective. The hon. Lady has kept us focused on the activities of the textile sector for the past few years.
I am glad that the Minister is in his place. He dubbed my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I the cashmere kids, I presume on the basis of the work that we did during the
14WH
banana war that threatened to wipe out the cashmere industry in our part of the world. If we are the cashmere kids, perhaps the Minister is the class monitor, because he put in a great deal of effort at the time addressing a huge public meeting in Hawick, where people were very anxious about the future of the knitwear industry. On a separate occasion, without any publicity or attention—and, dare I say to the hon. Gentleman's civil servants, without any support whatever—he met manufacturers in Hawick to talk about the threats to the industry. I pay tribute to his work and I look forward to his response to the debate.
For all the pessimism that exists in the textile sector, it remains one of Britain's strongest manufacturing sectors, especially in my constituency. It is a vibrant sector that needs to succeed and I believe that it will do so, through innovation and by enhancing its competitiveness. There is no doubt that the textile industry has a future. I worry that in the House and in other forums we are tempted to talk the industry down and look for problems, which are self-evident and present in most manufacturing sectors. The textiles industry still has a huge impact on the economy and without it south-east Scotland and the borders would be in great difficulty.
The main aspects of the textile sector, be they knitwear apparel, weaving or technical textiles, are represented within south-east Scotland. Each of them has seen huge changes in recent years. Over decades, the nature of the competition faced by individual companies in the United Kingdom, especially from overseas, has changed out of all recognition. Inevitably, that means that regardless of the state of the world economy or particular parts of it, the sector will always be subject to the buffetings of the world economy with the extreme competitiveness that that introduces. Globalisation may be a reasonably recent concern for people across the world, but the textile sector has coped with it for a hundred years or more. We must not shy away from the challenges that it faces, nor should we worry that the only route is downwards.
The marketplace has changed. That has been noticeable in many of the products that are produced in my constituency. There has been a shift in recent years towards the different niches of the market. For example, the cashmere sector has moved to the high fashion end of the market. As a recent local trade publication put it, borders manufacturers no longer sell just gold button cardigans and twin sets. I take slight issue with the hon. Member for Colne Valley, who talked about the catwalk and asked whether it was relevant to everyday people. It is relevant in that it shows how design and innovation is increasingly important for British companies, particularly those that I represent. It may not be the stuff that anyone here might want to or could wear, but it shows what the industry can do and it spills out into the more mainstream markets that we see as important commercially and otherwise.
Kali Mountford: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the sort of catwalk shows that there were in the past? One of my favourite designers was Paul Costelloe, whose fine tailoring was very innovative. It may have been a little extreme for the average person, but it was wearable

15WH
clothing rather than the tinfoil effect of some of the current designers. Would not that inspire people to wear new fabrics?
Mr. Moore: I am getting a little out of my depth as a fashion consultant or guru. I defer to the hon. Lady's greater expertise. It is important that the industry shows off the best of its potential in whatever sector. I hope that it will continue to do so. My constituency does not just produce high fashion cashmere. We also produce goods in a diverse range of fields. One small manufacturer, Robert Noble and Replin Fabrics, makes aircraft seat and carpet fabrics that go into Boeing jets throughout the world. Too few people in the borders understand that, let alone elsewhere. It is a good example of a small company that has diversified and is reaping the rewards as a result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I recently carried out a survey of local manufacturers, and the textile sector obviously featured heavily. The techniques that manufacturers have to adopt nowadays range widely across the spectrum. Some seem still to be living in a 19th century museum but others are state of the art and software driven and are unrecognisable from earlier days. Each company has its niche and each has its expertise, and the importance of investment for all of them needs to be stressed.
One of the key issues facing all of these local businesses, regardless of their sector or their manufacturing base, is the need to encourage young people into the industry. The skills shortage in the textile sector is massive. A recent report in the borders entitled "Where are the young people?" put its finger on the dangers facing the local industry. It will not run out of customers or struggle with cash flows: it will have no one to employ. That goes back to the point with which I started. Part of the difficulty is not that there are no young people, although that is an increasing problem in the borders, but that they do not like the image of the industry. They are not happy with the one that is portrayed in public. All of us here and elsewhere have a responsibility not to talk the industry down, but to promote it so that young people and others can see a viable future in it for themselves.
Further applications for research and development will ensure success in the future. Heriot-Watt university in my constituency successfully took part in the Faraday partnerships. It has undertaken much research that, it must be hoped, will be recognised for its academic excellence and will spin out into industry. It is clear from the university's recent briefings that the work that it is doing is highly respected. My anxiety, however, is that it does not generate the spin-offs of new jobs and new markets for businesses in the borders and elsewhere in Scotland. So far, that is the missing link in the partnership, and I hope that the Government will encourage Heriot-Watt university and others to work more proactively to ensure that there are local spin-offs from the excellent work that they are doing.
Time is running short, but I return to the point to which I referred obliquely. I draw the Minister's attention to the importance of world trade to the industry, and to the need for fair rules of competition. We all acknowledge that the multi-fibre arrangement is
16WH
coming to a close. Every business has had the past 10 years to prepare for that. The Doha round is extremely important for setting out the new rules for the future. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that when the rules are drawn up we do not suffer from dumping, especially from China with its access to cashmere supplies, into the United Kingdom, and that the monitoring and checking of the provisions that succeed the multi-fibre arrangement are vigorous and secure.
This is a very important debate on a very important sector. The strong have survived, and the strong who adapt to change will continue to survive for a while yet.
10.31 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Come Valley (Kali Mountford), who made an effective case for her constituents. It was also heart-warmingly positive, forward looking and outward looking—not the face of the textile industry that I have experienced. In the 1970s and early 1980s, I worked with developing-country negotiators to try to help them to receive better quota treatment under the multi-fibre arrangement. In those days, the face of the British textile industry was very different; it was defensive, inward looking, and obsessed by external competition and by building barriers to it. Courtaulds and Carrington Viyella were investing heavily in upstream weaving and spinning and in trying to secure quotas to protect their industry. The face that the hon. Lady presented today was altogether more positive and forward looking, which I appreciate.
The hon. Lady and other speakers helpfully highlighted the extent to which we are dealing with a diverse industry. We can argue that the textile industry is, in a sense, merely a lobbying group. It is very diverse with very different sets of problems. There is an enormous difference between, for example, upstream spinning and weaving, which is capital intensive, and the garment makers.
The knitwear industry is a different story; Members representing the east midlands and the Scottish borders spoke about its importance. Even in that industry, the knitwear producers are very protective of their sub-industries. The people who make socks and stockings have little to do with the people who knit garments and who use different technologies and materials. In view of such diversity, it is useful for us to remind ourselves, as several hon. Members have done, that it is not all doom and gloom.
There are some very positive stories in "the industry". The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) reminded us of the success of industrial textiles, especially household furnishings. Many people in niche markets in the garment sector, which 20 years ago seemed a hopeless case, are doing very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) rightly reminded us how innovative and successful Scottish producers in the cashmere sector are proving to be. They are using new designs, new technologies and better materials, which is how we should view the industry.
The same applies to the communities. As a teenager, I went round the West Riding playing and watching football and rugby league. It was often depressing going to towns such as Batley and Halifax, but they are now

17WH
totally transformed. The area around Leeds is now a prosperous, successful and vibrant economic area. The area, and not just the textile industry, has adapted extremely well to relative decline. The story is not all doom and gloom by any means.
The figures clearly show that the textile industry is in relative decline. That is nothing new; it has been in relative decline for 150 years. However, that is not surprising because it was the industry that led the industrial revolution. It has been declining relative to the economy as a whole and relative to manufacturing, while other industries have gradually replaced it.
Over the past few years the contraction of output has speeded up. This is not to apportion blame, but that contraction is probably because of the exchange rate as much as anything else. When the exchange rate has appreciated by roughly 25 per cent. in real terms since the mid 1990s, and when many parts of the industry are concerned with competition in exports and imports, and are very price-sensitive, prices and the exchange rate will clearly be important. I suspect that the exchange rate is the factor that most explains the increase in the pressures of competition on the industry. However, even if that exchange rate factor did not exist, globalisation would still be a factor bringing its own pressures, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley reminded us.
I wish to discuss two policy issues. The first concerns trade policy. There is now consensus that the MFA has to be phased out. However, it is worth while reminding ourselves what a pervasive influence trade protection has had in the textile industry. That goes back a long way. Those who know their economic history will know that the first big industrial riots in London took place at the end of the 17th century just before the reign of Queen Anne. The riots were over textile imports. The whole of Whitehall was burned to the ground by rioting workers demanding controls on calico imports from India. People protested about the unfairness of so-called coolie labour—cheap labour. They demanded, and got, quotas. That remained the nature of British industry for many decades, only dying out for technological reasons.
We have had quota protection in British industry since the early 1960s. The long-term agreement became the multi-fibre arrangement in 1974. We were told that that was temporary and that only a few years were needed to get the house in order. Then, in 1979, it was multi-fibre arrangement 2, and things were extended and extended. It is worth while remembering how unbelievably complex the system is. Apart from the common agricultural policy, it is the most complex system of managing trade in the world. There are hundreds of clauses for hundreds of countries and categories of products. Indeed, apart from Gosplan, it is the most managed system of international trade that has ever existed, and it is right that it should go. The lesson has been that, when trade is protected, as in the MFA, it is very difficult to get rid of it. Moreover, in the long run it does not work. All the efforts that have gone into protecting the textile industry in rich countries ultimately turn out to be futile. There have been many successful companies but they are not in the sectors that were protected against import competition. The exercise was largely futile and immensely costly. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are committed to working towards the phasing out of the arrangement. I understand that the commitment is to
18WH
phase out the quotas but that that commitment is, in the jargon, back-end loaded—it will not take place until the end of the process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale pointed out, elements of genuine unfairness remain. There are problems with dumping and a lack of reciprocity, especially with the United States. It is right that the Government should be vigilant on those issues.
The second policy issue that I wish to discuss concerns industrial assistance. What is the most sensible and helpful way in which the Government can help an industry that is trying to adapt in difficult circumstances? There are basically two ways. The first is through subsidies and industrial assistance. A lot of money has gone into the textile industry. I think that about £100 million has gone in during the past 10 years, and an awful lot more went into Lancashire and Yorkshire textiles in the 1970s. I am sceptical about the value of that assistance and I should be interested to hear any evaluation that has been made of the outcome. However, I welcome the more useful, subtle and forward-looking approach adopted in the 12-point programme. Those measures are extremely well thought through, sensible and business oriented. They bring the industry together in a sensible way and I commend the people who put the programme together. It is the way in which a forward-looking and outward-looking industry can prosper.
10.39 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) on initiating the debate and on her well thought out and extremely impressive contribution. She described the decline that the industry has faced, which has been relentless. In the past 10 years, whereas the growth rate in all industries has been plus 2.1 per cent., the growth rate in the textile industry has been minus 3.2 per cent. That has obviously been reflected in the number of jobs and the balance of trade. We have seen substantial decline.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) mentioned globalisation, but I was pleased with the amount of positive talk about the future in the debate and how we can move forward with hope. One of the biggest problems has been companies and manufacturers sourcing products abroad. More such sourcing abroad of the lower value, high volume goods—such as trainers and jeans—is inevitable. Companies have moved production to China, Africa and the sub-continent. Dr. Martens recently announced the loss of 2,000 jobs, which is devastating for the communities that supplied the labour for its factories.
The ladies' cardigan manufacturer, Dewhirst corporate clothing, announced the loss of 350 jobs last summer when it closed its plant and relocated to Morocco. An especially poignant and brutal truth was brought home to the workers in that factory because they were sent out to Morocco to help set up the factory and train the staff there. They then saw their own jobs exported.
The debate has rightly focused, however, on higher added value, lower volume quality goods. There is every prospect of many manufacturers of those goods

19WH
remaining in the United Kingdom. The Government and the industry must work together to ensure that those things within the remit of the Government are moved forward constructively.
We should examine what the Government have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) was critical and talked about the lack of any determined, meaningful or clear strategy by the Government, but we should look at what they have done. The Opposition welcomed the textile and clothing strategy group report and the Government's response to it. We also welcomed the updated response that was published a year ago.
What are the Minister's comments on recommendations 1 and 2 of the report? Recommendation 1 states that the Department of Trade and Industry
"should press the European Commission to undertake a detailed study into the reasons for the relative success of the Italian clothing industry".
Recommendation 2 states that the Department
"should fund a study looking at best practice in the Italian textile and clothing industry and how it might be adapted to the UK."
Recommendation 6 states:
"The DTI should ensure that the availability of funding streams to support technological innovation in the textile industry is properly communicated to the industry."
Has any progress been made on that front?
The hon. Member for Amber Valley mentioned recommendation 19 and the suspension of the three-times rule for support to companies attending trade fairs, which is vital. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government will do to make matters easier on that front.
Recommendation 37 relates to the progress of the new centre of excellence and the need for it to be monitored closely and for its success to be built on. Will the Minister tell us what is happening about that? Recommendation 40 was that the Department of Trade and Industry should establish a flexible fund to support individual companies that undertake small-scale innovation and development work. That is very important, so will the Minister give us an idea of what the Government have done about that recommendation?
I am worried that although we have had a period of buoyant economic conditions and economic growth, manufacturing is undoubtedly in severe recession. It will become even more important for the Government to examine the recommendations and to ensure that they put in place anything that they can within their remit and resources.
There are other areas in which even if the industry is asking for too much positive help, the Government must not hinder it. The hon. Member for Amber Valley mentioned procurement, and I believe that the Government have positively hindered the industry through their procurement policies. I know that this is outside the Minister's remit, but there was mention of the procurement of Army blankets from abroad. Six months ago, an order for boots and uniforms was sent to a German manufacturer. I am aware of the EU
20WH
directive that insists on fair and competitive tendering within the EU, but no other major EU country is sourcing clothing and kit for its armed forces from outside its own manufacturers.
Several hon. Members mentioned the climate change levy. I entirely agree with a point made about the Textile Services Association because the key question relating to the climate change levy is whether manufacturers can recoup the money through national insurance contribution reductions. If the answer is no, the Government should take action. Perhaps we should consider moving forward for such cases with an emissions trading scheme, which has been popular and successful on the continent.
Some burdens and pieces of red tape, such as EU directives and regulations, are outside the Government's control. However, the Government have been driving forward several pieces of social legislation. I do not claim for a moment that each burden and extra pressure will be a show stopper, but we hear from every single trade association in every single industry that the combined weight of the burdens on business is making life much more difficult.
During last week and the week before that, we considered two statutory instruments arising from the Employment Act 2002. One related to maternity and paternity pay after adoption, which Conservatives Members support, but last week we considered a statutory instrument on flexible contracts, which gives all employees the right to demand a flexible contract if they have a child under six or a disabled child under 18. That might not worry a larger firm but many small firms in the textiles sector will find it difficult to cope with demands from perhaps five out of 10 employees for a flexible contract. The employees might deserve a flexible contract but if firms are trying to meet an order in the run up to Christmas or another especially busy time, the smaller firms will suffer every time.
Smaller firms, especially, will also suffer from the agency workers directive. To be fair to the Government, they have done their best to resist and water down the directive. However, the directive will almost certainly go through. It has been passed by the European Parliament and it is now before the Council of Ministers. It will give agency workers—or temps—the right to demand a full contract. In fact, the European Parliament insisted that that right should exist after day one, but I know that the Council of Ministers is confident that it can extend the period to six weeks. However, even a six-week period will affect many agency workers. They will have the right to demand parity. It is sometimes easy to justify paying a temp as much as an employee on a full contract. However, there will be plenty of situations in which a temporary member of staff does not have the same experience or skills and who does not qualify in any circumstances for the same level of pay. Many people who work as temps are highly skilled and qualified. They do not want such contractual rights, nor do the employers. I urge the Minister to resist the directive. I know that his socialist colleagues in the European Parliament have voted it through, but I hope that hon. Members who know Labour Members of the European Parliament will talk to them about the damage that the directive will do to business.

21WH
The Government must look carefully at those areas within their responsibility that they can control and relieve some of the burdens and red tape. We can then look forward to a bright future. The key to such a framework is that the Government deliver upon it. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope in that direction this morning.
10.50 am
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I add my congratulations, Mr. Cook, to those that have already been expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) for initiating a debate on such an important industry. The subject certainly deserves an airing in Parliament. It is particularly welcome that she looked on the positive side of the industry. In fact, the whole tone of the debate has been positive, whereas so often in the past it has been a procession of doom and gloom. I come to the debate as a late substitute, but I have a long-standing interest in the industry and it is good to renew my acquaintance with such issues. When innocently fumbling with my tie earlier, I was relieved to find that it was made in Nottingham. I was surprised about that; it is my fig leaf for today.
It is worth bearing in mind that the textile industry is not a piece of industrial archaeology. It contributes 0.8 per cent. of GDP; it accounts for £15 billion in sales and it employs about 250,000 people. It is interesting that exports last year were to the tune of more than £7 billion. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made good points about the history of protectionism in the industry, but the other side of the coin—even in current circumstances—is that we sell £7 billion worth of goods from that sector overseas. It is the old story that protectionism cuts both ways and we need such markets just as other economies need our market. That is why my Department is committed to working with such an important and dynamic sector and helping it to remain competitive, both domestically and globally.
For the first time in a generation, there is an industry-led national strategy for the future of the sector, which has been drawn up by the textile clothing strategy group. It was established in 1999 to examine the major issues affecting the textile and clothing industry, and to identify actions that would improve its viability and competitiveness. The report was launched in June 2000. It contained several recommendations aimed at the industry and the Government to help the sector meet the global challenges that it faces. Since then, we have expanded our effort to address all the recommendations in the TCSG's strategy that called for action by the Government alone or the Government in partnership with the industry.
The group's follow-up report "Making it Happen", which was launched in July this year, records the actions taken by the Government and the industry to help United Kingdom textile and clothing manufacturers compete more successfully. They include £1.5 million towards a £3.8 million textiles and clothing industry forum programme, developing projects to promote world-class best practice to improve the performance of the industry throughout the entire supply chain; £2 million support to target retraining for the industry through the strategic training for an apparel textiles programme, with a follow-on programme now in the
22WH
pipeline, and so on. I do not want to go through all 12 steps that the Government have taken because my 10 minutes would be up. I want instead to deal with some specific issues, Mr. Cook.
Mr. Deputy Speaker [Mr. Frank Cook]: Order. I have allowed two such references to me; I cannot allow a third. When establishing this parallel Chamber, the House decided that the four senior Chairmen of the Chairmen's Panel should, while occupying the Chair, be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Wilson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and the spokesman for the official Opposition asked about what had happened to the study of the comparison with the Italian industry. That is an interesting and important line of inquiry because Italy is not a third-world country that pays knock-down wages, and yet it has extremely successful textile, clothing and footwear industries. The TCSG identified that important lessons could be learned from studying that industry, and the Department of Trade and Industry has undertaken a comparative study of the UK and Italian textile and clothing industries. The initial findings of that will be made available in the new year. The principal focus of the research has been on wool and worsted fabrics and men's suits, which are important for the UK industry and with regard to which Italian manufacturers have been particularly successful. When it is completed, the study and its conclusions will be widely disseminated to the industry.
I was interested by the comments on public procurement. The Government cannot pursue a buy British policy. They must observe European Union rules and Treasury value-for-money guidelines. However, I emphasise that value for money is not the same as cheapest is best, and although we recognise that there is a legal framework and that there are inhibitions on a buy British policy, there is also scope to work within that framework—particularly on the basis of value-for-money criteria—to help the UK textile and clothing companies to compete better in tendering for public service contracts. Value for money must be the key criterion, but that does not necessarily mean that one looks for the lowest price all the time.
Technical textiles are one part of the industry that is booming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said, a significant factor in its growth is the increasing use of textiles in industrial applications that were originally the province of metals and plastics and of the automotive, aviation, construction, defence, health care, information technology and other industries. I will not list the various amounts of money that are going into this, but it adds up to a very significant contribution, and it is forging links with sectors such as higher education and research and training organisations. The Faraday partnerships are one of the routes through which that money can be channelled.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) said that the Government were entirely responsible for the decline of this industry. That is one of the most absurd statements that we will hear this week—or any week. Classically, the textile industry has been subject to the forces of globalisation. The historical analysis of the

23WH
hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was more accurate than the statement of the hon. Member for Bosworth: decline has being going on for a long while, and what is important is how one manages it and seizes opportunities.
Mr. Tredinnick: In that case, will the Minister tell us why the industry is still declining despite the many years of his Government's stewardship?
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I will make mine: what is important is what one does to try to counter decline and seize opportunities.
That leads on to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). He generously referred to my role with regard to the cashmere industry. I enjoyed that: I found it interesting, and it was ultimately rewarding because of the outcomes that were achieved. Anyone who was to look at what has happened in that industry as a micro-example of what can be done in the industry in general would learn many lessons.
The cashmere industry employs hundreds of people—maybe thousands. It is not a cottage industry; it is a very substantial economic contributor. It is also sexy, attractive and international, and it has all the status and economic benefits that flow from those attributes. If that can be done in the borders with cashmere, scores of other niches can be established throughout the United Kingdom. That will allow the industry to continue to be important and valuable. The industry will not, as it did before, succeed through the mass production of items that can clearly be produced more cheaply elsewhere, but that does not mean that there cannot be a healthy textile, clothing and footwear industry. I believe that the industry will be design and quality-led, rather than mass-production-led. There is much to be done, but with the industry and the Government working together, we will achieve it.

Middle East Peace Process
11 am
Mr. John Maples: Mr. Deputy Chairman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I would be remiss in my duties if I did not remind the House for the second time this morning that, when the decision to establish a second Chamber was taken, it was determined that the four senior Chairmen of the Chairmen's Panel would be addressed as Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Maples: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came to the debate ready to address you as Mr. Chairman, and I checked with my neighbour, who said, "No, you should call him Mr. Deputy Speaker." I am afraid that somehow the words "Deputy Chairman" slipped out.
I shall start by making a couple of fairly uncontroversial statements. The first is that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute complicates a range of other issues. A great many ethnic and border conflicts are raging in the world, but none has external consequences on quite the same scale as those arising from the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The conflict complicates the war on terror enormously, because the terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists use it as an excuse—although I think that it is a pretty pathetic one—and keep pointing to what is happening on the west bank. The conflict also complicates American and British efforts to stabilise the Gulf and deal with Iraq and, more generally, complicates our dealings with the Arab and Islamic world. The consequences of the dispute are out of all proportion to the consequences on the ground for the parties to that dispute.
Secondly, Mr. Arafat and Mr. Sharon are unlikely ever to make a deal. Arafat was not prepared to accept what he was offered by Barak at Taba, and it is highly unlikely that Sharon will make that offer again. As he will make a lesser offer, it is unlikely that the Palestinians will accept it.
The resolution of the dispute is too important to the rest of the world to be left to the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to resolve. The United States has realised that. President Bush came to power thinking that he would not have to bother too much about the middle east, but he has discovered pretty rudely that foreign policy has a way of insinuating itself into a political leader's life, no matter how much he might not want it to. I think that he was warned by President Clinton not to pay too much attention to the middle east because of what had happened at Camp David and at Taba. However, President Bush has found that the matter is top of his agenda as a result of the war on terror and his desire to do something about Iraq.
In January last year at Taba, the parties to the dispute very nearly resolved it. They spent a couple of days talking, having had extensive negotiations the previous September at Camp David. President Clinton had then put forward some new proposals, and those were discussed at length in Taba. I quote from the joint statement issued after those talks:
"The two sides have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged".

25WH
Unfortunately, time ran out. Barak lost the election and Clinton left the White House. Arafat did not at the time seem prepared to make the deal, although my understanding from those who were there is that his negotiators would have had a positive—let us put it that way—attitude to the deal that was offered by the Israelis. We know quite a lot about what happened at that meeting, both from reports in the press and from Ambassador Moratinos and the European Union's report on what happened.
The Palestinians should have accepted what was on offer at Taba. I think that it was another Palestinian leader who said that the deal gave them 98 per cent. of what they wanted. If anyone gets 98 per cent. of what they want in negotiations, they are doing pretty well. I do not know which it is, but either Arafat could not or would not make that deal. He is not likely to be offered a better one.
Prime Minister Sharon looks set to win the Israeli elections, although in the Likud parliamentary list elections yesterday, the more extreme and right-wing candidates who back Netanyahu seemed to do rather better than Sharon's. It is unlikely that such an offer will be made to Arafat again. All of us who think about the issue, and who are not completely partisan, know that the Taba deal is the one that is going to be done. The Taba deal was very nearly done and it will, one day, be the one that resolves the dispute.
Let us go through the elements that have constantly been at the heart of the negotiations and what was on offer at Taba. The first issue is territory. At Taba, all of Gaza, 95 per cent. of the west bank and, as I understand it, a 3 to 5 per cent. land swap was offered. Whether the amount was 3 or 5 per cent. may become a big issue, but I cannot believe that a deal would stand or fall on that. Secondly, there is the solution of the refugee problem. The choices offered at Taba were that refugees could stay in the new Palestinian state, move to the area that would be given to the Palestinian state in the land swap, and some could return to Israel on a limited annual basis or go to a third country. Various countries had offered to take people and that seemed to be acceptable.
The third big issue was Jerusalem. At Taba, the offer was that Jerusalem should remain an open city that would be the capital of both the Israeli and Palestinian states. East Jerusalem would be the capital of the Palestinian state and the rest of Jerusalem would stay as the capital of Israel. Also on offer was a regime for the administration of religious sites. The Palestinian state would have jurisdiction over the top of Temple Mount, which is the location of the two mosques that are important to it, and the Israelis would have jurisdiction over the Wailing wall below. I am sure that some complicated legal fine print enabled that deal to be put to bed. Nevertheless, the principles, and more than just the principles, were put in place.
It was agreed that an international commission should handle the question of compensation. There are complications regarding that matter, but, once again, I cannot believe that, if a deal was on the table for everything except compensation, some way could not be found to resolve the matter. Of course, the compensation issue is not just a one-way street. The Israelis would say, "What about the Jews who were expelled from Arab states?" The fundamental issue is security, to which I shall return.
26WH
Most Palestinians want a deal; they want a state and they want to be able to get on with their lives. They feel frustrated that the Oslo process has not led them to that. My information is that the Palestinian negotiators at Taba were prepared to accept the deal. I hear from my Israeli friends, and from my friends in London who keep closely in touch with what is happening in Israel, that most Israelis would do anything for peace. Most Israelis would make almost any deal if the suicide bombings stopped and if they could get on with their lives and have some kind of normal relationship with their neighbours. Such people may vote for Sharon in the forthcoming elections, but really they support the Israeli Labour party's position on the negotiations. Barak had a lot going for him in the negotiations, but it was felt that he delivered nothing in the way of peace and security. People feel that Sharon has a better chance of delivering security.
We are in a cycle of violence. I will not take sides in the dispute, but shall propose a new way of approaching a solution. The cycle of violence is unlikely to be halted. In fact, it seems that the more that one side escalates the situation, the further the other side escalates it.
Two other pieces of the jigsaw fell into place at the beginning of the year. First, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia suggested to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times that, in return for peace, an Israeli withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state, the Arab world should recognise the state of Israel and normalise relations with it. The Arab League summit, held in March in Beirut, declared that in exchange for the refugees being dealt with and the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from what would become the Palestinian state, Israel would get a peace agreement and normal relations with the Arab world. That is something worth going the extra mile for.
I return to the point that this dispute is too important to be left to the parties to resolve: the rest of us have too much of a stake to leave it to Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat, when no one believes that they are likely to reach a deal. The United Nations Security Council should pass a chapter VII mandatory resolution. Having determined a threat to peace in the region, which is undeniable, the Security Council can take decisions, which then effectively become international law. It should set out what was nearly agreed at Taba, plus or minus a few adjustments, in a resolution stating that that is the settlement. It would then be international law that the Palestinian state exists, that its capital is based in such a place, that Jerusalem is based on that regime, and that the choices available to refugees and the compensation arrangements are as defined.
All that would need widespread support, which might well be forthcoming. First, the permanent five members of the Security Council—certainly we, the French, the Americans and the Russians, comprising the Quartet group would support it; and although China has never shown a huge interest, it would be unlikely to frustrate it—would support the resolution.—In those circumstances, sufficient numbers of the other members of the Security Council could probably be carried. The two key non-Security Council members are Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Prince Abdullah declared his support and signed up to the Beirut declaration, as did Egypt, which has had diplomatic—or, at least, working—relationships with Israel. It would be good if we could

27WH
bring the rest of the Arab and Islamic world on side, but irrespective of whether that proves possible, the resolution would create the Palestinian state. A buffer might be necessary in the form of a referendum in each territory—in Israel and in what would become the Palestinian state—to test the democratic legitimacy of the proposal. The resolution would set out the detailed terms of the creation of the Palestinian state.
Mr. David Heath: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's argument, particularly his reference to China's lack of interest in the region. Purely on a point of information, I heard recently from China's permanent representative in the United Nations that the country has sent to the region an envoy, who is now actively engaged in examining how China could support an eventual settlement. Perhaps China has a greater interest than the hon. Gentleman suspects.
Mr. Maples: That is an interesting point, which I did not know. Whatever China does, it would be unlikely to frustrate a settlement that everyone else was in favour of. Where its direct interests are not at stake, a country tends not to frustrate the actions of the Security Council. Framing the resolution and putting it in place will require considerable arm twisting. However, if the United States can twist the Israelis' arms and the Saudis and Egyptians can twist the Palestinians', we might well get a settlement.
That leaves the security issues, which are at the heart of the Israelis' concerns. Some of the discussions at Taba were about an international stabilisation force. Although it can patrol a border, such a force cannot stop suicide bombers. The Israelis need some assurance on suicide bombings, but it will be difficult to stop every extremist group that wants to frustrate the process. In these circumstances, the groups associated with Fatah might well stop; whether Hamas and Hezbollah would follow suit might depend on the attitude of their sponsors. The United Nations might need to invoke sanctions, which it can under chapter VII and articles 40 and 41, against states that continued to sponsor terrorism in Israel.
My suggested plan would not stop terrorism immediately, but it would put the settlement in place so that the details of negotiations—about the boundaries of the Palestinian state, the options available to refugees, the status of Jerusalem and so forth—would be settled and could no longer be used as alibis by the Israeli or Palestinian authorities to justify why they could not reach a settlement. The choice would simply be whether to implement or fight the settlement.
A UN Security Council resolution, supported by the permanent five members and the most influential people in the Arab world, and with all the diplomatic force that can be mustered from Britain, the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt behind it, could offer a chance. I see no other route to a peaceful settlement in the middle east.
At the end of last week—before the debate—I informed the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of exactly what I intended to propose, in the hope that they
28WH
would respond specifically to that, rather than dwelling on the multitude of aspects to the problem. I look forward to hearing a response from the Minister and from my own side.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that it is customary in these 90-minute debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the conclusion. That leaves us only 45 minutes, and five hon. Members seek to catch my eye, so I exhort hon. Members to make their contributions concise and pertinent, and to resist interventions if possible.
11.16 am
Mr. Ernie Ross: When I arrived here this morning, I was not quite sure what we would discuss, and I am quite amazed at what I have heard. It is not often that I am amazed on this issue, but I am not sure where the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has been hiding his bushel. I listened to him when he was on the Opposition Front Bench in the main Chamber. I am also aware of what he has said in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which he is a member. This is one of those times when I wish that the Minister would speak next, so that we could hear what the Government think and then have a debate.
The idea that the Taba proposal should be the basis for a chapter VII UN Security Council resolution is imaginative, to say the least. However, there are major drawbacks with the proposal; it was not quite as simple as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon suggested. He quoted from the final declaration, but I believe that the officials at Taba felt that a number of mistakes were made there by all concerned, not just by one side or the other. However, in the interests of not creating a division, I shall not attack what the hon. Gentleman said or disagree with it in any way, because I want to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about the proposal.
I think that most hon. Members arrived here this morning hoping to use these 90 minutes, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the Government questions that we will not be able to ask this afternoon, although there will be Foreign Affairs questions then and we have not really had a debate on the middle east for a long time. I accept that we are all concerned and determined to try to see peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We all know that the only way to achieve that is to get both parties round the table, and that the people who can achieve that are the Americans. Most of us have some idea of what the Americans should do.
We also need to send a simple message from this Chamber to the Israeli people: if they re-elect Prime Minister Sharon when the Israeli elections are held and on the platform on which he is likely to stand, most of us taking part in this debate will see no future in the short term for peace in the middle east. The real issue for someone like me, who has been involved with the issue for more than 30 years, is Sharon.
A recent series outlined the way in which the state of Israel came into being and showed the fight put up by various factions in the emerging state. Sharon comes

29WH
through all the time as having a clear sense of what is required as far as Israel is concerned, but it is virtually a case of to hell with everyone else. It does not matter who he stands on or who he is prepared to push out of the road. To Sharon, the one important thing was Israel. It did not matter who he was pushing out or knocking out or whom he was prepared to move—Israel had to be established. One can well understand that, given the experiences in various parts of the world—including, it has to be said, the middle east—of those who came together to form Israel.
When it created the state of Israel, the General Assembly said that there should be two states, one mainly Jewish which became Israel, and another an Arab state. We can rake over the coals about whom is to blame following that General Assembly resolution, but the fact is that the Arab state has never been allowed to come into existence, mainly because of people like Sharon.
Dr. Julian Lewis: With great respect, the reason why the two states did not come into existence after the original UN resolution surely was that the Arab armies invaded that section that was allocated to Israel. Although one can accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures against Sharon as being clumsy and often brutal, is not it also a fact that the al-Aqsa martyrs' brigade, which is responsible for suicide bombings, is directly linked to Yasser Arafat's PLO? It is a little more two-sided than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Ross: That is the problem. I am trying to stick to the way in which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon started the debate. Already, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) seeks to divide the Chamber and have us squabbling in the middle. I am trying not to do that. We will certainly squabble if the hon. Gentleman continues along those lines.
Sharon is a specific individual; when General Sharon was commander of the Israeli defence forces, the US Secretary of State, George Shultz, negotiated a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestinians, who were then in the Lebanon. For six months not one Katushya rocket went across into the northern part of Israel, yet in June 1982 under General Sharon, the Israeli defence forces invaded Lebanon. That individual's history is of a man with a single vision; he has not shown, either as Prime Minister or as a general, that he has the facility to understand that if he is to live in peace in the area he has to live with a neighbour who, whether he likes it or not, is a Palestinian Arab. Therefore, rather than knock them about and defeat them on the battlefield, he needs to sit round a table, recognise them as an equal partner in negotiations and start negotiating. If he did so, there is the possibility that the Palestinians would respond.
I remind hon. Members of Sharon's history: when he was not Prime Minister but the leader of Likud, he walked on to Temple Mount, deliberately and provocatively, and brought into being a series of events that made it impossible for what was proposed at Taba to be agreed. From there, the situation has escalated into further violence. No one in the Chamber would go along with anyone losing their life; I am just as concerned about those people who are being killed now,
30WH
whether it is a 95-year-old woman in a car or taxi waiting at a crossing point, or Iain Hook, who it now appears was deliberately targeted and killed by a member of the Israeli defence forces. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us how the investigation is going and what representations he has made.
One message that we need to send to the Israeli people is that Prime Minister Rabin gave his life; he understood that he had to sit with the Palestinians. He said that if the Israelis were to live in peace with their neighbours they needed to recognise that their neighbours needed space too. Prime Minister Rabin's land-for-peace proposals were the most imaginative of any Israeli leader for many years. I hope that in the forthcoming elections someone of similar stature will arise among the Israeli politicians to ensure that it is not simply a case of security, security, security. There will be no security if there is no peace. Peace can come about only when the Israelis and the Palestinians sit down together.
Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Gentleman has told us what the message would be to the Israelis. What would the message be to the Palestine Liberation Organisation?
Mr. Ross: The message would be exactly the same, although not to the PLO but to the Palestinians. The PLO is much bigger than those who assemble on the West Bank and Gaza at the moment. It includes all the refugees throughout the world. The Palestinians need to sit down with their Israeli brothers to negotiate peace. It needs to be based on land for peace. There needs to be a recognition of the two states, which has been the case for some time. It must be recognised that there is no military resolution to the conflict. The conflict must be resolved across the table between two parties and on the basis that both Israelis and Palestinians, including the Palestinian diaspora, have rights. If those rights are recognised and put on the table, there is a chance that peace will result. I am sorry that my speech has seemed rather rambling, but I am still trying to react to the proposal of the hon. Member for Stratford—on-Avon. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
11.26 am
James Purnell: I shall start by declaring an interest, as I am chairman of Labour Friends of Israel. I have just returned from Israel, and it was clear from that visit that both the Palestinians and the Israelis need peace. Palestinian income has dropped to less than $1,000 a year. Malnutrition is appearing. Palestinian civilians have been caught up in the crossfire of a dirty war. On the other side, 700 Israelis have been killed in less than two years. It is important to put that number into context. That is in a country of 6.5 million people. It is the equivalent of 7,000 people in this country being killed in acts of terrorism. How would we react to that death toll? What would be the pressures on the Government? The Israelis know perhaps more than any other nation what it is like to be on the front line of the war against terrorism; they know that there are no limits to the atrocities that the terrorists will commit to try to spread fear among the democratic people.
Many people feel uncomfortable with the reaction of the Israelis, particularly the Israel defence forces, to those terrorist attacks. I can understand why people feel

31WH
that way, but we must recognise that Israel as a democratic nation has a right to defend itself. The only reality in today's politics in Israel is a contest over who can get the death toll down. Even getting the death toll down to 20 people per month from 60, as it was a few months ago, is seen as a victory. That dominates Israel's politics and it dominated my conversations with pretty much everyone I met, including Shimon Peres, Barak and people from Sharon's office and the military.
I am glad that both the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) phrased their remarks in the context of peace and what can bring us together. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should emphasise what unites the two sides in this conflict, rather than try to find ways to divide them. That is the key message that should go out from today's debate. These debates are scrutinised carefully outside the House: they are scrutinised as closely as any that we have. We need to put out the message that there is no monopoly on suffering in this fight. Both sides are suffering a terrible burden, and there can be no military solution to the conflict.
That is certainly what the members of the kibbutz that we visited believe. Kibbutz Metzer is very left wing, and when one sits in its canteen, one can see the minaret of the local Arab village, which is barely a few hundred yards away. The kibbutz has a shared kindergarten with its Arab neighbours, a shared football team and it shares its land and farming resources with the village. However, last month a young Arab terrorist, who was not from the village although he was fairly local, walked into the kibbutz and killed five people, including two children who were shot through the hack of their mother as she was trying to shield them. We asked our hosts about the reaction, and we were told that a meeting had been held and that nothing had changed in their heads. They still believed in giving up some of their precious land for peace and in sharing their resources with the local Arab village. Indeed, a flood of people came from the village to express their condolences. However, our hosts said that something in their hearts had cracked and that their faith in the peace process had been shaken.
That is true throughout Israel. People are very clear that there must be a change to what the Palestinians are doing—they must try to reduce terror. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, the condition is not that terrorism must cease, because that would provide the most extreme people in the conflict with a veto that would derail the peace process at any stage. However, there must be a belief that there is a genuine attempt by the Palestinian Authority to control and reduce terrorism. Until that happens, I do not believe that any progress will be made.
That was the very depressing conclusion that I took from my trip. The silver lining is that there is broad agreement on the outcome. If we can get people walking down the road that is set out in the "Roadmap", the destination is relatively clear, apart from 5 or 10 per cent. around the edges. The deal can be done, but it will be difficult with the current leadership. I cannot imagine a situation in which the Israelis will do a deal with Arafat, because they do not believe that he genuinely
32WH
wants peace. We must face that difficult reality. Ehud Barak did as much as anyone to try to take on the legacy of Rabin and to come up with a proper peace deal. He was prepared to try hard to find a way to offer a deal on Jerusalem, settlements and refugees. As Bill Clinton said, he perhaps gave more than the Palestinians had expected. However, if one talks to Barak about Yasser Arafat, it becomes quite clear that if Barak would never do a deal with Arafat again, no one to the right of him in Israeli politics would. We must face that.
In that context, it is worth saying that there is hope. During the past few months, prominent Palestinians have publicly stated the futility of suicide bombings and have said that the armed struggle has reduced the amount of land under Palestinian control and has led to an appalling loss of lives on the Palestinian side as much as on the Israeli side.
Mr. Steen: We are all very interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I wonder whether he could help us on one point—perhaps his memory is better than mine. I recall from the not-too-distant past that President Arafat agreed to a democratic process through which there would be elections, a recognised hierarchy and a democracy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was the case and that it is the way that the Palestinians should go? That would give a broader base from which negotiations could continue.
James Purnell: I quite agree. Reform of the Palestinian Authority will be necessary in order to improve conditions for Palestinians on the ground and to give faith to others that it is worth genuinely engaging in the peace process.
The proposal made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon was very interesting. There will have to be a huge amount of international pressure if we are to get people walking down the road to peace. It may be that the hon. Gentleman's approach can get the parties out of their current logjam.
Two preconditions are necessary. First, there will have to be faith on the Israeli side that their security will be guaranteed. They will not agree to the Taba deal without a real belief that it will bring security. Without that security, the current terrorism could continue and the Israelis could be left with no cards to play to try to reduce it.
The second precondition would be recognition by the Arab states of the legitimacy of the state of Israel. The problem is not only Fatah; it is Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In many ways, at the root of the campaigns of those organisations is not so much the Palestinian issue but the issue of the recognition of the state of Israel. That recognition is required from Iran and Syria in particular.
What more can we do? We in the west must keep pressure on the Israeli Government to go down the path of peace. We must continue to provide aid to the Palestinians to try to relieve the conditions on the ground. The Chief Rabbi has suggested that, in return, there should be conditions that require a much broader education for people in the Palestinian Authority, to ensure that hate is not spread through schools and that children grow up with a recognition of Israel and of their Jewish neighbours. We have to keep working with the Arab nations.

33WH
In that context, I want to make one quick final remark. I understand why we are engaging with Assad and why he is visiting. It is important that we bring Arab nations into the family of nations. In return, however, we have to make it clear that that cannot happen without a significant shift on the sponsoring of terrorism. The headquarters of all of the organisations that I mentioned are in Damascus. I am sure that the Prime Minister will raise such issues with Assad next week. Without an end to terror—terror from within not only the Palestinian Authority but the generality of Israel's neighbours—there can be no peace in that troubled area.
11.37 am
Richard Burden: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on securing this debate and on the way in which he has approached it. I also congratulate all speakers on the way in which they have spoken.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon made some interesting points. The story of what happened at Taba depends on whom one speaks to—a number of different accounts exist of what happened—but from the accounts that I have heard, I recognise some of what the hon. Gentleman said. I want to pick him up on one point—although I am sure that it was no more than a slip of the tongue. He wondered what might have influenced some of President Arafat's attitudes at that time. He said that he thought President Arafat might not have wanted to be the one who recognised Israel. However, President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority recognised Israel not only recently but several years ago. There is no doubt about the PA's recognition of Israel within the pre-1967 borders.
The Taba negotiations were clearly not completed. Neither side walked away from them; as the hon. Gentleman said, they simply ran out of time. We should acknowledge that. All too often in debates on what has happened during the peace process, Taba is almost jumped over. It is suggested that everything has flowed from the impression that a wonderful deal had been on offer at Camp David a few months previously, but the Palestinians had rejected it. I do not want to go into everything that happened at Camp David; suffice it to say that it was not as simple as has been suggested. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight what happened at Taba.
I chair the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. On behalf of that group, I condemn violence against civilians from whichever side it comes—whether that be the case of the 70-year-old who died last week in Gaza when his house was demolished by soldiers when he was still inside it; or the appalling incident when children and their mother were gunned down in a kibbutz; or the suicide bomb in Jerusalem a few weeks ago that killed 11 and injured 40; or the 383 Palestinian children who have died since September 2000. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) was right to say that 700 Israelis had died in the past two years and to ask how we would feel if the equivalent number of British people—about 7,000—had died since September 2000. It is important that we bear that in mind. In the same way, however, we
34WH
should ask how we would feel if, like the Palestinians, the equivalent of more than 20,000 Britons had died in the same period.
It does not weaken in any way our condemnation or horror of the violence to recognise the need to move beyond it and look for its causes and solutions. We should remind ourselves that, although Israel has an absolute right to exist and to demand recognition without preconditions, Palestinian concerns are also important. We must avoid any suggestion that Israel has non-negotiable, absolute rights, whereas the Palestinians' rights are somehow discretionary. Uri Avnery, a well-known Israeli who has been active on the issue for many years and has a great deal of respect, put it well recently when he said:
"The first and worst violence is the occupation…Human rights are not a special favour granted to Palestinians if they behave like good children."
I am sure that Israelis, rightly, would not accept their rights being dependent on special behaviour, but that should apply equally to the Palestinians. We must recognise that when we see the reality of the occupation.
Hon. Members may have read the powerful article in The Observer last Sunday, which examined the situation in the Itamar settlement overlooking Nablus. Settlers there have been firing down on Palestinians whose only crime is to try to harvest the crop from the olive groves. I was chilled to read the words of an 85-year-old farmer quoted in the article, who said that the
"settlers approached me when I was ploughing my olive groves. They said, 'If we see you here again, we will shoot you."'
That was no idle threat: two people from that olive grove have died in recent weeks.
Such incidents are as morally unacceptable as suicide bombings. They are also illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which relates to the treatment of civilians. The occupation and the settlements are illegal. When we look for ways in which the United Nations can adopt a more pro-active and assertive role, we must establish that international law is not negotiable or discretionary in the middle east. It is as sacrosanct there as anywhere else. I say that not only because it is right, but because we must try to understand the causes of the conflict and win the support and confidence of both sides.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is right to say that we need to understand the fear that grips so many Israelis. However, we must also understand the feeling of double standards that pervades in so many parts of the Arab world when we seem to treat their citizens' rights as different from the rights of Israelis.
Many hon. Members have questioned the way in which Sharon approaches issues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). He is right to do that. It is sometimes projected that Israeli violence is a response to terrorism. If one examines the sequence of events, however, that is not borne out. In December last year, there was a Palestinian Authority ceasefire that lasted for 28 days. Not a single Israeli was killed during that time. All Palestinian factions agreed to it. However, during that time, Israel demolished the homes of 614 Palestinians in Rafah in Gaza, 19 Palestinian civilians were killed and Raed Al-Karmi, a Palestinian activist, was assassinated. I am not trying to

35WH
suggest a tit-for-tat argument, but unless we understand the sequences, winning the confidence of the Palestinians will be much more difficult.
We need to ask what Sharon's agenda is, because his argument seems to involve a catch-22 situation. If, as a result of his constant military incursions, Palestinian violence stops, it is said that that shows that his policy works and why there must be an iron fist to put the people down. If Palestinian violence does not stop, the response comes, "Well, that shows why we've got to do these things." That is an absolute catch-22.
Last week, Sharon said:
"Israel can no longer be expected to make political concessions until there is proven calm and Palestinian governmental reforms".
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said rightly that the first part of that gives the men of violence a veto on peace, so it makes no sense in that case. However, there is also a question of Palestinian political reform, which the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) rightly mentioned. The Palestinians want elections. I visited the area in May and there was a constant demand for elections from members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Palestinians in the street and the Palestinian Authority. Chairman Arafat wants elections. However, it is a bit difficult to organise and hold elections while closures stop people getting from one town to another and curfews stop people leaving their homes for most of the day. The international community could say that if there is a consensus that such elections should be held, not only Israel should have elections in the next couple of months because Palestinians should also have free and fair elections that are held in the presence of international observers. The weight of the occupation should be lifted to allow such elections to be held.
On present form, Sharon and the Sharon Government have not shown any interest in allowing such things to happen. Sharon said in a recent speech that a Palestinian state could perhaps make up about 40 per cent. of the west bank and Gaza. He said that the way to get from one Palestinian area to another could be by using bridges or tunnels. If we honestly expect to win the confidence of Palestinians, we must accept that they are people. They are not moles or rabbits. They cannot go from one place to another by using a series of tunnels. They must have a viable state.
There are alternatives. I am encouraged by the new leader of the Israeli Labour party and by what he has said. He seems seriously to want peace talks, which is great. He seems to recognise the Palestinians' right to choose their representatives. We should encourage that and encourage similar voices in Israel, just as we must encourage the voices of peace among the Palestinians.
We should also pay tribute to the small number of Israelis who, often in difficult circumstances, say that they are no longer prepared to go along with the occupation. A growing number of conscripts and reservists, who often have distinguished military records, are refusing to serve in the occupied territories. They are not pacifists, by and large. They say that they are prepared to serve in an Israeli defence force but they are not prepared to serve in an Israeli occupation force. That shows great bravery and courage and it focuses
36WH
attention where it should be. Ending the occupation is not an add-on or luxury in addition to finding a settlement but it is absolutely central to that. We should pay tribute to the refuseniks and, as parliamentarians, encourage them as much as possible.
The conflict in the middle east has bedevilled not only that part of the world, but the whole world for so many years. It has already claimed the lives of far too many innocent people. It is right that all of us who participate in these debates condemn violence from whatever source it comes. If we are to move from condemnation to change, which is ultimately the important thing, the international community needs to be more assertive. I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that that requires a new initiative from the United Nations and I welcome the fact that our Government are taking more of a leading role. If the initiatives are to work, they must be not only meant as even-handed, but seen as even-handed, which requires addressing the issue of double standards that is felt so keenly among Palestinians and throughout the Arab world as a whole.
11.49 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I was very pleased that during our conference in September and October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in connection with his statements on Iraq, promised that the middle east peace process would move toward final status negotiations before the end of this year. More recently, on 25 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made some positive suggestions, which indicated that that would happen. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister to bring us up to date on that; this is an ideal opportunity for us to be told how far we have got in putting the middle east peace negotiations back on track.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on securing the debate. It is timely, as the end of the year is approaching fast. I also welcome his suggestion. I have always been told that the Americans must help if we are to get peace in the middle east. There is some truth in that, but I have never believed that the Americans alone, with all their vested interests in that region, would proceed to final status negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman obviously believes that the key to unlocking this serious problem lies with the United Nations. I have always believed that; in the past, I have called for UN peacekeepers to try to keep the two sides in the middle east apart. Therefore, I strongly welcome the proposal, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's response to it.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the possible future role of UN peacekeepers. I was minded to inquire about that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made his opening remarks. We have been in that position before: permanent peacekeepers were in place in the run-up to the 1967 war. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in any settlement imposed by the UN, those peacekeepers should be there permanently, and that they should be removable only by the UN, rather than at the behest of one or other side of the dispute, as has so disastrously happened in the past?
Dr. Iddon: I would certainly welcome them being there, although I would hope that they would not have

37WH
to stay there permanently. It is obvious that it will take several decades to achieve peace in the region; that will be a long-term process.
My constituency has a large Muslim population, and my Muslim constituents are pressing me on this issue more than on any other. I attend many meetings with them, and they keep asking me about the chances of success with peace negotiations in the region. Recently, I have had to tell them that I think that at present we are further away than ever before from achieving peace in the middle east; that is my opinion, but I hope that I am wrong.
Ariel Sharon does not appear to want to make peace in the region. An article in The Guardian a few days ago stated that Sharon has openly admitted that he does not want a two-state settlement. I am unsure whether there is any truth in that; perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us whether it is true. There cannot be peace in the region unless there is a two-state settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) referred to Ariel Sharon's history. With Sharon in place, there can be no peace in the region. We will have to see what happens in future elections in Israel.
I am a scientist, so I examine the evidence. I have no axe to grind on either side of this argument. I used to be very supportive of the Israelis—I certainly was during the six-day war, when they were under attack from the Arabs. Now, my sympathies are the complete opposite: I strongly support the Palestinians because they are among the most oppressed people in the world.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, the repercussions of the conflict in the middle east ripple out to wherever there are Muslim populations in the world. Matters such as the war on terrorism also go back to the central debate on the middle east.
When the Berlin wall was built, people throughout the world vigorously protested. I am old enough to remember it being built, and I remember the huge protests that came from almost every country. What amazes me is that a Berlin wall is being built from the north to the south of the region. Much of it has already been built, and I am told that it is higher than the Berlin wall, although I have not yet seen it. The wall is being built illegally 10 km beyond the green line, within Palestinian territory, and it is pinching 10 per cent. of that territory. It completely divides the west bank from the state of Israel. Have the Government made any protest about the building of that wall?
When I visit my constituency, it is apparent that hardly any of my constituents know anything about the building of the wall. It is one of the most devastating things that any country has ever done, but where are the protests? Where is the media coverage? I have not seen it. The wall has been mentioned in the quality press, but certainly not in the tabloids. Our country, and indeed every other country, should protest about the building of the wall by the Israelis just as much as they did when the Berlin wall was built.
James Purnell: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is tragic that the wall is being built. I saw it last week. I understand completely how the matter might seem from our perspective in Britain. However, does my hon. Friend understand that, from the perspective of the Israelis, the building of the wall is a dovish move, and
38WH
one that recognises the two states? The building is being done to allow people to withdraw from the territories and to reduce what my hon. Friend would think of as the occupation. He may not like the details of the scheme—there are important arguments about its details—but does he understand that the matter is thought of very differently in Israel?
Dr. Iddon: Of course I recognise that the matter is seen differently in Israel, but if the wall is being built in recognition of the two states, why is it being built 10 km—6 miles—beyond the green line? Why, at the very least, did the Israelis not build it on the green line?
I am a scientist, as I have said, and I consider the evidence. The evidence shows that the Israelis want totally to control the Palestinians. The Israelis have never had—and will never have, particularly not under leaders such as Ariel Sharon—a thought of a two-state settlement, except when great pressure is applied on them. One has only to consider the bypasses and how Israel has built settlements around Palestinian towns and villages. The wall is the most recent evidence of the intentions of the Israelis. Such behaviour has been going on under successive Governments, whether on the left or the right of the political spectrum in Israel.
The evidence shows that the Israelis have given no sign that they want a two-state settlement. They prevaricated throughout the peace negotiations. As I said, the Americans will not sort out the matter because they have too many vested interests. For that reason, I strongly welcome the proposal involving the United Nations; that is the only way out of the sticky mess that we are in. If we do not act on the proposal, thousands more people will die.
A few weeks ago, I received a booklet called "Who Will Save the Children?", which is produced by a variety of American organisations, and the information that it gives is horrific. It states:
"From September 29, 2000 through March 31, 2002, the violence in occupied Palestine and Israel claimed the lives of at least 232 Palestinian and 54 Israeli children under the age of 18."
Who will save the children? Perhaps the UN will; I hope so.
Palestinian towns and villages are rapidly becoming settlements within an expanded Israeli state. I hope that we can get the peace negotiations back on track, but we—not just America but the UN—will have to be strong on Israel. If we do not put pressure on Israel to come back to the table to talk seriously, the devastating ripple effect will continue for decades and affect the rest of us throughout the world.
11.59 am
Mr. David Heath: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) not only on initiating the debate, but on the quality of his extremely interesting contribution. I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) cannot be here today. He contributes regularly to such debates and has important points to make. I hope that he will be back in his place soon.
Fundamental truths are repeated constantly in such debates. They need repeating because they are correct. Israel is entitled to live in peace within secure borders

39WH
and free from attack or threat. Palestinians are entitled to justice and to a viable homeland, both administratively and economically. We have set out such a position in UN resolutions that have survived the debates on the subject over many years. They are as true today as they have ever been. If that is the potential light at the end of the tunnel, I can only repeat what was said to me recently at the United Nations. An Israeli said, "We can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but we cannot see the tunnel." The fact that we seem so distant from achieving such clear objectives is depressing.
Let us be clear in this Chamber that terrorism and the loss of innocent life is something that we must deprecate. It is not justifiable. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) was right to say that Israelis need to be confident that effective measures are in place actively to discourage those who would attack them from within Palestine. Let us understand that the reaction of those who undertake suicide bombings or the like is born of the desperation and the circumstances in which they find themselves, which is based on occupation, a regime of coercion and economic strangulation, and the illegal settlements to which reference has been made.
We must remember that the second intifada started with the determined trip of Sharon to Temple Mount. He knew what the consequences of that would be and he used it for political purposes. He adopted such a position, and I believe that he can end it, too. It is an historical perversity that right-wing leaders are often in a better position to achieve settlement than those who take a more centralist position because such people can take their population with them. Let us hope that Sharon takes that view.
The outside world is aware of the critical importance of the position in the middle east and, as has already been said, the ripple effect covers a much wider area. During my recent trip to the United Nations, it was interesting to talk to members of the Security Council, ambassadors and permanent representatives from wider circles. Other than those representing Arab states, they were not willing to countenance an express linkage between the arguments on Iraq and those on the middle east. Nevertheless, we all understood that that linkage was made on the streets throughout the Islamic world and that it was necessary to be seen not to have double standards.
There is an implicit requirement to meet the impatience of many who do not see the international community acting with the same resolution in the middle east that it is now willing to show in respect of Iraq. Some blame the way in which the Palestinians have played their hand in the United Nations. There is some substance to that belief; the way in which they have used international organisations has not been clever. However, we need to understand that the middle east colours the responses of those whose help we need in the war against terrorism and to ensure that appropriate pressure is applied to Iraq. We must also understand that any conflict in Iraq would have devastating consequences on the position in the middle east, and could take us to a point of no return.
40WH
Where does the international community stand in all this? I reject the view that we should not deal with President Arafat. He is the elected head of the Palestinians and must be party to whatever emerges. We should put pressure on the Palestinians to bring every pressure to bear in their communities to persuade the factions that want to pursue the conflict through terrorist action that there are better ways of doing so. I appreciate that that is difficult when there is a complete breakdown of civil or peacekeeping administration in areas under Palestinian Authority control. None the less, that pressure needs to be maintained.
Our principal course of action must be a renewed firmness in dealing with the Government of Israel. Several factors must be considered. The settlements are a running sore and are illegal, as is the continuing demolition of Palestinian homes. Even today, a court is examining the proposed further demolition of Palestinian homes in order to widen the road to an illegal Israeli settlement. The Israeli Government must understand that that is unacceptable. We must make it clear that aspects of the suppression in Palestine are incompatible with Israel's status as a democratic nation that subscribes to the same human rights to which we in the western world subscribe.
There is curfew, collective punishment and the reported refusal to allow Arafat into Bethlehem on the ground that he has damaged the position of the Christians in Palestine. I must say that he has not damaged their position nearly as much as the Israeli tanks have done. There is the shooting of innocent individuals, including members of the international community: I refer to the shooting of Iain Hook on 22 November. Only yesterday in Gaza, Israeli security forces attacked a bus belonging to the United Nations Works and Relief Agency. All these factors create the circumstances in which terrorism thrives. That must be brought home to the Israeli Government, as must the fact that the western world cannot launch a consequential attack on those whom the Israelis identify as their enemies. Mr. Sharon must be disabused of the notion of a crusade. There will be no such crusade against Iraq, Iran or whoever is next on the list.
We must take into account our economic and military links with the nations in the area and reconsider the matter. Israel and the European Union are prime trading partners, and we are still supplying arms, directly or indirectly, to the area. I understand that the Israeli elections are coming up, so these are difficult issues. I understand that the rightward drift poses a difficulty, even in the Likud party, despite the rejection of Netanyahu. The quartet—the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia—must act effectively. We are told that they are doing so, and the Minister may tell us whether the Foreign Secretary was right when, on 25 November, he talked about positive developments and determined moves. However, the process must break cover so that the whole world can see that progress is being made.
I commend the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the United Nations Security Council should take a lead. I am a great believer in the primacy of the Security Council and the crucial role that it has to play. I also believe that the United States must be on board for the Security Council to be effective. We also need to persuade the Syrians and the other Arab

41WH
league nations of the good sense of what is proposed. I look forward the Minister's reply, but whatever happens needs demonstrably to happen now if the Arab world is to have any confidence that the international community is even handed.
12.10 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: This has been one of the most refreshing debates that I have attended on this topic. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) for initiating the debate and for the enlightened way in which he launched it this morning. Any student who wants to learn about the subject should be sent a copy of my hon. Friend's speech, which contained a masterly synopsis of the facts. It is all there in a nutshell. At a time of stand-off in the region, his is a thoughtful, balanced and well-intentioned initiative that deserves to be taken seriously. We have had Camp David, Taba, Tenet, Mitchell, Crown Prince Abdullah and now Maples. What my hon. Friend proposes must be taken as a serious possible course of action. He said that most Israelis will vote for Sharon, but for one peace. The phrase that best describes that apparent contradiction is that they are short-term hawks but long-term doves. A lot of hope rests on a dissection of the psychology behind that opinion.
The security situation is deteriorating. It is something that we have all studied and I witnessed it for myself in May on the day that I walked through the rubble of Jenin. When I returned to Tel Aviv, I heard an explosion in a snooker hall just down the coast—the result of a suicide bomber. It is that juxtaposition of violence that bedevils the issue from day to day.
This is a crucial time because while the world community is looking at Iraq and our gaze is averted, things may go even more wrong. We do not want that to happen. What drives us all demented with exasperation is exactly as my hon. Friend explained: so many of the crucial ingredients for peace are largely in place; they are scattered like a jigsaw on a table, waiting to be put together.
I shall be brief, to allow the Minister to give what I know will be a considered response to my hon. Friend's speech. As he said, the ingredients are there: borders, the right of return, settlements and Jerusalem, the four main components of a potential peace. However, there are no willing interlocutors and therefore there seems to be no progress. As hon. Members have said this morning, there is no military solution.
A solution has been proposed by my hon. Friend. Central to his plan is the concept of imposition by the United Nations under chapter VII. It genuinely reflects our frustration that if only someone could bang heads together something could be done, because the ingredients are there. However, it throws up the issue of whether people can be led into an agreement willingly or whether they need to be pushed. That is at the heart of the concept behind my hon. Friend's proposal.
A parallel can perhaps be drawn with Northern Ireland, where there was similar, seemingly hopeless, sectarian violence. That is often mentioned by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who was a Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland. He
42WH
saw that the best step forward was to establish confidence-building measures, which were part of the Mitchell proposals, from a lower level, by grandmother's footsteps, to the point where the main participants in the political process could act on the foundation of mutual trust. The question mark over my hon. Friend's proposal is whether that ingredient can emerge from his process, whether his proposal can work without it and whether some kind of compulsion can lead to the solution that he proposes. But trust cannot be imposed; it has to emerge by degrees over time.
I could say so much but there is no point in rehearsing the attitudes that the two sides face. Suffice it to say that we on the Opposition Front Bench fervently defend Israel's right to exist, to be recognised by all and to live in complete security from terror and destabilising pressure. We also defend the Palestinian people's right to live in a climate of hope in a state of their own.
We must all put ourselves into the mind of each side in this continuing conflict. The Israelis feel insecure and vulnerable: suicide bombers afflict them every day, and they have neighbours who they think want to do away with them altogether. They feel that the Arabs want to push them westwards into the sea. Palestinians, however, feel humiliated, dispossessed, stateless and subjugated. They feel that the Israelis want to push them eastwards across the river into Jordan.
Anyone can take up the cudgels for one side against the other, but it is no good adopting a polarised stance. One does not have to be anti-Arab to be pro-Israeli, or anti-Israeli to be pro-Arab. Arab-hating attitudes are potentially as iniquitous as anti-Semitic ones. To be pro-peace, one must be pro-both sides. Any reasonable assessment of this complicated issue realises that there is cause and fault on both sides. We must totally condemn suicide bombings on any target against the Israelis. We must also condemn the building of illegal settlements by the Israelis on land that is outside the legitimate borders of their own country. Beyond that, however, playing the blame game does not get us very far. Any of us can construct a tit-for-tat catalogue of claims and counterclaims, and accusations and counter-accusations, but such an antiphony of name-calling gets us nowhere.
We need a de-escalation of violence and the gradual, steady growth of trust, perhaps starting, as I suggested, at the lower level and rising to the point at which two leaders with a genuine desire for peace can converse, negotiate and take their people willingly to a conclusive agreement.
I think that all hon. Members present agree that a two-state solution is the only answer for peace. However, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and others asked a question relating to the crucial role of the Americans. I think that both parties can walk the path to peace only if the Americans persistently and consistently take an interest in, and pay attention to, the middle east peace process. If they are in it for a few months and out for a few months, the whole process will falter, as we have seen.
Whatever the merits of the President's speech in June, things have stagnated ever since—the process has gone quiet. However much one might wish the United Nations to get involved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon suggests, without consistent attention from the Americans, that will not happen, if

43WH
only because they will not necessarily do what is needed in the UN for the UN to do what it needs to do. Essentially, this is the dilemma that my hon. Friend puts so well: to tread the path to peace, should it be the UN, the US, or both? I harbour some doubts about imposition by the UN. I do not think that that would work without the United States, but it is a serious proposal that needs to be seriously entertained.
For any settlement to last, there will be no substitute for genuine confidence-building measures and the building of trust. If the participants feel that they have been forced and they are not, within themselves and their people, willing in the agreement that they are asked to meet, it is unlikely to last. In the absence of US attention, and willingness within the two parties that have to sign up to peace, the UN solution will get us only so far. That said, at last and at least there is an initiative in the climate of misery that we otherwise face. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his thoughtful and reasonable contribution.
12.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my colleague from Warwickshire, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), on initiating the debate. It is on an important issue, about which many hon. Members feel very strongly. They are deeply concerned about the death and destruction that has occurred among the Israelis, Palestinians and others as a result of the conflict in the middle east. Let me take this opportunity to agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who mentioned the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a valuable contribution to these debates in the past. We hope to see him here again soon. Indeed, I saw him the other day on television looking robust. I know that he is still active and we wish him well in his struggle to regain his health.
The debate has been serious, and a number of important points have been raised. Before I deal with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I should like to say something about the cycle of violence that has been faced by the Israelis and the Palestinians. The consequences have been tragic. Since the intifada started just two years ago, more than 2,000 Palestinians and nearly 700 Israelis have lost their lives. Everyone in the region suffers from the continuing violence and the absence of a final settlement. UK nationals have suffered too. Most recently, Iain Hook, the UN Relief and Works Agency employee, was killed during an Israeli incursion into Jenin on 22 November. I offer my deepest condolences to lain Hook's family at this difficult time. We will hold the Israelis to their commitment to carry out a full investigation into what happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) asked whether we had raised our concerns. We have done so at the highest level. I spoke to the Israeli ambassador last week, and I am going to meet him again this afternoon to talk about this and other matters. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to
44WH
the Israeli Foreign Secretary and we are awaiting a written report of the Israel Defence Forces inquiry, which we will study in due course.
A negotiated settlement of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is long overdue. The same goes for Israel and her other neighbours. We have consistently sought to reach a just settlement based on UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and now 1435. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, the outlines of such a settlement are clear: a viable state for the Palestinians and security for Israel within recognised borders. Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve to enjoy security from attack and the freedom to run their own lives.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon proposes that the UN Security Council pass a resolution under chapter VII imposing a solution along the lines discussed by the Israelis and Palestinians at Taba in January 2001. There has been much speculation about the detail of those negotiations and about earlier talks at Camp David. The negotiators themselves said that they got closer to a settlement at Taba than ever before. Unfortunately, their efforts fell short of a permanent status settlement, which all the parties said they sought. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is very interesting. It deserves to be taken seriously. My view is that it is not a flier now. In the longer term, it is possibly a serious issue that we will have to consider in a wider context. It is not something that we can go forward with at this time. There are a number of reasons for that.
Although it is possible for all of us to sketch the outlines of a settlement in the middle east, it is in the detail of a settlement that the difficulties arise. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who was cautious about top-down solutions. He referred to the need for confidence-building measures between the parties. He also said that the impetus for agreement had to come from within the parties involved in the dispute. All that is true. I am also a little bit wary given the history of chapter VII, which we are currently dealing with in relation to Iraq, Liberia and Libya. Should we place Israel in the same category? If my memory serves me correctly, it would be the first democracy to have a chapter VII resolution imposed on it. Such a resolution is enforceable by sanctions or military action, so we should be cautious before we take resolutions down that route. Chapter VI resolutions have been the chosen vehicles for the UN's resolutions on the middle east, and I believe that that remains the right approach at present. It remains to be seen whether chapter VII resolutions will be appropriate in future.
Mr. Maples: The problem with chapter VI is that, if we want to impose a solution, we must have chapter VII. If the international community decided to go down my chosen route, it would have to invoke chapter VII.
Mr. O'Brien: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but thus far we have seen no clear agreement on crucial points at Taba, and we cannot impose a settlement on which the parties are not agreed. Extrapolating something from Taba that really is not there would be counter-productive. For a start, the Israelis and Palestinians are not even agreed on what was discussed at Taba, let alone what was finally agreed. Similarly,

45WH
disagreement remains between the parties about Mr. Moratinos's role in the process. Taba saw no agreement on land with no map defining the boundaries, no agreement on the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif, and no resolution on the right of return—a red line for both Israelis and Palestinians. At this point, no easy way of finding a resolution to the red line issues underlined by both sides is apparent. Israel wanted a demilitarised Palestinian state, but the Palestinians were unprepared to accept it. A series of difficult issues were not resolved at Taba, so using Taba as a template for the UN to impose a solution would not be the best way of making progress.
It remains right to view Taba and Camp David as starting points on which further negotiations can be built. As the Foreign Secretary said, they provide a broad framework for handling some of the issues that still divide the parties—settlements in Jerusalem, for example, must figure in final status negotiations. A solution cannot be imposed on the parties through a UN resolution under chapter VII and the parties themselves cannot reach a settlement: it requires vigorous intervention by neighbours and the wider international community, including the UN.
The goal of our current efforts is the urgent resumption of negotiations and the Quartet, the EU, the UN and Russia will play the key roles in achieving it. We shall support them whenever we can. The Quartet is currently drawing up a road map aimed at achieving a final settlement within three years. It will be comprehensive and will include the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. It will address the political, economic, humanitarian, institutional and security dimensions, while spelling out reciprocal steps by the parties in each phase.
Progress will be based on the parties' performance in key areas, including Palestinian security reform and Israeli withdrawal to pre-intifada positions by mid-2003 as the security position improves. Performance will be monitored and assessed by the Quartet. The parties must do everything in their power to reduce violence, build confidence and resume negotiations. They must implement the steps set out in the road map. That is the basis on which we hope to take these issues to a conclusion. We must ensure an end to the suicide bombing, which is stopping the achievement of a Palestinian state, and the Israelis must withdraw from Palestinian land as part of an overall peace settlement. The objective is to move negotiations forward and to ensure that we achieve peace and a final resolution of these disputes. The Palestinian people and the Israeli people deserve peace and the international community should work with them to achieve that.

Council Housing
12.30 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a privilege to begin this brief debate on council housing. Labour councils all over the country have been proud of their contribution to building council houses and maintaining council house stock. We should be proud of the social housing sector because it belongs to the people and is administered by their elected representatives.
Council housing is now more necessary than ever. Prices in the private sector are rocketing, especially in the south-east, because the laws of supply and demand have gone mad. Although demand for housing has increased, we are building fewer houses than at any time since the great depression of the 1920s and 1930s. People are being priced out of the private housing market; they cannot afford it. We now have a lot of subdivision of families. Single parents, in particular, cannot afford to buy, so they need social housing.
The amount of social housing is shrinking. Housing associations have more money, but they are building fewer houses because costs are rising. A Labour Government—I will repeat that phrase with emphasis in the way that Neil Kinnock would have done at a Labour party conference—a Labour Government are selling council housing at a faster rate than the Tories ever did. The target is the transfer of 200,000 council houses in large-scale voluntary transfers each year.
To pressure councils into selling, the Government have deliberately underfunded council housing. Councils cannot keep up with the volume of repairs. The backlog is huge. In 2000, the Government estimated that the repairs backlog amounted to £10 billion, and the improvements backlog was estimated at £9 billion. In other words, a total of £19 billion is needed for repairs and improvements.
In tackling the problems of social housing, housing associations have many advantages that councils do not have. Housing associations can borrow on the stock market, which gives them a lot of power to build houses and carry out repairs. Their tenants do not have to pay the daylight robbery system—a system whereby the housing benefit of council tenants is paid by other council tenants out of the housing account, which is money provided for housing. Thus the poor are being asked to subsidise the housing benefit of the poorest, instead of that money being paid from the social security system. Tenants of housing associations do not have to pay that. The result is that councils, which are underfunded, have real problems in keeping up with repairs.
My council—North East Lincolnshire council—can do only the most urgent repairs because it does not have the money to tackle other repair problems. We did some calculations for a presentation for the National Audit Office's review of large-scale voluntary transfers. There are about 2.8 million council houses and we calculated that the average rent is some £2,500 a year. Of that, £1,500 goes on management, maintenance and major repairs, leaving £1,000 that is, in effect, siphoned off by Government. Most of the money goes to pay for the daylight robbery system in which housing benefit is paid by councils rather than by the social security system. When it comes to a large-scale voluntary transfer, that

47WH
£1,000 is available to the housing associations to play with, but not to the councils. It gives the housing associations an advantage. They can do repairs, provide better services to tenants, and build new houses.
Last month, I attended a housing conference with the north-east branch of the Chartered Institute of Housing. I heard an exciting presentation by Tom Mannion, the chief executive of the Irwell Valley housing association in Manchester. His association has few problems with arrears, which can usually be quite a problem for councils. It has few problems involving crime, drug-addiction and expulsions, and is able to provide a more effective service, good behaviour contracts with tenants and gold service guarantees so that, when repairs become necessary, tenants can choose which repairs are to be done and the bill is not paid until they are satisfied with the work. Repairs are to be done as soon as a tenant with a gold service contract requests them.
I asked at the conference why councils did not offer the service as a means of improving their housing. My suggestion was received with a laugh of pity. Housing managers gently explained to me that councils do not have the same numbers of staff to go out and cosset and counsel the tenants as housing associations. Nor do the councils have the money or the flexibility to provide such a service. That is why councils face a repair backlog and the problems of sink estates where nobody wants to go. The housing there is going steadily downhill and the council can do nothing about it because it does not have enough money for repairs and renovations to make the estate attractive.
Then, along comes the Audit Commission and kicks councils when they are down. We have just had an Audit Commission report on North East Lincolnshire council that comments on the low morale of staff in the housing department. It says that repairs are done more on a fire brigade basis than planned, and that it would like that to be the other way round. It comments on the number of voids. All those problems are the direct consequence of the council having no money. The lack of money for repairs for the deteriorating estates means that repairs have to be done on a fire brigade basis rather than being planned and orderly.
We should all ask a basic question of the office of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister: why are such things being done to social housing when this country needs more social housing and more council housing, as a major contributor on the social housing scene? I hope that the Minister will enlighten us today, but I believe that such things are being done deliberately to make the life and the lot of council tenants so miserable that they vote for large-scale voluntary transfers. Such things are done to force transfers on councils and ensure that tenants vote for them.
Large-scale voluntary transfers are expensive. We are giving away a massive public asset. We are paying the cost of the councils' campaigning, to bamboozle the tenants into giving the asset away. We are giving away the housing benefit of those tenants who transfer, because the benefit comes from the social security budget, not from the other tenants. We are writing off debt to persuade councils to agree to large-scale voluntary transfers. In estimates for 2003–04, £800
48WH
million will be allocated for the purpose, which is nearly as much as the £843 million allocated in the same period for the total budget for council housing credits to fund all council housing. We are giving away that much to encourage large-scale voluntary transfers.
Birmingham City council was offered £650 million in written-off debts if it transferred its council housing. It was taken back when the tenants voted no to a transfer. Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed of supporting, countenancing and continuing such a policy.
Despite all the bribery and bullying, the 200,000 homes target for transfers is not being met, even though everything is predicated on it. The decent homes target is predicated on a transfer of 200,000 homes a year. That target will not be met, and is being quietly dropped. Despite the pressures, tenants are voting no. There have been no votes in Dudley, Birmingham, Southwark, Merton and Ealing, and councils in Nottingham and Sheffield have decided not to go ahead with the transfers. Although everything is predicated on it, it ain't working. That must produce a new decision and a policy change, because policy is running into the buffers in this area. Tenants want to stay with the council. No wonder the Government are beginning, slowly—far too slowly—and painfully to pull back from the implications of their policy. The Local Government Bill, which was announced in the Queen's Speech, contains a provision for councils to be able to borrow. I do not know whether borrowing would be on rents, stock, or service charges, but that is an advance, provided that it is prudential. Of course, everything the Government do is prudent anyway, so I am not worried about that.
The Government are allocating more money slowly and grudgingly, and they are making it somewhat easier for many arm's length management organisations. However, if we are to have an arm's length management run by councils, I do not see why housing cannot stay in a council's possession, with the same advantages given to the council as are given to arm's length management organisations, in which there is potential for corruption. Policy is being modified and it should be modified, because it is stalling and running into the buffers.
I hope that the blue skies review, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce in January, will continue the process of change. I have great confidence in, and enthusiasm for, the Deputy Prime Minister, who could be a driving force behind the big social housing programme that this country needs. That programme has, however, been held in check because my right hon. Friend's Department has not had enough money. With the money and the flexibility that allows councils to borrow, he could initiate the drive that we need. So much else depends on decent housing, particularly social housing, for those people in our society who are less well off. How can people benefit from the provisions for education that we are making unless they have good housing? How can people benefit from the improvements in health that we are making unless the causes of bad health in housing are removed? How can we have a settled society with lower crime rates and less drug addiction unless people have good, affordable social housing? How can we reassert neighbourhood ties unless neighbourhoods are well housed in social housing? None of those things can be done without good housing.

49WH
I simply ask for a level playing field between councils and housing associations. We are proud of councils, which are still mainly Labour and which built the housing stock and created the housing associations. Let us end the daylight robbery whereby housing benefit for council tenants is paid out of housing funds. We must allow councils to borrow, so that they can build, renovate, repair, use the leverage of credit to increase the power of tenants and begin a programme of building. If housing associations and councils are on a level playing field, so that there are not the bribes and benefits to vote for large-scale voluntary transfers, they will be able to compete or co-operate.
What is wrong with competition in social housing? It will serve the consumers' needs. What is wrong with competition to serve particular areas' needs? In some parts of the country, there are too many council houses and numbers need to be reduced. Let us allow councils and housing associations to co-operate so that those can be pulled down and so that they may replenish and review where necessary. Let us allow them to co-operate to build anew where it is needed. With a level playing field we can do that. I ask for a new deal for council housing, so that we can build, improve, repair, renovate and pull down as necessary.
It is almost indecent that Ministers and hon. Members, including myself, are sitting here in London benefiting from the giddy escalation in the price of houses that they own, which are financed out of a parliamentary grant, and, at the same time, are treating indecently those who cannot afford to buy houses and who live in social housing. Although such people might like living in social housing—it should be provided for them—we should not treat people who do not have the money to put down on a house and benefit from the appreciation in value as badly as they are being treated.
Why are we persecuting council tenants? Why are we making life so difficult for Labour councils, which are the front line of the Labour party and which need support, help and encouragement to fulfil their aspirations for their people? Why are we devoting so much time and effort to shuffling round the ownership of social housing when we should be making a massive effort to build, repair, renovate and improve? Why are we throwing away public money on large-scale voluntary transfers when the need is for a massive programme of new building not only to regenerate the economy and provide jobs, but to regenerate the local scene and local society and to improve the lives of the people whom we represent?
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I welcome the opportunity to join my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in reflecting on the importance of high-quality social housing and effective housing management services. I am afraid that he will have to wait for at least a couple of weeks for the answer to several of his questions until my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's statement in early January on blue skies—not least—and other things.
I shall set out why the Government believe that retaining housing stock in local authority ownership is only one option for delivering our objectives. It is an
50WH
option. Despite the doom and gloom that has been painted, there is significant investment in our council housing stock and the option remains for all local authorities.
The delivery of thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities in all regions is at the heart of the Government's agenda. As my hon. Friend said, the issue is all about communities, and we must help people who live in some of our most deprived areas to live successfully, to fulfil productive lives and to realise their potential. That was reflected by what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said on 18 July when he announced his decision to examine whether his Department's programmes and policies were delivered in the best way in which to achieve those ends and to secure value for money while achieving the collective aim of the decent home.
I tell my hon. Friend that the decent homes standard has not been dropped in any way, shape or form. We are bang on target to achieve our interim target for 2005. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, Lord Rooker, said recently, we are about 10 per cent. shy of the target for 2010. However, there is not the doom and gloom that my hon. Friend suggested. The fact that we are 10 per cent. off a target that is not due to be met for eight or nine years does not mean that we should tear everything up and start again. I repeat that the decent homes target remains and we shall not be changed from that. The root of everything that we are talking about is the decent standards target and, as my hon. Friend said, the right of everyone to live in a decent home.
The 2002 spending review settlement also provided significant additional resources for housing. By 2005–06, we will be spending almost £6 billion annually on housing compared with the planned spend of £1.5 billion in 1997–98. Alongside that massive increase in resources, the capital receipts initiative that we brought forward in 1997 freed up about £12 billion of receipts up to 1999–2000. That demonstrates our commitment to a step change in delivering our objective of giving everyone the opportunity of a decent home.
When considering how the delivery of decent social housing contributes to the sustainable communities agenda, we are clear that several routes are available to tenants and their landlords. The housing policy statement that was published in December 2002 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—a previous incarnation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—set out four housing management investment options for local authorities, and my hon. Friend alluded to them. One such option is the use of arm's length management organisations. It does my hon. Friend no credit to suggest that there is potential for corruption in ALMOs, and he cannot make such a simplistic statement without a degree of justification.
Other options are the private finance initiative, housing transfers and stock retention within existing resources. Three of the four options mean that the housing remains in local authority ownership, and only housing transfers cause the ownership to move outside the local authority. We believe that it is wrong to see that change of ownership as an obstacle while our goal is decent social homes and decent social housing.

51WH
Many authorities and their stakeholders have already determined the option that will best suit them, but almost 100 authorities have yet to decide how they will deliver the decent social housing objective. Time is running out for those authorities and it is wrong that tenants might suffer as a result of inaction by their landlords. Therefore, we recognise that without action by all local authorities, we will not deliver our target by the agreed 2010 deadline. All social housing providers must up their game. We intend that the Government's current review of decent home delivery vehicles will help to ensure that there are no obstacles to local authorities delivering as both providers and enablers and, therefore, no excuses for not doing that. As I have told my hon. Friend, that will be duly reported by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in January.
I recognise that my hon. Friend believes that local authority retention of social housing should be a guiding principle, and that he campaigns for that. However, I believe that our focus has to be on the interests of the tenants—on the conditions of their homes and the services provided to them—rather than simply on who owns the housing. Several of the actions that the Government have already taken demonstrate that: the moves to a consistent rent-setting formula for local authorities and registered social landlords that ensure that rents for similar properties in the same location in different sectors will be similar; the introduction of a single housing inspectorate service to ensure consistent and high standards of provision; and the steps that are being taken to achieve a single social tenure.
There is also an increasing focus on the separation of the landlord function and fulfilment of the role as a strategic housing authority, regardless of whether the local authority retains ownership of the housing. That allows the landlord to focus on improvements in the physical condition of the stock, management arrangements and tenant involvement, and it frees the local authority to ensure that its statutory housing duties are carried out and that housing policy decisions contribute to securing wider community regeneration, as my hon. Friend said. That is possible in private finance initiatives, arm's length management organisations and housing transfers. However, in addressing my hon. Friend's concerns, I will focus on housing transfer.
We know that where tenants play an integral part in choosing the housing transfer option and developing the proposal, they also support it at the ballot. That has not changed recently, despite the cases that my hon. Friend mentioned. During the life of the recent round of housing transfers, when all the votes for and against stock transfer are added up, there are currently four votes in favour to every one against.
There have been notable exceptions to that, such as in Birmingham. That is why tenants are consulted. However, it is wrong to suggest that there has been a sudden and massive sea change, and that over the past year or so every ballot has gone the no way rather than the yes way. The votes are still overwhelmingly in favour
52WH
of transfer, and I do not accept there is a deliberate conspiracy to make council tenants' lives so miserable that they will do everything but vote against transfer.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Where surveys are conducted in isolation from the campaign for or against large-scale voluntary transfers, council tenants state that their preference is to stay with the council because they can influence it democratically and it is a known and understood system that they quite like. It is true that where there is a campaign where all sorts of glittering blandishments are held out to them of repayments and renovations and a new happy future they might feel the other way, but in the abstract—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order.
Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend should not belittle the intelligence or sophistication of council house tenants. He has claimed that they are bamboozled now that there are glittering prizes. They make clear decisions on their futures and those of their homes on the back of the information that both sides put in front of them. To talk about them being bamboozled, as though they do not fully understand the process or are easily led, undermines the integrity of my hon. Friend's case and does not say much for his impression of what council tenants are like.
The transfer of housing to a registered social landlord provides an important one-off chance for local authorities, residents and other stakeholders to improve community well-being. It is a vehicle to deliver the decent homes standard and major repairs and improvements to the housing and physical environment, but it can also deliver a range of other things: better housing management services that are strongly linked to a broader neighbourhood management approach; greater tenant participation in the decision relating to their homes and estates, far more often than is the case under the council; accountable and transparent governance arrangements; and partnerships with other service providers and stakeholders to deliver joined-up regeneration and new facilities in the housing transfer area that draw on external funding streams. As my hon. Friend suggested, stock transfer works best in the context of the regeneration of the entire community, rather than when it is simply a function of transfer or management. Together, these things add up to a way to secure a sustainable future for the community.
Confident, empowered tenants create stronger, safer communities. The best way to ensure that people get the best housing possible is to talk to them—to give them accurate and honest information, to ask them what they need, and to give them a chance to influence what happens to their homes and neighbourhoods. For their parts, landlords should not be afraid to get tenants heavily involved in considering how to deliver a sustainable housing service. That would help to challenge rumour and misinformation, and would allow reality to see the light of day.
The involvement of tenants secures their role in a shared vision for the future and therefore helps to create stronger, safer and better-run communities. When we put tenants first, they become active consumers, pushing for better standards and keeping landlords on their toes. They play a part in how increased investment can revive

53WH
and renew our communities. From councils to the private finance initiative or arm's length management organisations, agencies are increasingly understanding that housing is not just about bricks and mortar, or the decent homes standard; it is about revitalising and regenerating our communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby tells a tale of woe but, under the housing transfer, more than 700,000 council dwellings have moved to the housing association sector. More than £11 billion of private finance has been secured for investment in the repair and improvement of the transferred stock and, through the receipt paid to the local authority, for funding much-needed new homes.
As I have made clear, we are looking not only for better homes but for better communities. I am therefore saddened when debates on improving housing conditions and services focus on ownership, and when discussions on housing transfer are hijacked and made into a wider debate, often centred on political allegiances. That is not fair to tenants and it destroys the opportunity to make a real difference.
Our policy of providing additional resources to councils that set up high-performing ALMOs to manage and improve their housing stock is also starting to deliver results. So far, we have accepted 21 councils on to the programme and have made conditional allocations of more than £660 million for the three years to 2004–05. To qualify for that funding, arm's length companies must achieve at least a two-star rating from the housing inspectorate. The first results are encouraging; we heard only yesterday that all eight ALMOs in the first tranche have qualified.
I make no apologies for the National Audit Commission inspecting housing departments. I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about inspection being a bogey word for adding to the sad lot of housing departments. There are flourishing housing departments throughout the country that are run by councils, that do a good, professional and committed job for their tenants. There are others that do not, and if the commission finds them out and sets up a rescue package, and that package is ignored, we are responsible to local tenants to ensure that they get the housing service that they deserve. I was a councilor for 11 years, and can say that there is no magic wand. Housing departments are not all good, and registered social landlords or private providers are not all bad. It is
54WH
incumbent on us to use the inspection process to ensure that council housing departments do what they can to improve the condition of stock and the lot of the tenants.
I congratulate those councils with ALMO status on achieving high standards. Tenants can expect investment to bring nearly 80,000 council homes up to the decent homes standard. Inspection results from the second tranche will come through next year. The private finance initiative is also progressing. In 1999, eight local authorities were chosen to pioneer the housing revenue account PFI scheme as pathfinders. There are now 18 HRA PFI schemes and five non-HR A PFI schemes in procurement.
HRA pathfinders and round 2 schemes were allocated £760 million in PFI credits, and are expected to refurbish about 30,000 homes. Some of the schemes are expected to sign contracts early in 2003. Two non-HRA schemes have signed contracts, and a further four are at different stages of the process.
To conclude, I urge my hon. Friend to focus not on the ownership of social housing, but on helping to ensure that there is minimum delay in giving all tenants the opportunity of a decent home. That is best achieved through securing maximum resources for investment in our social housing in the near future. As part of the blue skies thinking and the public service agreement plus review of the assorted methods of achieving decent homes, there is a lot of thinking going on. We will not move from our key target of decent homes throughout the social housing sector by 2010, although it is quite right that we should reflect on the vehicles that we utilise to reach it.
The Government are doing their part in providing resources that are tied to performance improvements. We make no apologies for that. However, if we preclude housing transfer, and therefore access to private finance, tenants will be in poorer condition housing longer than is necessary. That cannot be right. To those who defend everything but are ultimately defending only the status quo, and have no answers for tenants on a range of council estates, I say: take part in the full debate that will unfold from mid-January, and do not become lost in the notion of ownership. How our people live and how they achieve decent homes is what matters, not who owns the freehold.

Manufacturing Industry (Scotland)
12.59 pm
John Barrett: After 18 months of trying, this is the first time that I have been fortunate enough to secure a debate in Westminster Hall, and I am delighted to introduce it. I hope that today marks a change in my luck. I am also delighted that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply to the debate. As she will know, manufacturing is important throughout Scotland. When I discovered that she would be responding, I thought that I would find out the latest information from the web, and was pleasantly surprised to discover an unofficial Secretary of State fan club that describes her as
"by far the most glamorous doll in British Politics since Baroness Thatcher was put out to pasture".
Today's debate has been made all the more timely following the announcement last Friday from the Office for National Statistics of yet another fall in manufacturing output throughout the United Kingdom as a whole—down about 0.7 per cent compared with the previous month and 2.4 per cent. compared with the same time last year. Geoffrey Dicks of the Royal Bank of Scotland, financial markets described those figures as
"awful and the fourth successive monthly decline".
I requested today's debate not because manufacturing is a major source of employment in my constituency, but because of its importance throughout Scotland. I shall be paying tribute to some of the positive aspects of the Government's work, but it is my duty to point out some general concerns. I will not be talking down Scotland. It is sometimes said that people do that when referring to bad news. Today provides me with an opportunity to make a positive contribution and I look forward to the Secretary of State's reply.
Manufacturing industry in Scotland directly employs 290,000 people. A further 150,000 jobs are indirectly supported by the sector. In total, that is almost 20 per cent. of the work force in Scotland. That is well down on the equivalent figures in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it is still considerable. Manufacturing accounts for almost 70 per cent. of all exports in Scotland, with the electrical and instrument engineering sector accounting for three quarters of that figure. Other exports include industrial gases, pharmaceuticals, paints, coatings and metal products.
I turn now to the textiles industry, which is the fourth largest sector in Scottish manufacturing. We have already had one debate this morning on textiles and my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) set out the particular problems that constituencies such as his in the borders are suffering. I shall not repeat the arguments, so I hope that the Secretary of State will understand if I do not refer too often to textiles, important as they are to Scotland.
A trawl through business news stories in Scotland over the past few years unveiled alarming events. However, for me, the problems in Scottish manufacturing manifested themselves abruptly when Continental Tyres suddenly announced the closure of its factory in Newbridge in 1999. Although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, as a local councillor
56WH
and someone who worked closely with the then hon. Member, Donald Gorrie, and a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Margaret Smith, I remember the devastating impact that that decision had on the people of Newbridge and surrounding villages. All in all, almost 800 jobs were lost and one of the community's major employers disappeared from the area. From then on, we in Scotland experienced announcement after announcement, job cuts after job cuts and closure after closure.
In 2001, despite the direct involvement of the Prime Minister and £20 million of Government grants, the mobile phone company, Motorola, confirmed its intention to close its factory at Bathgate to the west of my constituency in west Lothian. A local union official said that the whole community had depended on the plant and that the area would now be destroyed. Three months later, west Lothian was hit again when the electronics firm, NEC, announced 600 job losses at its plant in Livingston. The United Kingdom managing director of the company said that the semi-conductor trading situation was the worst ever encountered by the industry. Some people have been over-pessimistic about the situation in west Lothian. Its ability to recover has impressed many.
In November of that year came the announcement of Rolls-Royce to cut 400 jobs at its Hillington factory outside Glasgow after a downturn in the airline industry after 11 September.
This year, the trend has continued. In May, Newbridge in my constituency was hit again following the decision by Grampian Foods to close its Edinburgh site in what the Scottish Executive described as yet another "severe blow" to the area. More than 1,000 jobs have been lost in a year. Elsewhere, 650 jobs have been lost at the Erskine plant of Compaq—the computer firm—in addition to the 700 jobs that were lost the year before. About 400 jobs were cut when the Sanmina-SCI plant in Irvine closed, and Chunghwa Picture Tubes cut 600 jobs at Mossend in north Lanarkshire. NCR—the Dundee cash machine company and electronics firm—cut 150 jobs. Last week, APW Enclosures announced a plan to close its Scottish plant at Hamilton, with the loss of a further 300 jobs. It blamed the closure on the worst ever downturn in global information technology and computer markets.
I managed to get a note from the Library that sums up the whole matter. It shows the scale of the decline in manufacturing in Scotland. Between 1998 and the summer of 2002, more than 100,000 jobs in total have been lost in manufacturing, more than 30,000 of which were lost in the past year alone. Those are worrying figures, and I do not agree with those who say that the service sector can fill the gap created by the fall in manufacturing. Frankly, that could not happen, and even if it could, I doubt whether it is desirable. It is bad for the health of the economy for Scotland to be a nation of call centres. That is not to decry service sector jobs. In my constituency, for example, we hope that the completion of the Royal Bank of Scotland's global headquarters will give rise to the creation of a further 3,000 jobs. As the Select Committee on Trade and Industry commented, manufacturing output supports a large number of service sector jobs. A strong manufacturing sector is crucial if we are to create the knowledge-based economy that we all want.

57WH
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry admitted that the Government have made mistakes. In particular, she admitted that they had given the impression that they had given up on manufacturing. At the Labour party conference in Brighton, she said:
"We allowed the impression to grow that manufacturing did not matter … We had bought into the myth that manufacturing was a thing of the past."
I respect the Secretary of State's honesty and courage in admitting that mistakes have been made. However, I look forward to hearing the Minister say today that lessons have been learned from those mistakes.
In June, the Trade and Industry Committee produced a thorough report on the manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. It produced several key recommendations. I accept that they are not all the Government's responsibility, but the report posed some difficult and challenging questions for the Government to answer. The Committee found that the major obstacle to improving manufacturing was the longstanding shortfall in capital investment, which creates a serious challenge for the country's financial sector. It also found that UK companies find investment more expensive to service than do their European or American competitors.
It is clear that UK banks must re-examine their attitude to manufacturing and become more flexible and focused on the long term when considering their lending policies. I am keen to hear the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to encourage this sea change in attitude.
I welcomed the Government's manufacturing strategy paper, which they produced in May, and the seven pillars that the DTI believes are the basis for a successful future for manufacturing. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that it will take much more than words on paper to turn round the fortunes of the manufacturing industries, and I look forward to the right hon. Lady telling us what steps have been taken some seven months since the paper was published. I note with interest, however, that the first of the Government's seven pillars is macro-economic stability. That contrasts with paragraph 16 on page 10 of the Committee's report, which says:
"While we welcome the long-term macro-economic stability to which the Government is committed, we note that the stability achieved over the period 1997–2002 has not been accompanied by an increase in productivity in the manufacturing sector. In fact, the reverse has applied."
I was also interested to note that the Committee reported the experience of business and the unions, which found the burden of regulation in the UK to be considerable. They called for further relaxation of the administrative burden. Clearly, the Committee felt that it was an important issue, but none of the seven pillars in the Government strategy paper appears to deal with it, which is odd, given that the matter falls so clearly under DTI responsibility.
I should not have been surprised either by the lack of mention of the euro. Irrespective of whether one is in favour or against it, the on-going uncertainty is at best unhelpful and at worst detrimental to the long-term strategic planning of business.
Globalisation has brought new opportunities for Scotland, but it has also brought new challenges. The increase in international competition has forced many
58WH
companies to adopt even more efficient practices and structures and to produce cheaper goods of higher quality, which is not an easy square to circle. However, it remains clear that many companies have yet to adopt the best practice, which has been shown to improve productivity. The manufacturing advisory service clearly believes that companies can and should make greater use of lean manufacturing techniques and increased investment in information technology. I look forward to hearing what the Government are doing to help business in that regard.
Both the CBI and the National Skills Task Force highlighted the importance of making real improvements in the training of key management within companies. Responsibility for providing training and skills for workers and management in Scotland also falls under the Scottish Executive. There remains a need for work across government to ensure that the necessary skills are available to develop manufacturing. Once again, I am keen to establish what the Government have achieved in conjunction with the Scottish Executive.
Last August, the Centre for Economic Policy Research produced a report on Scottish manufacturing. I did not agree with the request for the Scottish Executive to cut income tax by 3p to encourage entrepreneurship. A year ago, the manufacturing summit concluded that the future for manufacturing lay in high technology, but that such a future would be realised only if there were investment in a high skill base. It will be no surprise that I, a Liberal Democrat, would rather see investment in education, training, IT and transport infrastructure before any tax cut.
I also agree with the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland when it said that the attacks were "misplaced" and that responsibility for red tape and employment and environmental legislation lies with Westminster and the EU, not with the Scottish Executive.
Before concluding, I accept that it would be wrong to pretend that the entire picture is doom and gloom. To be fair to the industry and to the Government, it is not all negative. The October announcement of new money to set up a wind turbine and generator engineering operation on the Isle of Lewes offers potential for new job opportunities in the area and will mean the reopening of the Arnish oil fabrication yard in Stornoway, which was closed three years ago.
The renewable energy sector has enormous untapped potential in Scotland and offers real promise for a boost to Scotland's manufacturing. It is widely accepted that Scotland has enormous strategic potential for making use of renewable resources. It offers Scotland exciting new possibilities and a prize that is there for the taking, if the Government, the Scottish Executive, local government and industry have the courage and determination to go out and win it.
Scotland's enterprise companies should now be actively and aggressively pursuing the manufacturing capability of engineering components to harness wind energy. From there, the construction of large-scale wave energy and tidal stream devices could provide further long-term stability for the manufacturing sector. Such success would require real direction and support from the Government, for which I look to the Minister today.
Aside from renewables, it would be wrong not to highlight the new Rolls-Royce £85 million manufacturing centre near Glasgow airport, which will

59WH
provide a welcome and much needed boost to the area. The managing director, Royan Anthony, said that the plans would provide a new centre of excellence for aerospace component manufacturing in Scotland. I wish the project well.
Closer to my own constituency, firms such as Excell Biotech in Livingston are flourishing in the expanding biotech market and making drugs that many of us hope will one day combat cancer and cystic fibrosis. There are good news stories, and it is important for balance, for the industry and for Scotland that they are highlighted. Regrettably, however, such announcements are fairly few and fail to make up for the on-going job losses across the industry.
I am conscious of the time and want to ensure that the Secretary of State has adequate time to address the points that I have raised. In conclusion, I have noticed in many instances that when anyone dares to utter concerns about the Scottish economy, they are rubbished as talking down Scotland. I hope that the right hon. Lady accepts that I have not done that today; I have merely tried to raise real concerns that I and many other hon. Members have about the problems in Scottish manufacturing and the trends in the industry over the past few years.
Mr. John MacDougall: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on the way in which he has introduced it. I share his concerns about the industry, but I want to highlight one or two of the points that he made. Does he accept that a key indicator for measuring the success of the economy is whether unemployment levels are better now than they were in, say, 1997? I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that they are. With regard to a sound economic policy, will he also accept that we could not measure the type of unemployment figures that he may be considering, although he may have had slightly better manufacturing—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a rather long intervention.
Mr. MacDougall: May I just say—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is becoming a speech, and Mr. Barrett has the floor.
John Barrett: I take the points that the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) raises. When it comes to improvements in unemployment levels, whether in manufacturing industry or in the growing service sector, it is important to consider the overall picture. The picture is certainly not of doom and gloom: there are some areas where there is real growth in the service sector. In my constituency in Edinburgh, and particularly on the west side of Edinburgh, there is phenomenal growth in the service sector, but there are other areas in Scotland.
As I said at the beginning, I requested the debate not to raise the parochial interests of my constituency, but to raise wider concerns about those areas in Scotland where manufacturing is vital. In some areas, the work
60WH
force that has been employed in manufacturing would like to see a continuation of manufacturing jobs, not a move to call centres only. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of States reply to the points that I have raised.
1.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on eventually securing the debate; I did not realise that it had taken him so long to come up in the ballot. I also congratulate him on a balanced speech. I was a little worried when I heard the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks: if he was trying to get on the right side of the Minister, he was not exactly going the right way about it. However, the speech was extremely balanced, as I said, and I would expect nothing less of him.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman pointed out the success of economic policies affecting his constituency, because the unemployment rate there is 2 per cent. It has fallen by almost 35 per cent. since 1998 and is an exemplar of what can be achieved in a community that has much of its basis in the service industry, not least the financial services sector.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the biotech industries, which are showing unprecedented growth in Scotland. Indeed, the growth of biotechnology in Scotland is outstripping growth throughout the European Union at something like 30 per cent. per annum, and we feel greatly encouraged by that. We are similarly encouraged by what is happening on software, despite the terrible catastrophe that happened in Edinburgh at the weekend and our anxieties about the artificial intelligence department at Edinburgh university. I hope that we will have reassuring news about that before too long.
Let me put the hon. Gentleman's remarks in context. I agree entirely with the statistic that he uses for manufacturing, and about the importance of the manufacturing sector to Scotland. I will not pretend that there are no difficulties, because the difficulties are apparent to all. Like the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, all the major economies throughout the developed world, Scotland has seen manufacturing companies struggle. In Germany, manufacturing output fell by 5 per cent. It fell by 6 per cent. in the USA, 14 per cent. in Japan and in the UK overall it is down by 5.5 per cent. He is concerned, as I am, about the fall in Scottish manufacturing output for the eight successive quarters up to 2002 and he acknowledges the impact of restructuring in the electronics sector. Our vulnerability in that sector is well recognised.
It is reassuring that the sharp decline in output was halted in the latest quarter. It was 0.2 per cent. down in quarter two, compared with quarter one, but there is no scope for complacency. Indeed, a large number of issues need to be addressed in a completely non-partisan way. They have been live in the Scottish economy for many years. There are structural issues about levels of skill, training and the nature of past investment in the Scottish economy. Our vulnerability to electronics, which we welcomed with open arms when that development came to Scotland, has meant that the corporate sector has perhaps not put enough emphasis on research and development.

61WH
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget extended the research and development assistance available to small firms to larger firms to ensure a bigger input of research and development activity in Scotland. Indeed, my friend and colleague, the First Minister of Scotland, is in Dundee today inaugurating a new intermediary technologies institute, which will help to stimulate research and development out of our universities to help industry on the ground to get that competitive edge.
There are specific issues relating to competition globally that we have to take into account. A number of low-cost labour markets that are anxious to secure manufacturing development are emerging. They include not just India and China, but the accession states into the European Union. That offers us an opportunity in that it expands markets, but it poses a challenge too. The main way to meet that challenge is through high added value. Scottish manufacturing has been highly successful in the high added value end of the market.
I am not sure whether British Aerospace is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or in the one adjacent to it. I was privileged to visit there recently to see the Eurofighter helmet, which is a world-beating example of Scottish engineering, manufacturing and research and development. That kind of development will never be the volume development that we have been used to in the past. We have to seek a situation where we can develop more broadly our manufacturing output.
Annabelle Ewing: While we are talking about the plight of the manufacturing sector in Scotland, will the right hon. Lady accept that as the greater part of Scotland's exports go to European Union member states, being outwith the eurozone is deeply damaging to Scotland's economy?
Mrs. Liddell: I note the significance that the hon. Lady attaches to the single currency. As a Government we are in favour in principle of joining a single currency, provided that the economic conditions are right. That is a very important point for Scottish manufacturing. We must be confident that the economic conditions are right. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he will evaluate the five economic tests between now and June 2003.
To look on the positive side—the hon. Gentleman was very fair in doing that—new technologies are transforming manufacturing as much as every other sector. We have to welcome the extent to which manufacturers are themselves embracing new technologies. I have one criticism. Everyone knocks call centres. People should bear in mind that many of the jobs in call centres, such as those in my constituency, are high-level jobs often filled by graduates and those with language and accountancy skills. They are significant generators of employment.
John Barrett: Will the right hon. Lady also agree that in many areas where manufacturing has been the traditional employment, the change to sitting in a call centre at an office-based computer is not the way forward?
Mrs. Liddell: I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We must get away from the notion that you
62WH
have to get dirty to have a good job. There are good jobs, where you do not necessarily get dirty, which have a high skill component. It is a tribute to people who have been prepared to change their careers that they have moved on to such employment. The hon. Gentleman cited Motorola and Continental Tyres; they are examples of where, with a co-operative partnership, effort by the Scottish Executive, the Department of Employment, the local authority and local employers, the majority of people can rapidly be found new employment. We congratulate people on doing that.
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the Government published the manufacturing strategy in May, strongly supported by many manufacturers, trade associations and the trade unions. About 18 months ago, our colleagues in the Scottish Executive published their own booklet entitled "Created in Scotland: the way forward for Scottish Manufacturing in the 21st Century". The Government and the Scottish Executive are committed to working together to harness the best of our high-skilled work force to ensure a future for manufacturing industry.
The hon. Gentleman almost dismissed in passing the impact of economic stability. Because we have had five years of macro-economic stability there is a danger that we take it for granted. Think back to the days when interest rates were 15 per cent. and think of the consequences that that had for industrial investment. The hon. Gentleman talked about capital investment; in his pre-Budget report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of his attempts to encourage capital formation on the part of UK companies, and that capital formation is made a lot easier because we have had the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s. Inflation has remained within the narrow band of between 1.5 per cent. and 3.2 per cent. since the 1997 election. That is a crucial platform for manufacturing industry for investment, innovation and enterprise in British and Scottish manufacturing.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman spotted a piece in yesterday's "Business a.m." about the poor take-up of the research and development tax credit in Scotland. That is an issue for us; we should all be working together to encourage Scottish companies to take advantage of the available opportunities and funding. I take the point that we must look at new means of encouraging companies to invest. The best way to do so is to allow them to keep more of the money that they earn. That is why the Government have reduced corporation tax. The UK now has the lowest ever corporation tax rates for small companies and the lowest starting rate among major industrialised countries.
Budget 2002 introduced a zero starting rate, which is very important. Many small companies in Scotland are unincorporated and as such they depend on low levels of personal taxation, which is aimed at helping them to get the necessary capital to allow their businesses to function.
I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point about regulation. The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are fair and effective, so that they protect the vulnerable but do not stifle enterprise or productivity. Our policy is to regulate only when necessary, and we have significantly strengthened the systems that control the regulatory burden. We are

63WH
recognised as providing a more entrepreneur-friendly environment than the United States and many other major EU countries, and fostering growth companies more effectively, as a recent survey shows. We work hard with the Scottish Executive at improving regulation.
Many of the drivers of significant change in the manufacturing sector relate to skills and the Scottish Executive has been upfront in taking forward the skills agenda. It is taking steps to drive forward productivity growth, working with the Government. With the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, I met the Chancellor yesterday specifically to talk about the productivity agenda and to discuss how we promote enterprise, innovation and skills throughout the country. Lifelong learning, which is driven in Scotland by the Scottish Executive, is a key to the Government's economic strategy. That partnership between the Executive and the Government is critical in driving forward the productivity agenda. The Government spend about £1.3 billion on in-work related training in Scotland. Learndirect is the Scottish Executive's one-stop shop to encourage people into learning.
The hon. Gentleman's points, which he raised in a very balanced way, are extremely important. We have to sit down and work out the inhibitors to productivity growth, and then work together to attack those inhibitors. The debate has been around for the better part of 30 years; we should now move towards a solution. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again.

Lymphoedema
1.29 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt: Twice in recent years I have suffered from a medical condition that affects around 100,000 men, women and children in this country every year. Its name is lymphoedema and it has a frequent associate, cellulitis. Very few people who have not known the condition in their immediate family would be able to name it or describe it. In brief, it is a chronic swelling due to the failure of the lymphatic system to drain properly.
The lymphatic system pervades our whole body and usually receives only cursory coverage during the training of general practitioners. Usually, when the lymphatic system is working properly, a clear liquid is squeezed from blood capillaries into our tissues by the pressure of the heart's pumping and it bathes all the living cells in our body. That liquid then flows back into the lymphatic ducts and is returned to the blood system through the lymph nodes in our groin, chest and armpits. The lymphatic system is part of our immune system, which is why infection is so common when it is working at less than 100 per cent. efficiency.
It is amazing that so few conditions that affect the lymphatic system are recognised as key areas for medical study or feature in the popular vocabulary. Contrary to the situation in some other European countries, I understand that no specialist lymphological consultants are employed in any hospital or university in this country.
Lymphoedema is typically associated with women who have had breast cancer and have suffered consequent damage to their lymphatic system from the cancer, from surgery or from radiography. It can be a chronic condition or it can be a one-off. It can come and go. The associated infection—the non-specific infection called cellulitis—can be excruciating, chronic and, in some cases, life-threatening. However, the condition is not exclusively related to cancer, as my own experience shows.
One evening in 1995, I developed an inexplicable fever and a terrible feeling of cold. That passed after a few hours, but by the next day a tickling sensation in one leg was followed by a swelling in my calf. By the following evening, a severe swelling and red discoloration of my entire leg had caused lameness. By the third day, the fever had returned, the swelling was worse and red lines were visible all the way up to my thighs, tracking the lymphatic vessels in the general direction of my kidneys. This was cellulitis. I was finally persuaded to see a doctor. I was rushed to hospital. Within an hour, I was completely lame and, by evening, my temperature had reached 104° F. I was given eight intravenous antibiotic injections every day for the next week. It was 10 days before I could walk again and I had to use walking sticks for about six weeks.
Apart from the intravenous antibiotics, the only treatment that I had was to have my leg elevated to help the drainage. I was given no massage, no physiotherapy and no advice on how to prevent the circumstances from arising again. However, at least I recovered. Interestingly, the word lymphoedema was not used throughout the period that I was in hospital.

65WH
In the middle of the general election campaign, it happened again. One afternoon, at 12.30 pm, I felt ill; at 2.30 pm, I phoned NHS Direct; by 4.30 pm, I had been diagnosed with cellulitis again and was back in hospital; and, by 6.30 pm, I was having intravenous antibiotics and my temperature had shot up yet again. However, this time I had recognised the symptoms and taken swifter action. NHS Direct had done its job and, although the symptoms were just as bad as before, at least my recovery time—just two or three weeks—was significantly faster.
Since that time, I have altered my lifestyle a little. I pay a sports masseur for a deep lymphatic massage two or three times a year. She often reports fluid retention that I was not aware of in my leg, and she shifts it manually. I have regular pedicures to keep the skin of my feet supple and to prevent it from cracking—which makes it more difficult for microbes to enter the skin.
Two episodes of cellulitis linked to lymphoedema have scared me so much that I do not want to go through that again. I am more acutely aware that lymphoedema is a chronic condition and a fact of life for some people and that cellulitis is therefore a constant risk.
I do not want to criticise the medical staff who treated me but I now understand the concerns of bodies such as the lymphoedema support network, which is a voluntary sector organisation that advocates and encourages self-help for lymphoedema sufferers and campaigns for better medical understanding and care. Most of its work is done with chronic lymphoedema sufferers. It believes that insufficient is being done to counsel sufferers on ways to avoid flare-ups of lymphoedema or cellulitis. It believes that the non-specific bacterial infection that causes cellulitis never really goes away in many cases. It also believes that there is widespread ignorance of prophylaxis in the medical professions.
For example, the network advises lymphoedema sufferers to keep a two-week supply of antibiotic tablets handy to treat cellulitis immediately, if it arises. However, it is very rare to find a general practitioner who will prescribe antibiotics under such circumstances.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), in a written answer last year said:
"specialist nurse training"—
for lymphoedema—
"is carried out mainly in the charitable sector by organisations such as Macmillan Cancer Relief and Marie Curie Cancer Care."—[Official Report, 23 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 570W.]
That reflects the high incidence of lymphoedema among cancer patients, and especially the one in four breast cancer patients who suffer from it. There is increasing evidence that prostate and gynaecological cancer patients are at a significant risk of lymphoedema and cellulites, although cancer specialists in our hospitals have little professional expertise in treating lymphoedema, with a few notable exceptions. People who have had their spleen damaged or removed are under an equivalent risk of the condition and the infection. However, private health insurers avoid lymphoedema and cellulitis like the plague, and people who suffer from the conditions find it very difficult to get private health insurance.
66WH
About 1 per cent. of pensioners in this country suffer from swelling that could be treated by specific physical therapy designed to improve lymph drainage, such as massage. Diuretics and prolonged treatment using pressure pumps are often wrongly prescribed by GPs to treat such swelling. They can, and do, cause further damage to such patients. Too many patients find that lymphatic clinics are simply not available, and even if they are, consultants and GPs alike are not always aware of their existence and do not routinely refer lymphoedema patients there.
A week's occupancy of a hospital bed taking antibiotics intravenously—as I did twice—is a very inefficient way of treating a condition that is relatively simple to avoid and of which it is relatively easy to identify high-risk patients. The present reactive response of treating the condition after it has arisen rather than preventing it makes no sense from a cost perspective. I might add, to give an international scale, that elephantiasis—the Minister will be familiar with it—which is a swelling of the legs commonly associated with water-borne tropical diseases, is an extreme and chronic form of lymphoedema that causes permanent changes to the tissues of the limbs and affects about 40 million people throughout the world.
The British Lymphology Society says that the treatment of lymphoedema should be relatively simple. It should consist of skin care to maintain good tissue condition and to reduce the risk of infection. External support and elastic compression garments, which can he used throughout the entire life of a person with a chronic condition, should be used to reduce lymph formation and to enhance its drainage capacity. There should be a programme of exercise to maximise lymph drainage without overexertion. Lymphatic drainage by simple hand movements that are designed to be easily accessible to patients and their relatives should be taught, because that allows people to self-massage to keep the lymph flowing. There should be prompt administration of antibiotics to cure cellulitis and to ensure that, if there is the risk of recurrent attacks, a prophylactic approach of taking antibiotics in advance of the problem arising should be adopted.
Clinics with experience of treating lymphoedema are listed on the BLS website. In the whole of Greater Manchester, only three national health service facilities are listed—predominantly associated with cancer—and only two in my county of Derbyshire. Lymphoedema patients who do not have cancer may not have access to the people who are likely to be able to refer them with knowledge to the correct clinic for the correct treatment. Every general practitioner's surgery should be able to offer such good quality advice to patients with lymphoedema, but that is not the case.
I end by putting seven specific questions to my hon. Friend the Minister. Why are statistics related to lymphoedema not collected centrally and not maintained by the NHS? Why is there no official NHS guidance on the treatment of lymphoedema? What plans does he have to ensure that lymphology has a higher profile in terms of GP training and academic research, perhaps through the creation of a chair of lymphology at a major training institution?
Will lymphoedema be specifically included in the preparations for the national service framework for long-term conditions, and, if not, why not? Is my hon.

67WH
Friend satisfied that the onus for medical care of lymphoedema patients appears to rest on nurses and the charitable and voluntary sectors rather than GPs in the NHS? Do patients receive specific guidance to access nurse services?
How can additional funding be provided not only for the treatment of lymphoedema, but for advice? The lymphoedema support network itself could be funded—it receives some 2,000 referrals for advice each year but has no statutory funding. The number of referrals is a fraction of the estimated 100,000 people who suffer from the condition each year.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his attention in the debate. He will know that lymphoedema is a major concern to many people. However, it is largely ignored by a medical establishment that simply does not find the condition sexy enough to develop a proper strategy for patients who are at risk of, or suffering from, a condition that is at best uncomfortable and unpleasant, and, at worst, very dangerous. Having suffered the condition myself, and knowing the pain and discomfort that it can bring over a long period, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond positively to my points.
1.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on securing this debate. All hon. Members will be sorry to hear that he suffers from lymphoedema. He describes in the most moving way how distressing the disease can be as well as the pain and the swelling of the limbs and the body that go with the complaint. There are many types of lymphoedema, including primary and secondary. The lymphoedema support network estimates that 2 per cent. of the United Kingdom population could be affected. My hon. Friend draws attention to the website.
There is currently no cure, but lymphoedema can be well managed with appropriate treatment. As my hon. Friend explained, such treatments consist of a combination of skin care, exercise, massage and compression garments or bandaging. In a few cases, it is possible to help surgically, for example, by transplanting lymph vessels.
My hon. Friend asked why we do not collect and maintain statistics on individual conditions such as lymphoedema. I understand why he, other hon. Members and voluntary organisations would like to have such information. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that we do not ask the NHS to compile such statistics because of the enormous range of conditions and diseases that exist.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. I ask the Minister to speak nearer to the microphone, as the Hansard reporter is having difficulty in hearing him.
Mr. Lammy: The administrative burden of developing and maintaining a conditions database would be huge and tremendously expensive, and it would divert energy and resources away from the main function of the NHS, which is treating patients.
68WH
However, we do have some statistics on finished consultant episodes of lymphoedema that I can share with the House. A finished consultant episode is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person might have several episodes within a year, but they show that since 1996 there have been around 2,000 such episodes a year.
Treatment for lymphoedema is generally seen as a supportive therapy. Good management will enhance the patient's quality of life and reduce morbidity. The condition can include infection, which sometimes leads to prolonged hospital admissions.
Mr. Levitt: I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to confirm that consultant episodes are a very small minority of all of the episodes, the vast majority of which would never reach consultant stage.
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend is correct. The condition pertains to both secondary and primary care. The information that the NHS currently collects shows that 2,000 people receive secondary care, so it is clear that that figure represents less than the overall total.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the fact that nurses are largely involved in the care of patients with lymphoedema. I think and hope that he will agree that once the initial diagnosis is confirmed, nurses should be able to manage the day-to-day treatment of patients with lymphoedema—or of some of them, at least. However, there will always be support from doctors, if that becomes necessary.
After diagnosis, patients will be able to access the full range of appropriate NHS services. If that is not the case, it is important that all of our constituents ensure that they are communicating with our new primary care trusts. We have devolved power in the NHS to those local trusts and they should be ensuring that the ranges of services from primary care through to secondary care, and their relationships with local hospitals, are bearing dividends for patients with this chronic disease.
My hon. Friend talked about poor service provision in the NHS. We start from a particular base, and I hope that the extra resources that we are putting into the NHS—such as the £40 billion that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced earlier this year—along with the reform, will bring better services across the board for patients with lymphoedema, and for others. That is our wish. We are all proud of our NHS, but it can do better.
I am, however, pleased to say that there are many examples of good practice throughout the country. I will mention two. In 1997 a clinic was established at St. George's Healthcare NHS trust to treat patients with primary lymphoedema and cancer. Other clinics in south-west London treat patients with cancer and lymphoedema, but the St. George's service also meets the particular needs of patients with non-cancer lymphoedema. St. George's provides a specialist service and receives nationwide referrals. That trust is also one of the places where academic and epidemiological work related to lymphoedema is progressing, including a recent study run by the lymphoedema epidemiology project group. Another good service is based at Arthur Rank house in Cambridge, where lymphoedema services are provided for patients with primary, secondary and palliative lymphoedema.

69WH
My hon. Friend asked for guidance on the treatment of lymphoedema to be made available to the NHS. I sympathise with that request. Although lymphoedema is a condition that is well understood and managed in the NHS, extra guidance would help raise the profile of that condition.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently developing guidance for supportive and palliative care as part of its cancer service delivery programme of work. That will provide guidance on best practice in supportive care for all cancers. The areas covered will include evidence-based recommendations for supportive care networks; information delivery and communication; inter-professional communications; symptom control and access to specialist palliative care. The guidance will underpin the development of supportive and palliative care strategy, which is one of the national cancer director's top priorities. It will complement the guidance relating to the current programme of cancer service delivery that covers the treatment of the main tumour groups. The guidance will help people with primary and secondary lymphoedema. I also understand that the British Lymphology Society has produced guidance on the use of manual lymphatic drainage and simple lymphatic drainage for lymphoedema, which can be downloaded from the BLS website. There is also a useful section on lymphoedema on the NHS Direct website.
My hon. Friend mentioned raising the profile of lymphology through GP education and academic research. I hope to deal with research later on, but I agree that the availability of appropriately trained staff is one of the key determinants of the quality of the care that a patient receives. Medical education is a continuum that begins at medical school and continues through basic and higher training and beyond through continuing professional development. Most doctors who are trained in the UK will work primarily in the NHS, so it is essential that the priorities of the NHS are identified and integrated throughout the training continuum. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the responsibility for the content, standards, management and delivery of medical education is properly shared between the professional regulatory bodies and others.
It is not practicable or possible, nor is it desirable, for the Government to prescribe exactly the training that each doctor should receive. There is no syllabus for general practice training. The training that each GP receives depends on the case mix and the patients that he or she sees during their time as a general practice registrar. Training for GPs will, however, always deal with a broad spectrum of health problems and will include information about the treatment and management of patients, their families and their carers. I am, as I have already said, sympathetic to what my hon. Friend suggests and I recommend that he take the matter up with the Royal College of Physicians. I can, of course, make a copy of this debate available to that society.
I have heard what my hon. Friend said about research. Recent research that has been carried out in Australia into the molecular mechanisms that control blood vessel growth has led to the identification of molecules that also regulate development and growth of the lymphatic vessels. That is generating a great deal of interest in the molecular control of lymphatics.
70WH
I hope that, over time, such research will provide a breakthrough in the understanding and treatment of lymphoedema. We must be realistic about such a process, however, and make sure that people understand that scientists are not offering immediate solutions. That research approach is no magic wand and it may be some years before an effective drug becomes available. Nevertheless, it is an important development and we remain in close touch with what goes on throughout the world.
The main research agency in this country through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, an independent body that receives grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC is not currently funding any research into lymphoedema. It did, however, fund a two-year trial entitled "Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic complications of radiotherapy in breast cancer patients". The trial ended in December last year and it is being followed up.
Since 1997, more than 30 research projects on lymphoedema have been carried out within the national health service or are ongoing. The largest of them are funded by charities, in particular, the Wellcome Trust. The Department meets the costs to the NHS in supporting the research. The remainder are carried out in-house with no direct funding. In addition, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has recently awarded a grant of £262,225 to the Institute of Cancer Research. The project will develop advanced imaging techniques for the clinical assessment of lymphoedema and tissue fibrosis that occur as side effects of breast cancer treatment.
The MRC always welcomes high-quality applications for support into any aspect of human health, including lymphoedema. They are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. The MRC does not as a rule earmark funds for particular topics, such as lymphoedema. When appropriate, high-quality research in all areas that the MRC is promoting may be given priority in competition for funds, but research excellence and importance to health will continue to be the primary considerations when making funding decisions. I will ensure that the chief medical officer brings the debate and my hon. Friend's request for more research into lymphoedema to the attention of the Medical Research Council.
My hon. Friend asked whether lymphoedema would be included in the national service framework for longterm conditions. National service frameworks are set out in the White Paper "The New NHS", and they are intended to set national standards and define service models for particular services or care groups. The NSF for long-term conditions will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological conditions and brain and spinal injury. We are also clear that that NSF must tackle some of the generic issues that affect a wide range of people with long-term conditions as well as their families and carers. It will not address lymphoedema directly, but the NSF is likely to set some general standards that will improve the quality of treatment and care for all people with long-term conditions.

71WH
My hon. Friend asked about sources of funding for voluntary sector organisations. The Department runs an annual award scheme, the section 64 general scheme, which represents the greatest single source of financial support that the Department provides to the voluntary sector. The closing date for this year's exercise has now passed, but there is nothing to stop voluntary organisations active in lymphoedema from applying in
72WH
next year's round. In 2001–l02, 575 grants totalling £21 million were awarded to about 400 voluntary organisations.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we are providing services that help patients cope with lymphoedema and that developments in research offer some hope for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Feroz Abbasi
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Mr. Feroz Abbasi, a constituent, will return to the UK; and whether Mr. Abbasi is being offered legal representation. [84334]

  Mr. MacShane
  We remain in regular contact with the US authorities over the situation of the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We have had no indication from the US authorities concerning Mr. Abbasi's return to the UK. Mr. Abbasi is not being offered access to legal representation at Guantanamo Bay.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan on Kashmir. [84335]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly raises our concerns in relation to Kashmir with the Governments of India and Pakistan, including during his most recent visit to the region on 18 to 20 July, and in his meetings with Indian Foreign Minister Sinha on 30 and 31 October in London, and with new Pakistani Foreign Minister Kasuri on 2 December in Bonn. Kashmir was also among the range of issues discussed during my visit to India on 16 to 20 October.

  Iran
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to help the Iranian authorities to improve their human rights record. [84336]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We frequently raise human rights issues with the Iranian authorities at all levels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the subject with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 2 December.

  We support the EU-Iran dialogue on human rights, with the aim of bringing about improvements in Iran's respect for human rights.

  We support dialogue with practical bilateral assistance (£230,000 since last year) through NGOs, for the judiciary, Prison Service and growth of civil society.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of recent developments in Israel on the peace process. [84337]
  178W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We look to the next Israeli Government, whoever leads it, to engage with the Palestinians and the international community in the implementation of the Quartet roadmap within the timeframe set out by President Bush on 24 June.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the roadmap process for peace in the middle east. [84346]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia) are agreeing a roadmap for progress towards a comprehensive settlement by 2005. They will be meeting on 20 December to review progress. When the roadmap is published, we will work with the international community to implement it. A conference of the parties involved in the peace process should be a key element of that roadmap.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards establishing a Middle East Peace Conference to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. [84328]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia) are agreeing a roadmap for progress towards a comprehensive settlement by 2005. They will be meeting on 20 December to review progress. When the roadmap is published we will work with the international community to implement it. A conference of the parties involved in the peace process should be a key element of that roadmap.

  Sudan
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help he is offering to further the reconciliation process in Sudan. [84338]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best).

  No Fly Zones (Iraq)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on allied action in the event of Iraqi attack against allied airplanes in the no-fly zone. [84339]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since late 1998, Iraq has waged a systematic campaign to shoot down allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. This is contrary to international law and inconsistent with UN resolutions. We only take action to protect our aircrew. UK and US pilots are authorised to respond to Iraqi attack in self-defence.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UN plans for a settlement in Cyprus. [84340]

  Mr. MacShane
  I understand the United Nations has tabled today to the two leaders in Cyprus an adjustment to their proposal of 11 November for a settlement to the
  179W
  Cyprus problem. We fully support the United Nations' efforts to secure a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in Cyprus.

  We now have within grasp an historic opportunity to reunite Cyprus, and to invite a reunited Cyprus to accede to the EU at the Copenhagen European Council this week.

  I urge the two leaders not to let this opportunity slip between their fingers.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the removal of Turkish troops from Cyprus as part of a settlement. [84357]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government support the UN proposals for a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus, which allow for there to be between 1,000 and 9,999 troops from both Greece and Turkey on the island. It is of course for the two sides in Cyprus to agree a settlement, but we believe the UN proposals to be workable and fair.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department provides to UK nationals of the Greek Cypriot community wishing to claim compensation for loss of land incurred as a consequence of the 1974 invasion; and if he will make a statement. [85380]

  Mr. Straw
  The proposals from the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan for a comprehensive settlement of Cyprus include arrangements for compensation to those who lost land in 1974. Her Majesty's Government are strongly urging both sides to settle on the basis of the UN plan. When, and if, a settlement has been agreed Her Majesty's Government will ensure that UK citizens who may qualify for compensation are properly informed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is with regard to the granting of compensation to those Greek Cypriots who lost land as a consequence of the 1974 invasion; and if he will make a statement. [85381]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government fully support the UN proposal for a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus Problem. Our aim is for a reunited Cyprus to be invited, at the Copenhagen European Council, to accede to the EU. We are urging both sides to come to a settlement before 12 December.

  The UN proposals contain provisions on the four core issues, including property and territory, which involve difficult compromises on both sides. While it is for the two sides in Cyprus to agree on details, the Government are of the view that the UN Secretary-General's proposals protect the interests of both sides and are a basis for agreement.

  Taiwan
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the Government of the People's Republic of China about Taiwan. [84341]
  180W
  Mr. Rammell
  On 15 July, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Chinese Foreign Minister that our position on Taiwan had not changed. We acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China, but we conducted discussions with the Taiwanese authorities on WTO-related trade issues.

  West Africa
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of France on relations between the UK and France in West Africa. [84342]

  Mr. Rammell
  In September at the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary and his French counterpart, Mr. Dominique De Villepin, jointly hosted a breakfast seminar on "New Partnership for Africa's Development" (NEPAD) with Foreign Ministers from 10 African countries.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last met Mr. De Villepin on 7 October to discuss the strengthening of the St. Malo accord and Franco-British co-operation in Africa. The Foreign Secretary thanked Mr. De Villepin for French assistance in evacuating British nationals caught up in the crisis in Ivory Coast.

  This discussion also touched on issues such as further practical co-operation in the areas of conflict management, and the implementation of the peace and security aspects of the G8 Africa Action Plan.

  Furthermore, the Foreign Secretary has regular exchanges with Mr. De Villepin on a range of African issues, either by telephone or correspondence.

  Our two countries are working together in the United Nations and through the European Union to ensure an holistic and strategic approach by the international community to conflict management in Africa. Indeed, we aim to further cement our co-operation in Africa at the Franco-British summit early next year.

  Central Africa
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Rwanda, the Congo and the Great Lakes region. [84343]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Great Lakes are dominated by the DRC and Burundi conflicts. The Pretoria Agreement (30 July) has seen Rwandan forces leave DRC. The DRC Government must now deal with the anti-Rwandan militia in DRC, and agree a transitional Government with the rebels (MLC and RCD-Goma).

  In Burundi, South African and Tanzanian mediation has sought a ceasefire between the Government and the FDD/FNL rebels. Agreement was reached on 3 December with the FDD. Questions remain on how this will be implemented and the implications for the FNL.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals to alter the basic law on Hong Kong, with particular reference to Article 23. [84344]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government has published outline proposals—but not yet draft legislation—on implementing Article 23. We have made clear to them that any legislation should be consistent with the principles of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong and the two UN human rights covenants.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Bangladeshi Government over religious persecution in that country. [84345]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our High Commission in Dhaka monitor closely reports of human rights abuses in Bangladesh. They have raised allegations of attacks against minorities on several occasions with the Bangladesh Government, both at a senior level in Dhaka and with regional government officials, encouraging them to investigate all allegations fully. This issue was also included in discussions in October between the visiting UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and senior members of the Bangladesh Government. The High Commissioner was present.

  Iraq
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the way commercial oil interests would be affected by a war against Iraq. [84347]

  Mr. Rammell
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. However, if military action were to occur, we do not believe that the loss of Iraqi oil supplies, even for an extended period of time, would significantly disrupt the fundamental balance of supply and demand in the world market.

  Human Rights
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the human rights position in(a) Tibet and (b) China. [84348]

  Mr. Rammell
  We continue to have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Tibet. We welcome, however, the releases this year of several Tibetan prisoners, including Ngawang Choepel, Chadrel Rinpoche, Jigme Zangpo and Ngawang Sangdrol. All of these were on the list of individual cases of concern that we have raised with the Chinese Government. We have also welcomed, along with EU partners, the recent visit of the Dalai Lama's representatives to China. We encourage both sides to continue to use dialogue to find a peaceful resolution to the Tibetan issue.
  182W
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised human rights issues when he visited China in July; my hon. Friend the Minister did the same when he visited in September; there have been two further rounds of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue (in May and November) at which a wide range of human rights issues were discussed, including Tibet.

  Visas (China)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the new regime in China with respect to progress with changes to the visa regime. [84349]

  Mr. Rammell
  Although the 16th Communist Party Congress in Beijing last month appointed a new Party leadership, China's new state leadership will not be elected until the National People's congress in March 2002. We have no plans to change our visa regime for Chinese nationals wishing to enter the UK.

  Amina Lawal
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government in the case of Amina Lawal. [84351]

  Mr. Rammell
  In September my noble Friend Baroness Amos, the Minister for Africa, raised with President Obasanjo HMG's concerns about the harsh sentences imposed under the Sharia penal codes. She emphasised the strength of feeling against them in the UK and reiterated HMG's opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances. The High Commission, together with EU partners, regularly raises our concerns about the sentences with the appropriate authorities in Nigeria.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Turkey to discuss Turkey's relations with the EU; and if he will make a statement. [84352]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Ankara on 3 and 4 December and held meetings with the Turkish President, Prime Minister and other leaders.

  He reaffirmed the UK's strong support for Turkey's membership of the EU and expressed the hope that the Copenhagen European Council would offer a firm date for accession negotiations to begin. He made clear that this would be on the basis of Turkey fulfilling the relevant criteria.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report of the UN Export Panel in respect of the exploitation of resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo. [84353]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK and other members of the Security Council are waiting for information to substantiate the claims made in the panel's latest report.
  183W
  The current panel's mandate expired on 18 October, and there is now no mechanism in place to take forward the panel's work. We are pressing, through discussions at the UN for a speedy resolution to this problem.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the UK is doing to secure international action to help prevent war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [84356]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has supported the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is best placed to consider appropriate action to address accusations of war crimes committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  UN Counter-Terrorism Committee
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the United Nations. [84354]

  Mr. Rammell
  Under UK chairmanship, the UK Counter-Terrorism Committee has now reviewed 180 initial and 100 follow-up reports from states setting out the actions they have taken to comply with UNSCR 1373. The committee has sent 206 letters requesting further information on these points to states and international organisations.

  The committee has focussed in its initial reviews on states' abilities to counter the financing of terrorism, and their progress in ratifying the 12 UN Counter-Terrorism conventions.

  The committee has also begun to compile requests from states for technical assistance towards reaching the standards set by UNSCR 1373. The committee continues to discuss such requests with suitable potential donors.

  EU Enlargement
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on EU enlargement. [84355]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce).

  Exports
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department's posts have given to British companies seeking to export to South East Asia in the last six months. [84358]

  Mr. Rammell
  During the period of 1 June 2002 to 30 November 2002, commercial staff in posts in South East Asia met and briefed 1,091 individual British business visitors; responded to 57 chargeable inquiries from British companies; received, briefed and provided support to 285 participants in 22 trade missions and 339 participants in 22 events under the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad scheme; visited 370 local companies to introduce British goods and services; issued 606 sales leads to British customers of Trade Partners UK's Sales Leads Service; lobbied on behalf of 184W
  44 British companies and organised 36 seminars and other promotional events to introduce British exporters to markets in South East Asia.

  Sierra Leone
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Sierra Leone. [84359]

  Mr. Rammell
  Good progress has been made in restoring peace to Sierra Leone. Disarmament was completed and the war declared over in January 2002. Credible and peaceful elections were held in May. Nonetheless, much remains to be done to consolidate the fragile peace. The UN peacekeeping mission, UNAMSIL, remains deployed throughout the country. It has begun to withdraw, in a phased process, which should last 18–20 months.

  The UK continues to play a leading role in building a lasting peace. Key post-conflict challenges include helping the Government of Sierra Leone to:
  reform the security sector;
  train and strengthen the capacity of the armed forces and police;
  reintegrate former combatants, returning refugees and the internally displaced;
  tackle corruption;
  promote justice (including through the establishment of the Sierra Leone Special Court) and reconciliation (through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission);
  introduce policies for managing and securing the diamond fields;
  strengthen democratic institutions and civil society;
  put in place effective public administration and management of public finances, rebuild the country's basic infrastructure and services; and
  develop industry and the economy.
  The UK is committing over £120 million of development assistance, including substantial budgetary support, to Sierra Leone over the next three years. This is in addition to our ongoing commitment of over 100 UK military personnel to the UK-led International Military and Advisory Training Team (IMATT). We continue to provide substantial support to humanitarian agencies.

  The ongoing conflict in Liberia, and President Taylor's regime, which has not yet met the demands of the Security Council and continues to breach UN sanctions, remain a threat to the peace in Sierra Leone. Through the Liberia Contact Group and other mechanisms we are seeking a peaceful solution and real reform in Liberia.

  Burundi
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the ceasefire talks between CNDD-FDD and the transitional Government of Burundi. [84645]

  Mr. Rammell
  A ceasefire agreement was signed on 2 December 2002 in Arusha between the CNDD-FDD and the Transitional National Government of Burundi.

  Iraq (Human Rights)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the evidential basis is
  185W
  for his statements on pages 4, 8 and 9 of his document "Saddam Hussein: Crimes and Human Rights Abuse", concerning the treatment of women. [85625]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: There is no statement about Iraqi women on page 4 of the report. Statements on pages 8 and 9 of the report are from sources including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other NGOs.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what PFI/PPP projects each of the security services has been engaged in; and if he will make a statement. [86231]

  Mr. Straw
  The only PFI project involving the security and intelligence agencies is the provision and servicing of new accommodation for GCHQ.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will ask the Church Commissioners to benchmark the employment rights of UK clergy in comparison to those in other EU countries. [85515]

  Mr. Bell
  This would be a matter for the Archbishops' Council's Ministry Division. The Council has no plans to do so. Such a benchmarking exercise would be difficult to devise in view of the very wide range of employment rights applicable to clergy in other EU countries. Some clergy have little formal protection while others are employed on the equivalent of civil service terms.

  Tenancy Rights
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the tenancy rights of clergy who live in church properties. [85179]

  Mr. Bell
  Incumbents have ownership as a corporation sole of their parsonage houses, although their power to dispose of their houses is qualified. Their ownership ends on resignation, retirement or with pastoral reorganisation, or on removal from office for disciplinary offences, pastoral breakdown or if they become too infirm to continue in ministry. The rights and responsibilities of incumbents with respect to their houses are laid down in the Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure 1972.

  Team rectors have the same security as incumbents for the term of years for which they are appointed. Unless they resign or reach retirement age, they can only he removed from office during the period of their licences for disciplinary offences, on grounds of serious pastoral breakdown or infirmity.

  Other clergy, about 40 per cent., do not have freehold of office. They include priests in charge and assistant curates. They may occupy their accommodation by virtue of licences under which they themselves would
  186W
  ordinarily make no rental payment. In these circumstances an occupier would not be entitled to remain in possession after the licence came to an end.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will name those persons she appointed to public bodies in October. [84925]

  Ms Hewitt
  The names of the individuals appointed to DTI public bodies during the course of October, the bodies to which they were appointed and the effective date of the appointments have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Broadband Advisers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the application of Nolan Rules to the appointment of(a) a city councillor and (b) deputy chairman of a regional assembly as a full-time DTI regional broadband advisor. [85244]

  Mr. Timms
  The 12 men and women appointed as regional broadband advisers or coordinators, who form part of the UK Broadband Task Force, are contract employees or secondees from industry and not civil servants. They were selected on merit through open competition and a range of backgrounds was sought to give the Task Force the necessary mix of skills and experience. In the case of the South West region, the political activities of the successful candidate were set out in full in his application.

  Carbon Trust
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding has been allocated by the Carbon Trust; and who has received allocations. [83436]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Carbon Trust was launched in April 2001 to support UK business and the public sector in reducing their Carbon emissions while maintaining competitiveness. The Carbon Trust is a private nonprofit company that receives funding of around £50 million per annum from Defra and the Devolved Administrations. About two-thirds of its current funding comes from recycled receipts from the Climate Change Levy. As a private company the management of its programmes and decisions on the allocation of funding, are a matter for the Carbon Trust Board.

  Counterfeit Goods
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been for trading counterfeit goods, broken down by type, under the Trademarks Act 1994, in each year since 1994. [85308]
  187W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information about the number of prosecutions under the Trade Mark Act 1994 is not currently collated centrally and would cost a disproportionate amount to collect.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been for trading counterfeit goods, broken down by type, under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, in each of the last ten years. [85309]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Annex Dl of the Office of Fair Trading's Annual Report 2001 contains details of local authority prosecutions under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 (www.oft.gov.uk/News/Annual + report/annexes.htm). These tables are compiled from information supplied voluntarily by the local authority trading standards service and environmental health departments.

  Departmental Posts
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ethnic minority persons are employed at each grade in her Department. [84924]

  Ms Hewitt
  We monitor ethnicity through a voluntary survey of staff. The latest data show that 659 persons have indicated that they are of ethnic minority origin. The table gives a breakdown of that number according to DTI ranges.

  DTI Range

  Number of persons

  2

  44

  3

  60

  4

  180

  5

  67

  6

  122

  7

  39

  8

  69

  9

  29

  10

  30

  11

  14

  Senior civil servant

  5

  Total

  659

  DTI Ranges

  Civil Service Grade Equivalent

  2

  AA

  3 and 4

  AO

  5 and 6

  EO

  7 and 8

  HEO

  9

  SEO

  10

  Grade 7

  11

  Grade 6

  Senior civil servant

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the recent comments of the Chief Executive of British Trade International, regarding the effect on foreign investment of regulation. [85408]

  Ms Hewitt
  Sir Stephen Brown's comments on regulation were seriously misrepresented by The Times. Sir Stephen stated that inward investors liked the UK's
  188W
  light regulatory regime and low taxation compared with our continental neighbours. The UK is the number one location in Europe for inward investment. We aim to keep it there.

  Insurance Premiums
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to meet representatives of the building, construction and roofing industries to discuss the level of insurance premiums; [85824]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of changes in insurance costs on construction and building (a) profitability and (b) training; [85826]

  (3) what her Department estimates will be the impact on employment in the construction industry as a result of changes in insurance premium tax. [85822]

  Mr. Wilson
  Earlier this year my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction met my noble Friend Lord Pendry and a delegation from the National Federation of Demolition Contractors (NFDC) to discuss rising insurance premiums and the impact on the demolition industry. There have also been a number of meetings between construction industry trade associations and my officials to discuss concerns about increased premiums in the Industry. We are keen to have the views of all affected industries, including building, construction and roofing, on the forthcoming review of the Employer Liability Insurance scheme being led by the Department of Work and Pensions. This review was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-budget report and further details will be announced shortly.

  There is no simple answer to the impact of changes in insurance costs on construction and building profitability or levels of training.

  The rise in insurance premiums is due to a number of factors, including the rise in the use of litigation, insurance companies clawing back losses from previous years (September 11 effect); a change in risk profiles within industries (effect of asbestos risk and other occupational injuries within construction); and better modelling of individual company risk. We do not yet know, however, which of these effects predominates.

  The impact on profitability and training will depend on which of these effects predominates.

  There has been no change to the current 5 per cent. rate of insurance premium tax (IPT) since July 1999. I am not aware of any impact on employment in the construction industry as a result of changes to the IPT rate before that date.

  Trade Promotion
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what facilities exist for the promotion of trade between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand; which Australian companies have over £10 million invested in the UK; and which UK companies have over £10 million invested in Australia. [85696]
  189W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Trade Partners UK (TPUK) organises a wide range of activities designed to promote trade between the UK and Australia, Canada and New Zealand. These include assisting British companies through schemes like the Outward Mission Support Scheme, the Inward Mission Support Scheme, and the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad Scheme. Much of this assistance is aimed at helping companies to prepare for and enter these overseas markets for the first time.

  An example of this is Export Canada. This is specifically aimed at SMEs that are new or inexperienced exporters; it is a mentoring programme which outlines the current state of the market for companies' products/services, and offers advice on marketing in North America and exhibiting at trade fairs.

  The TPUK network delivers services coordinated by British Trade International, the organisation set up in May 1999 to take lead responsibility within Government for trade development and promotion.

  The DTI has been notified of the following Australian companies that have indicated that they would invest £10 million or more over a three year period in the UK. These are AMP, Amcor Packaging (Europe) Ltd., Colonial Ltd., Hamilton Oil Company Ltd., Lend Lease Corporation Ltd., QBE Insurance Group Ltd., Medical Imaging Australia Ltd., Sims McIntyre Metals Ltd., Sky Television Plc, Spotless Group Ltd., and Wine Planet.

  Numerous British companies have significant investment in Australia. However the DTI does not collate such information and no comprehensive record of investment by UK companies in Australia is held centrally. According to figures from the Office of National Statistics, the book value of UK investment in Australia at the end of 2000 was £10 billion.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Combined Heat and Power
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the installed capacity for combined heat and power in the UK is; and how many combined heat and power plants in the United Kingdom(a) currently operate and (b) are due to become operational before 2010. [85109]

  Mr. Morley
  The DTI's UK Digest of Energy Statistics gives a figure of 4,801 MWe at the end of 2001 for good quality CHP capacity in 1,573 plants. The number of plants currently operational is largely unchanged. There is no Government estimate of the number of plants due to become operational before 2010.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce the funding for the Horticultural Research Institute for the next five years. [85214]

  Mr. Morley
  We are now studying the results of a public consultation exercise on the Quinquennial Review of Horticulture Research International which was published on 23 September. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Cod Stocks
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated into the effect of the three-year-old cod recovery programme in the Irish Sea on cod stocks. [84451]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have reviewed the information collected for the annual assessment of stocks by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and groundfish surveys conducted this year. There is some evidence that fishing mortality has reduced and that there has been a small increase in cod spawning stock biomass— although the latter is still well outside safe biological limits. There is, however, no definitive evidence that these are due solely to the recovery plan nor that they can be sustained without further significant action.

  Coffee Market
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will raise the coffee rescue plan at the forthcoming International Coffee Organisation meeting. [85548]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Oxfam launched its report "Mugged: poverty in your coffee cup", which included their coffee rescue plan, at the International Coffee Organisation on 18 September 2002. The plan has, therefore, already been raised in that forum. The UK is currently engaged in dialogue with interested parties about the Oxfam report.

  DEFRA will represent the UK at the meeting of the ICO on May 2003, as part of the EU delegation. The UK will use its input into the meeting to continue to press for greater sustainability in coffee production.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the grants funded by her Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if she will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82184]

  Alun Michael
  Across the whole range of DEFRA's responsibilities there are a considerable number of grants available to individuals and groups and their size and scope varies enormously. For that reason the information requested is supplied by subject area as follows

  Land Use and Rural Affairs

  The table gives the breakdown of DEFRA's direct expenditure by grant scheme. Because of disproportionate cost, these figures do not include grant schemes administered by our non-departmental public bodies and agencies in pursuance of their responsibilities carried out on DEFRA's behalf. These include the Countryside Agency, English Nature, National Parks, Broads Authority and the regional development agencies.
  191W

  Grunt Scheme1

  Funding 2001–02 (£000)

  New awards in 2001–02

  Leader II

  1,200,000

  0

  Objective 5b

  24,500,000

  0

  Objective 1

  37,660,000

  36

  Farm waste grant scheme

  23,000

  5

  Farm business advice service

  7,000,000

  4,411

  Planning consultancy advice scheme

  107,000

  134

  Environment

  Grant scheme1

  Funding 2001–02 (£)

  Awards

  Darwin Initiative for Biodiversity Projects

  3,000,000

  31 new projects

  47 existing projects

  Section 13 of the Industrial Development Act

  112,000

  6 awards

  National Security in the Water Industry

  2,900,00

  15 awards

  "Environmental Know-How" Fund (Funded jointly with DfID. DEFRA funded £2 million of the total grants in 2001–02)

  6,975,000

  42 projects

  Environmental Action Fund

  4,200,000

  112 grams

  Energy Saving Trust (funded jointly with DTI, DtT and the devolved Administrations, as well as by the private sector).

  22,000,0002

  About 10 per cent. of DEFRA's funding was used for grants.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (now marketed as the Warm Front Team)

  Over 154,000,000

  Installed heating and insulation measures in some 310,000 fuel poor homes

  1 The administration of grant programmes is carried out by a number of different units within the Department to which a range of staff make a contribution. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of these costs centrally.

  2 About 10 per cent. of which was used for grants.

  Fisheries

  DEFRA administers the EU fisheries grants in the Objective 1 areas of Cornwall and Merseyside and in the areas of England outside Objective 1. Figures are held by calendar year, not financial year. The amounts of EU and national grant awarded in 2001, and the numbers of awards were as follows:

  EU fisheries grants1

  EU and national grant (£) in 2001

  Awards

  Cornwall

  2,752,835

  40

  Merseyside

  2,250

  1

  Areas of England outside Objective1

  6,802,764

  46

  1 The administration of grant programmes is carried out by a number of different units within the Department to which a range of staff make a contribution. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of these costs centrally.

  Food and Farming

  Grant Scheme

  Funding 2001–02 (£)

  Awards

  Admin. costs

  Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme

  13,860,399

  890

  35,554

  Agriculture Development Scheme1,2

  877,762

  28

  —

  Sector Challenge Scheme2,3

  104,085

  8

  —

  1 Grants awarded between 1999 and 2000–28 beneficiaries received payments totalling £877,762 in 2001–02.

  2 Changes in the organisation of work mean that a separate administration figure for these schemes could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  3 Grants awarded in 1997 — eight beneficiaries received payments totalling £104,085 in 2001–02 (this scheme is now closed)

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who sets the annual Environment Agency budget in the Wessex region; and who is responsible for controlling budgets in regions. [86221]
  192W

  Grant Scheme1

  Funding 2001–02 (£000)

  New awards in 2001–02

  ERDP (10 schemes)

  167,200,000

  26,089

  Rural stress action plan

  300,000

  3

  Total

  237,990,000

  30,678

  1 The administration of grant programmes is carried out by a number of different units within the Department to which a range of staff make a contribution. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of these costs centrally.

  Mr. Meacher
  The Agency does not have a Wessex region. That region of the former National Rivers Authority (the Agency's predecessor body) was subsumed within the Agency's south west region on its establishment in 1995.

  With the exception of its flood defence functions, the Environment Agency determines its own regional budgets. The delivery of local plans within budget are managed by the appropriate Agency regional management team led by the Regional Director.

  Budgets for the Agency's flood defence function are set by local executive flood defence committees who also receive progress reports. Although the Wessex region disappeared, a Wessex region flood defence committee remains.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will calculate the total percentage reduction in the number of days at sea proposed by the European Commission for 2003 for vessels capturing and landing(a) over 100 tonnes of cod and (b) less than 100 tonnes of cod in the (i) North Sea, (ii) Irish Sea, (iii) West of Scotland Waters, (iv) ICES Area VIId and (v) ICES Area VIIe; [85504]

  (2) if she will calculate the percentage reduction in the number of days at sea proposed by the European Commission for 2003 for vessels capturing and landing (a) over 100 tonnes of hake and (b) less than 100 tonnes of hake in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea area covering the northern hake stock. [85503]
  193W
  Mr. Morley
  The Commission has now adjusted its proposal and no longer envisages a distinction between vessels landing over 100 tonnes of cod or hake and others. We are seeking clarification of the Commission's proposals before undertaking the calculation requested.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements are proposed by the European Commission for 2003 to restrict fishing effort for the capture of cod and landing of cod using static gear as a method of capture in the(a) North Sea, (b) West of Scotland Waters, (c) Irish Sea and (d) ICES Area VII. [85505]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission proposal for effort control envisages limitation of vessels by kilowatt/days. However, the Commission has also indicated that as part of its proposals to reduce discards, it will bring forward proposals next year for technical measures aimed specifically at limiting effort by static gear.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions are being proposed by the European Commission to the number of days at sea during 2003 for vessels under 10 metres in overall length capturing and landing cod in the ICES Sea Areas(a) North Sea, (b) Irish Sea, (c) West of Scotland Waters, (d) Area VIId and (e) Area VIIe. [85506]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission proposals envisage cuts in the total number of kw/days for each Member State whose vessels fish cod or hake. However, the Commission proposes that it should be left to Member States to determine which vessels should be restricted in their time at sea and thus whether under 10 metre vessels should be subject to controls.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions are being proposed by the European Commission for 2003 for vessels capturing and landing cod within the UK 6—mile and 6–12 mile limit in the sea areas(a) North Sea, (b) Irish Sea, (c) West of Scotland Waters, (d) Area VIId and (e) Area VIIe [85507]

  Mr. Morley
  The measures include the annual TACs—and quotas regulations, the cod and hake recovery plans and the discard action plan.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which sections of the Fisheries Act 1981 and its amendments and attachments will be used to continue the present fisheries management system if no new system is put in place by 1 January 2003. [85509]

  Mr. Morley
  If no new system is put into place on 1 January 2003, the existing CFP arrangements will roll over automatically with one exception. The arrangements providing for restricted access to the six and twelve mile zones will lapse. The Fisheries Act 1981 has no relevance in this regard.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of(a) sand eel and (b) Norway pout Norway has been allowed to catch in European Union waters in each of the last five years. [85510]
  194W
  Mr. Morley
  The data requested are set out in the table.

  tones

  Norway pout

  Sand eel

  1998

  20,000

  30,000

  1999

  20,000

  30,000

  2000

  20,000

  30,000

  2001

  10,000

  30,000

  2002

  5,000

  35,000

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she intends to take to prevent the killing of dolphins in UK waters as a result of fishery bycatch. [86255]

  Mr. Morley
  Reducing the incidental bycatch of small cetaceans will require action on the part of all member states involved in the fisheries concerned, not just the UK. Defra has already committed some £140,000 for trials into the use of exclusion devices developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) to reduce the bycatch of cetaceans in pelagic trawl fisheries. The trial has been resumed in order to refine the system and further assess the grid's effectiveness in protecting dolphins and maintaining fish catch rates. If SMRU's trials are not successful, we will look at other mitigating measures and I do not rule out any approach at this stage—including arguing for restrictions on fishing, gear or seasonal closures.

  Flooding Incidents
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many incidents of flooding have occurred in the last three years where raw sewage was involved in the contamination of people's homes and property; and if she will make a statement. [85871]

  Mr. Morley
  OFWAT collects information on the number of properties which have been subject to internal sewage flooding. In 2001–02, there were 4,957 properties flooded in this manner, in 2000–01 7,120 properties, and in 1999–2000, 7,126 properties. The dry winter in 2001–02 contributed to the lower figure in this year.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the United Kingdom greenhouse gas emissions were in(a) 1990 and (b) in each year since 1997; what percentage of these emissions came from the electricity supply industry in (i) 1990 and (ii) in each year since 1997; and what her most recent estimate is of how annual UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 will differ from 1990 levels. [85421]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The table shows the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 and from 1997 to 2000, the last year for which data are available, and also the percentage of these emissions that came from the electricity supply industry. The rise in emissions between 1999 and 2000 were mainly due to

  195W
  an increased use of coal in the energy mix because of maintenance and repair at nuclear and combined cycle gas turbine stations and higher gas prices.

  We estimate that the policies and measures outlined in the climate change programmes may help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010, which would be equivalent to about 160 million tonnes of carbon.

  1990

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Greenhouse gases

  207.8

  191.0

  190.7

  180.8

  181.1

  Percentage of emissions from electricity supply industry

  27.7

  21

  21.6

  21.8

  23.6

  Horticulture
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her strategy for horticultural renewal and development. [85216]

  Mr. Morley
  We plan to publish early next year for public comment, a draft Science and Innovation Strategy. This will be accompanied by more detailed proposals for programmes of research including horticulture.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish Professor Sir Colin Spedding's "Vision for Horticulture". [85217]

  Mr. Morley
  Sir Colin Spedding's report "A Vision for Horticulture" was published in draft for consultation on 29 January. The final version of the report, which was substantially unchanged from the draft, was submitted to the Department in March and is available on the Defra website and in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of the East Mailing Organic Horticultural Research Unit; and when it was completed. [85215]

  Mr. Morley
  The Organic Research Centre cost £2.761 million of which £2.261 million was provided, following a competition for projects, by the Treasury's Capital Modernisation Fund; and £500,000 by the East Mailing Trust for Horticultural Research. The Centre was completed in August 2002 and opened on 20 September 2002.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) cost and (b) annual salary will be of restructuring HRI after its quinquennial review. [85218]

  Mr. Morley
  The costs of restructuring HRI will depend on the options chosen for successor organisations. We are considering these and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Organic Farming Schemes
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to 196W
  her answer of 20 November 2002, Official Report, column 166W, on organic farming schemes, if she will list the beneficiaries under the Organic Farming Scheme and the Organic Aid Scheme as a proportion of the total number of (a) farms and (b) farmers, broken down by region. [85344]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: Information on the Organic Farming Scheme and the Organic Aid Scheme is held by beneficiary. The latest numbers that we have by beneficiary are as at November 2002 and are as follows:

  Region

  Total

  East Midlands

  178

  Eastern

  160

  London

  1

  North East

  51

  North West

  149

  South East

  285

  South West

  873

  West Midlands

  256

  Yorks/Humber

  120

  Grand Total

  2,073

  The latest information that we have for the total numbers of (a) holdings and (b) farmers is taken from the June 2001 Agricultural and Horticultural Census. The figures show the total holdings and total full and part-time farmers, partners, directors and spouses if working on the holding.

  Region

  Total holdings

  Total

  East Midlands

  Total holdings

  19,095

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  25,433

  Eastern

  Total holdings

  21,054

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  27,325

  London

  Total holdings

  434

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  543

  North East

  Total holdings

  6,073

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  8,598

  North West

  Total holdings

  21,048

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  28,682

  South East

  Total holdings

  22,461

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  27,673

  South West

  Total holdings

  44,861

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  57,218

  West Midlands

  Total holdings

  23,247

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  31,076

  Yorks/Humbs

  Total holdings

  19,661

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  27,280

  Grant Total

  Total holdings

  177,934

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses

  233,828

  Note

  Spouses are included only if working on the holdings

  PSA Targets
  Mr. David Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out(a) financial resources against PSA targets and (b) staff numbers against PSA targets in her Department. [86274]

  Alun Michael
  Defra cannot provide information on financial resources and staffing against each its PSA targets and these will include an analysis of the financial resources and staffing required to deliver each target. We expect the Delivery Plans to be ready for implementation by April 2003 following the confirmation of internal budgets for 2003–4.

  Raw Sewage
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason raw sewage was pumped into the River Wylye Special Area of Conservation and SSSI at Hanging Langford near Salisbury on 2 December; who authorised it; if she will set in hand immediate research on the environmental impact; and if she will make a statement. [85496]

  Mr. Morley
  The emergency discharge of sewage into the river was made to avoid sewer flooding of properties, resulting from inundation of the sewerage system, following exceptionally high levels of rainfall. Such discharges are permitted under the Water Resources Act 1991 and do not require prior authorisation.

  The Environment Agency was informed of the discharge by the water company and inspected the site on 2 December. They found that the water company had provided a screen to minimise the aesthetic effects of the discharge, that the discharge was extremely dilute owing to the volume of water in the system and further diluted by high flow in the river. The Agency is satisfied that the discharge caused no significant environmental impact.

  Rural Checklist
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish her Rural Checklist for other Government departments; and if she will list those rural officers in other Government departments responsible for Rural Proofing. [86441]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency's rural proofing checklist is used across Government for rural proofing and can be viewed on the Agency's website at http://www.countryside.gov.uk/ruralproofing/checklist.htm. Hard copies are also available from the Agency's Rural Proofing Studies Unit at Dacre House, Dacre Street, London, SW1H 0DH. This is also the first point of contact for inquiries regarding rural issues. If necessary, inquiries will be referred by the unit to appropriate contacts across Whitehall. A list of names of departmental rural contacts, who meet regularly, is not published as personnel and machinery of Government changes mean that any published list would be out of date fairly quickly.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what rural transport projects have been funded by the Countryside Agency in each of the last three years; what the average time was between the submission of funding proposals for such projects and a decision being made; what the average wait has been for allocation of funding for such projects which have been approved; and how many of these projects which have been approved are awaiting the release of funds. [85246]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency has funded five transport grant programmes in the past three years on behalf of Defra. The Rural Transport Development Fund merged with the Rural Transport Partnership scheme in March 2001. The Parish Transport Grant has been running since April 2001. These three projects 198W
  solely fund transport projects in rural areas. Two other schemes, the Wider Welcome and Market Towns programme, fund some transport related projects, but in the following table the data are integrated within the Rural Transport Partnership and Parish Transport Grant figures. This is due to the way the data is collected by the Countryside Agency.

  Scheme

  Period

  Number of projects supported

  Average time for decision

  Number of projects awaiting release of funds

  Parish Transport Grant

  2001–02

  41

  10 days

  0

  22002–03

  76

  10 days

  109

  Rural Transport Development Fund1

  2000–01

  111

  3—

  0

  Rural Transport Partnership

  2000–01

  69

  3—

  0

  2001–02

  278

  19 days

  0

  22002–O3

  221

  10 days

  581

  1 Rural Transport Development Fund was merged with the Rural Transport Partnership in April 2001.

  2 Data from 1 April 2002 to 1 November 2002.

  3 Not available.

  The Countryside Agency send out grant award letters immediately upon approval. All the projects currently being delivered are awaiting release of some funds, as no more than 90 per cent. of project funding can be released until the project is complete.

  Slurry Contamination
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2002,Official Report, column 169W, on slurry contamination, how many fines were issued for slurry contamination and what the average fines were, broken down by region, in each of the last 15 years; [85369]

  (2) how many cases of slurry contamination have occurred in each region in each of the last 15 years. [85350]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The table as follows shows the number of water prosecutions involving all types of agricultural pollution (including slurry pollution), by Environment Agency region, for the years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. It is to not practicable to assemble enforcement data before 1 April 1999, when the Agency's National enforcement Database went live. In my answer of 20 November I explained that from the beginning of 2003 the Agency's database will be able to provide information on specific pollutants such as slurry, but information is not currently held at this level of detail.

  £

  Region

  Number of fines

  Average fine

  Year 1999

  Anglian

  4

  4,875

  North-West

  3

  2,667

  Southern

  1

  1,500

  Welsh

  1

  2,500

  Year 2000

  Anglian

  3

  5,333

  Midlands

  3

  15,333

  North-West

  1

  5,000

  South-West

  4

  1,913

  Southern

  1

  2,000

  199W

  £

  Region

  Number of fines

  Average fine

  Year 2001

  Anglian

  5

  3,800

  Midlands

  4

  4,275

  North-East

  1

  1,000

  North-West

  2

  3,000

  South-West

  1

  3,000

  Southern

  4

  3,625

  Thames

  2

  5,750

  Welsh

  1

  5,000

  Year 2002

  Anglian

  1

  5,000

  North-East

  1

  3,500

  Southern

  1

  3,000

  Trawling
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it the policy of the Government to outlaw(a) industrial trawling and (b) pair trawling for pelagic species. [84464]

  Mr. Morley
  Reducing the incidental bycatch of small cetaceans will require action on the part of all member states involved in the fisheries concerned, not just the UK. Defra has already committed some £140,000 for trials into the use of exclusion devices developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) to reduce the bycatch of cetaceans in pelagic trawl fisheries. The trial will be resumed as soon as the commercial fishery restarts, in order to refine the system and further assess the grid's effectiveness in protecting dolphins and maintaining fish catch rates. If SMRU's trials are not successful, we will look at other mitigating measures, and I do not rule out any approach at this stage—including arguing for restrictions on fishing, gear or seasonal closures.

  Urban Foxes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups on the release of captured urban foxes into the countryside; and if she will make a statement. [84624]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department holds discussions from time to time with the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations on managing wild mammals, including foxes, where they are perceived to be a problem.

  It is not an offence to capture foxes and release them elsewhere, provided the person concerned does not contravene the legislation that provides general protection for wild mammals against cruelty and ill-treatment. The Department does not recommend the use of re-location as a method of managing foxes. This is well understood by groups like the RSPCA who are opposed to this practice. We are not aware of any other established welfare groups who favour relocation as a method of managing foxes. Because of their territorial nature, foxes moved to another area would be likely to fight with any others already established there. This
  200W
  could lead to injury and death among the foxes. Anyone experiencing problems with urban foxes should contact Defra for advice on 0845 601 4523 (local rate).

  Waste Management
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the use of(a) waste incineration, (b) landfill dumping and (c) recycling of household waste in (i) Lancashire, (ii) the north-west of England and (iii) the UK. [85328]

  Mr. Meacher
  Municipal waste tonnages and percentages for the disposal methods requested are in the table.

  Thousand tones/percentages

  Incineration

  Landfill

  Recycling/composting

  Lancashire

  0.3

  685

  123

  <0.1%

  84%

  15%

  North West Region

  47

  3,722

  386

  1%

  90%

  9%

  England

  2,499

  22,072

  3,443

  9%

  78%

  12%

  Household waste makes up approximately 90 per cent. of municipal waste in England. Comparable figures for the UK are not available.

  Water Abstraction
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to what extent she intends the proposed Water Bill to include a duty on abstractors to use water efficiently, as required by the EC Water Framework Directive. [84739]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: Article 11(3)(c) of the EC Water Framework requires a programme of measures to promote efficient and sustainable use of water. It does not require a duty on abstractors to use water efficiently. The Water Bill will not place such a duty on abstractors because the Government believe the Environment Agency already has sufficient powers to ensure abstractors use water efficiently.

  However, the Water Bill will place a duty on water companies to conserve water in the carrying out of their functions, as one of the measures to meet the requirements of that Article.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Degrees
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Council what recent discussions he has had with private institutions and organisations on the award of degrees. [86116]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have had none. The Privy Council has received applications from some private organisations for the granting of degree-awarding powers and these are currently being considered.

TRANSPORT

  Airfield Security
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent representations he has received concerning security at small airfields in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [85521]

  (2) what measures the Government are taking to improve security at small airfields in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [85520]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Although we received few representations regarding the security of smaller aerodromes in the UK in the immediate aftermath of September 2001 attacks, we immediately tightened the security regime for commercial flights by small aircraft. I have received no more recent representations.

  Prior to those attacks, commercial aircraft of less than 15 tonnes (maximum take off weight) were outside the requirements of the National Aviation Security Programme. That exemption has been removed, and aircraft of any weight are now subject to the programme.

  The operators of such aircraft and the managers of the aerodromes from which they operate have been issued with the relevant directions and guidance, and Department for Transport Inspectors monitor compliance and undertake enforcement, prioritising those locations where the risks are judged greatest. As with all aspects of the regime, these measures are kept under review.

  Additional Runway (Heathrow)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold a public exhibition of the proposals for an additional runway at Heathrow in Spelthorne during the extended period of consultations. [85225]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced to Parliament on 28 November 2002 Official Report, columns 474–75, the consultation on airports capacity will be kept open until we have consulted on options in relation to Gatwick. We will publish a further consultation document in the new year.

  We will set out our plans for the remaining stage of the consultation process when we publish the further consultation paper in the new year.

  Advanced Motorcyclists
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department of the role, process and standards of advanced level training for motorcyclists; what discussions have taken place; what representations have been received; and what steps have been taken by his Department as a result. [86088]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have commissioned independent research into the current provision of motorcycling training. The study included the identification of training organisations, a postal survey 202W
  questionnaire of all organisations identified, and follow-up face-to-face and telephone interviews. The findings will be considered by the research sub-group of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling, which includes riding and training interests. A report of the research findings should be published in the New Year.

  Advisory Group on Motorcycling
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the(a) terms of reference and (b) results of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling. [85861]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The terms of reference for the advisory group are:

  (i) the safety record of motorcyclists and to agree on measures to be taken to improve safety, including general road user behaviour and consideration of training and licensing arrangements;

  (ii) the environmental impact of motorcycles and to agree what measures, if any, should be taken in light of the conclusions reached by the group; and

  (iii) the role of powered two wheelers of all sorts in an integrated transport policy including the scope for traffic management measures that are beneficial to motorcyclists and contribute to that policy.

  (b) The work of the advisory group is not yet finished. An "Interim Report of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling" was published in April 2001. Copies were placed in the Libraries of the House. The advisory group has still to complete some key work streams, including safety research, congestion research and environmental assessment. Some of this will only conclude during 2004. It will be at that stage that the Government will be able to reach conclusions on the work of the advisory group.

  Air Transport
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which five airports in the United Kingdom had the(a) highest and (b) lowest growth of passenger traffic in the last five years. [85615]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Comparing passenger numbers in 2001 with those in 1996 the information is as follows:

  Airports with highest growth:

  Kent International

  Dundee

  Liverpool

  Scatsta

  Londonderry

  Airports with lowest growth:

  Shoreham

  Lydd

  Carlisle

  Gloucestershire

  Unst

  Air Transport Consultation
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses to the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK he had received, broken down by region, by 30 November. [85734]
  203W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wellington (Mr. Brake) on 9 December 2002,Official Report, columns 32–33W.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what gas pipelines are routed through the location of the Midlands New Site set out in the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK: Midlands; and what plans there are to move them should this option be selected; [85740]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the Midlands New Site Option, contained within the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK: Midlands, with PPG25; [85739]

  (3) what plans the Department has to deal with the risk of bird strike from the major gull roost at Draycote Water in Warwickshire in the event of proceeding with the Midlands New Site Option contained within the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK: Midlands; [85737]

  (4) what investigation his Department had made of the potential flooding in the Avon Valley caused by the Midlands New Site Option contained within the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the UK: Midlands; and what further investigations his Department will carry out before this option would be proposed. [85738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In light of the current consultation on air transport, we will set out in the White Paper our policies on how much airport development is necessary, where this should be located and on what main terms and conditions such development could be taken forward No decisions have been taken.

  We will be looking carefully at all the issues raised by consultees in response to the options set out in the Midlands consultation document. Many important issues of detail will need to be addressed by a developer should there be any development and will be for later determination during subsequent statutory planning procedures.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with reference to the air transport consultation process, if he will place in the Library the extrapolated passenger figures for Birmingham Airport for the period 2031 to 2060 referred to in the document Regional Air Services 3: Midlands Part B Appraisal Final Report section Core Economic Appraisal 2.9.4. [85862]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The passenger throughputs which could be accommodated at Birmingham International Airport, under the options presented in the consultation document, were appraised under two scenarios, the RASCO Reference Case and SERAS, the South East Constrained Case. The figures for Birmingham Airport are as follows.
  204W

  2031

  2041

  SERAS

  Max use

  21,307,335

  22,000,000

  Close

  33,973,889

  34,000,000

  Wide

  45,000,000

  45,000,000

  RASCO

  Max use

  20,711,392

  22,000,000

  Close

  31,359,223

  34,000,000

  Wide

  36,726,164

  45,000,000

  Once capacity has been reached, by 2041, the figures remain at these levels up to 2060.

  Airports (Homeowner Compensation)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to compensate homeowners for the loss in value of their homes, should new airports be built. [86165]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The principal Acts covering compulsory purchase and compensation are the Land Compensation Acts of 1961 and 1973, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

  For people whose property is required to allow for a proposed development, compansation is payable on the basis that they should be no worse off in financial terms after the acquisition that they were before. This means that they receive compensation for the value of their property based on its open market value if there had been no proposal to acquire their property compulsorily plus the reimbursement of any actual costs and losses incurred as a result of having to move.

  In addition, both owner-occupiers and tenants who are displaced from their home as a result of a compulsory purchase, and have occupied the property as their main residence for a year or more, will be entitled to a home-loss payment. In the case of tenants this is currently £1,500 while owner-occupiers receive 10 per cent. of the value of their property subject to minimum and maximum thresholds which are currently set at £1,500 and £15,000. However, both the flat rate payable to tenants and the thresholds for owner-occupiers are currently being reviewed, including proposals for increasing the payments above the present £15,000 ceiling. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a consultation document about this on 27 September, inviting comments by 6 January 2003.

  People whose property does not need to be demolished may be entitled to compensation to cover depreciation in the value of their land due to physical factors caused by the use of a development, such as noise, smell, smoke and fumes. In this case, compensation for the loss in value would be based upon prices current on the first claim day, which is 12 months after the first use of the public works.

  In addition to these rules, the consultation on The Future Development of Air Transport in the South East is seeking views on additional mitigation and compensation measures for people who might suffer noise impacts as a result of an airport development option. These measures are outlined in paragraphs 16.49—16.58 of the main consultation document.

  Airports Consultation
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure that the eventual recommendations for aviation based on Birmingham Airport will be consistent with the Government's policies for protection of the environment(a) locally, (b) nationally and (c) internationally. [86232]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The challenge for next year's White Paper is to ensure that airport development is sustainable, that is to say that it achieves a proper balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. Delivering any additional airport capacity will be within the framework of local, national and international policies to protect the environment.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department has made of the number of residents that would be subjected to levels of pollutants above EU limits, were three additional runways to be built at Stansted. [86262]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As reported in "The Future of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" (page 70), it is estimated for three new runways at Stansted that no one would be exposed to an exceedence of the limit for PM10 ; and that just over 300 people could be exposed to an exceedence of the limit for NO2 by 2030. It is likely that this impact could in practice be prevented.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments his Department has made of the viability of an offshore airport. [86263]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SERAS Stage 0 (site search) involved identifying potential new sites to serve the South East and East of England. Over 400 new and existing airport sites, including potential offshore sites, were considered. The most promising options were taken forward into the main SERAS study.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the consultancy firms and consultants he is using to collate the responses to the future of air transport consultation; and what steps he took to ensure there were no conflicts of interests on the part of employees of those consultancy firms. [86368]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The analysis of the consultation responses will be carried out by a team comprising civil servants and retained consultants, including Arups, Avia Solutions, Halcrow and the Route Development Company. This will enable us to draw on a wide range of expertise covering aviation, surface access, safety and environmental issues. We have asked the consultants to identify any areas of work for other clients which relate to the air transport consultation and therefore might be considered a conflict of interest so that we can ensure they are not involved in appraising these responses. They have also been asked to consult us on any future requests to undertake work which might result in a possible conflict.

  Aviation Standards
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes there have been to the standards for(a) noise limits, (b) minimum flying heights and (c) monitoring of noise levels for aircraft
  206W
  departing (i) Heathrow, (ii) Gatwick and (iii) Stansted airports since December 2000; and what assessment has been made of the effect of the changes. [86106]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 18 December 2000 my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) announced new departure noise limits for aircraft departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and improved noise monitoring arrangements Official Report columns 11–12W). In accordance with that decision, the new night-time noise limit of 87 dB A came into effect during the night quota period (2330–0600 hours) from 25 March 2ooi; all other aspects of the decision, including the new daytime (0700–2300 hours) noise limit of 94dBA and the requirement for aircraft to be at a height of 1000 feet aal (above airport level) at 6.5 km from start of roll, came into effect from 25 February 2001.

  The noise limits (including the old night-time noise limit of 89 dBA which continues to apply 2300–2330 and 0600–0700 hours) apply at the fixed noise monitor positions as determined by my hon. friend.

  Included in the announcement of 18 December 2000 was the decision to commence a further review of the departure noise limits and associated noise monitors. The technical work is being carried out by the Environmental Research and Consultancy Department (ERCD) of the Civil Aviation Authority. It is examining a method for assessing the effectiveness of the current monitoring arrangements and any possible improvements, as well as the scope for any further reductions in the departure noise limits. Our conclusions on the way forward in the light of that study will be announced in due course.

  Central Railways
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce a decision about the report by the Strategic Rail Authority on Central Railways' freight proposal; and if he will make a statement. [86604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) on 28 November 2002,Official Report, column 455W.

  Channel Tunnel Link
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the High Speed Channel Tunnel Link between the tunnel entrance and Fawkham Junction; what the expected date is of completion of this section; and when services will begin operating. [86112]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 1 of the CTRL (Channel Tunnel to Fawkham Junction, North Kent) is now over 92 per cent. complete and on target for completion and the start of services by the end of 2003.

  Cliffe Airport
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold a Cliffe Airport proposal exhibition in Thurrock. [85628]
  207W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) today (85225).

  Crossrail
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the impact of cost inflation within the rail industry on Crossrail; and if he will make a statement. [86594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Cross London Rail Links Ltd. (CLRL) has been established jointly by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London to develop proposals for Crossrail. CLRL are currently examining a number of potential routes as well as developing the business case for the project and appraising the economic and other impacts of the options. Cost analysis will form part of this work.

  Disabled Access
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many recent representations he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public regarding disabled persons' difficulties in accessing (i) train station platforms and (ii) London Underground platforms. [86517]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: Since April this year the representations I have received about the difficulties experienced by disabled people accessing station platforms are as follows:

  From MPs

  Form the public

  Train station platforms

  5

  4

  London Underground

  0

  2

  The Strategic Rail Authority's new code of practice is expected to deliver improvements in the design of new stations and refurbishment of existing infrastructure.

  Also, railway stations—and other transport infrastructure—are covered by the part III provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. From 1 October 2004 station operators will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or find reasonable ways of avoiding physical features which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to access the service.

  EQUASIS Database
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the role and success of the EQUASIS database in reducing the number of sub-standard ships registered by flag states; and what further action is planned. [86103]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The EQUASIS database provides the industry with freely accessible safety-related information on the quality of the world's merchant fleet, so answering calls for greater transparency. The database receives approximately 100,000 hits per month.

  HQUASIS provides charterers of ships and others in the maritime industry with information on ship quality, so that substandard ships might be avoided. Increased
  208W
  usaec of the information on EQUASIS by the industry should leave operators of substandard ships increasingly marginalised.

  Integration of Transport
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial support has been provided by(a) his Department and (b) Transport Direct for schemes relating to the integration of transport for (i) ticketing, (ii) timetabling and (iii) marketing (A) in total and (B) for each scheme supported, for each year since 1997; what the projected support is under the 10-year-plan; and what assessment has been made of the role and success of the schemes. [86084]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific financial support has been provided.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) number of, (b) location of and (c) number of passengers using each scheme relating to the integration of transport for (i) ticketing, (ii) timetabling and (iii) marketing between modes in each year since 1997. [86085]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not keep a record of individual integration schemes. These are generally the responsibility of transport operators working in co-operation with each other, the SRA and/or local authorities or PTEs.

  The Department has encouraged the work of the Journey Solutions organisation to deliver a national integrated rail/bus ticket. The scheme, PlusBus, provides a simple add-on bus option to rail rickets at one or both ends of a train journey. It is currently available at 35 stations across the National Rail network, and will be available at a further 120 stations by May 2003.

  Local Authority Ports
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department since 19 January 2001 of the(a) safety and maintenance standards and (b) works of the local authority ports at (i) Whitby, (ii) Gillingham, (iii) Torquay, (iv) Ramsgate New Port, (v) Sunderland. (vi) Scarborough, (vii) Bristol Royal Docks, (viii) Bridport, (ix) Portsmouth Commercial Port and (x) Weymouth Harbour; what financial support has been provided by the Department in each case; and what improvements have been achieved. [86107]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCA) are available for local authority run ports to help to fund essential safety and maintenance work. The following SCA allocations been made to those listed in the question:

  SCA allocations for 2000–01 issued 28 September 2001

  £

  Port

  SCA

  Whitby

  335,000

  Gillingham

  452,750

  Ramsgate New Port

  206,250

  Sunderland

  58,125

  209W

  SCA allocations for 2000–01 issued 28 September 2001

  £

  Port

  SCA

  Scarborough

  129,000

  Bristol

  166,500

  Bridport

  112,500

  Portsmouth Commercial Port

  244,625

  Weymouth

  182,160

  Torquay surrendered a £200,000 allocation in 2000–01 as the work planned could not be carried out due to two World War Two embarkation ramps being declared buildings of historic interest (Grade II).

  The final total allocation for 2000–01 was approximately £1.88 million.

  SCA allocation for 2001–02 issued 30 September 2002

  £

  Port

  SCA

  Ramsgate New Port

  75,000

  Sunderland

  7,500

  Portsmouth Commercial Port

  30,000

  SCA Letters of intent for allocation for 2002–03 issued 2 April 2002 (formal allocation to be issued by 30 September 2003)

  £

  Port

  SCA

  Ramsgate New Port

  262,500

  Portsmouth Commercial Port

  34,250

  Weymouth

  8,275

  The Department confirms with the ports that the relevant work has been carried out.

  Since January 2001 Health and Safety Executive inspectors have visited the ports at Portsmouth, Scarborough, Sunderland, Ramsgate New Port, Torquay, Weymouth and Bristol. These visits were conducted as part of HSE's planned inspection programme, or to investigate accidents or complaints, and not directly related to the SCA funding.

  Offshore Oil Industry (Secretary of State's Representative)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 673W, whom he has appointed; what facilities he has at his disposal; and what budget he has. [86233]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Secretary of State appointed Robin Middleton as Secretary of State's Representative (SOSREP) for salvage and intervention on 4 October 1999.

  (b) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) provide him with an office and administrative support for day to day running. During incidents, specialised offshore counter pollution and salvage equipment is available at the MCA's depots at Milford Haven and Burnt Island.

  210W
  There are now also four Emergency Towing Vessels stationed all year in strategic locations around the United Kingdom. These are available to be directed by SOSREP. Aerial surveillance can also be provided by the MCA.

  (c) SOSREP does not have an individual budget. Funding is provided by the Directorate of Operations at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Southampton as necessary.

  To date Robin Middleton has been involved in over 261 incidents issuing 29 directions, setting up 17 salvage control units and attending seven national exercises.

  PlusBus Scheme
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received on the PlusBus scheme; what support his Department and Transport Direct have provided: what assessment(a) has been made and (b) is planned of the scheme, and what the expected outcome is. [86083]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department works closely with Journey Solutions (the organisation responsible for the PlusBus scheme). The Department is represented, through the Transport Direct team, on both the Journey Solutions Board and Advisory Panel. Both of these groups have taken a close interest in the PlusBus scheme, offering support where appropriate, and will continue to do so. To date no representations from other organisations or members of the public have been received on the scheme as it was only launched publicly last month.

  My Department is currently undertaking research on behalf of Journey Solutions to assess the Plus Bus scheme. The research will measure awareness of PlusBus; examine customer satisfaction with the product; critically review each step of the Plus Bus journey; test effectiveness of promotional components; confirm target market; and measure impact on travel patterns. The results of this research should be available by mid 2003. The research will contribute to the Department for Transport understanding about multi-modal ticketing—one of the Transport Direct strategic objectives.

  PPP
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 2nd December, Official Report, column 498W, if he will place in the Library the calculations upon which his long-term grant offer is made. [85742]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The calculations made as part of our assessment of the amount of freight facilities grant which may be offered in a given case are set out in Annexes A and B to the document "Water Freight Facilities Grant". Copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Primary Rail Routes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent calculations he has made of the average cost to the passenger per mile of travel on each of the primary rail routes. [85323]
  211W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The most recent research into the average price of fares was carried out for the Strategic Rail Authority by AEA Technology in 2001. It did not include route-specific information. The standard class average fare paid was 13.7 pence per mile.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department has made of the feasibility of using type 365 rolling stock on railway lines between London, Bishop's Stortford and Cambridge. [86241]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Services between London Liverpool Street and Cambridge via Bishop's Stortford are currently provided by Class 317 units. The Department is not aware of any plans to use Class 365 units on these services.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for increasing capacity at(a) Clitheroe and (b) Preston railway stations. [85324]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no current plans. However, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is currently developing a Capacity Utilisation Policy to improve capacity planning and provision across the whole of the rail network.

  Road Building Schemes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the value for money to(a) his Department and (b) the other public funds of road building schemes, including those relating to road improvements and operations, using the design, build, finance and operate contracting method. [86098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A value for money assessment is carried out on all Design Build Finance and Operate proposals, whether they are promoted by my Department or by a Local Authority seeking Government assistance for their scheme. This consists of the preparation of a public sector comparator, which broadly involves an estimate of the costs of constructing and maintaining the scheme within the public sector over the same length of a Design Build Finance and Operate contract and comparing this with an estimate of letting a Design Build Finance and Operate contract. The costs of both options are then discounted back to today's prices to ensure that the comparison is on the samebasis.
  The following Design Build Finance and Operate schemes were judged to be value for money at contract award.

  Schemes promoted by the Highways Agency

  M1-A1

  A1(M)

  A417 A419

  M40

  A19

  A50

  A30/A35

  212W
  Local Authority schemes supported by my Department
  A130

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road building schemes using the design, build, finance and operate contracting method are(a) completed and (b) under construction; what the estimated cost to public funds is for each project over the lifetime of the DBFO contract; and if he will make a statement. [86100]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are nine design build finance and operate schemes of which one is under construction (A130) and eight have been completed. The cost to the public funds over the life (30 years) of the eight completed projects are:

  £ million

  Project

  Estimated cost

  M1-A1

  232

  A1(M)

  154

  A417 A419

  112

  A69

  62

  M40

  182

  A19

  136

  A50

  67

  A30/A35

  148

  The above figures are net present values calculated at an 8 per cent. real discount rate.

  The Government are also prepared to consider providing assistance to local authorities to provide roads through a design build finance and operate contract. To date only the A130 road has been procured in this way. That road was constructed in two stages. The first stage has been completed and the second stage is expected to open shortly. The estimated cost to public funds over the life of the project is £105 million at 1997 prices.

  School Transport
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations governing the safe transportation of children to and from school on public transport; and if he will make a statement. [86162]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I would like first of all to express my deepest sympathy to all those bereaved and injured by the tragic accident involving children travelling on a bus in my hon. Friends constituency on 3 December.

  There are a number of different regulations governing the standards for buses and coaches which will effect those used for school transport.

  (1) The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended. This sets out the legal technical parameters for masses, dimensions, suspension, steering, turning circle requirements and seat belt requirements for the vehicles.

  (2) The Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment, Use and Certification) Regulations 1981, as amended. These set out the standards for the likes of seat sizes, gangway sizes, handholds, exits, luggage spaces, step heights etc.
  213W
  (3) The Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984, as amended. These set the standards for the numbers of passengers that can be carried on bus, the way they are to be marked to show this and where passengers can and cannot stand.

  (4) The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, as amended. Which as well as setting out the requirements for the vehicles external lighting also requires markings to be displayed on the vehicles that are used for carrying children.

  (5) The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990, as amended. This sets out the requirements for the behaviour of Staff and passengers using buses and coaches.

  My Department keeps the regulations referred to above under constant review.

  Shipping Criteria
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the level of(a) submission and (b) publication of self-assessment forms from flag states on shipping criteria and performance indicators; and what action is planned in this area. [86081]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Forty-nine Member States (including the UK) have so far submitted their completed Self-Assessment Forms to IMO. That is a disappointing rate of return. The UK encourages those Member States that have not yet completed and published their Self-Assessment Forms to do so.

  The UK and other Member States have brought to IMO a proposal for the introduction of a voluntary Model Audit Scheme, to assess the effectiveness of Member States' implementation and enforcement of relevant IMO safety and pollution prevention Convention standards.

  The UK and other Member States have brought to IMO a proposal for the introduction of a voluntary Model Audit Scheme, to assess the effectiveness of Member States' implementation and enforcement of relevant IMO safety and pollution prevention Convention standards.

  Single Hull Tankers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many single hull oil tankers were registered in each flag state in each year since 1990. [86080]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held by my Department.

  Stingray Mobile Camera System
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of vehicle excise duty evasion have been recorded by the Stingray mobile camera system, broken down by region, since its introduction. [85952]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between 11 October 2001 (the national launch of the Stingray automatic number plate reader mobile camera system) and 31 October 2002, 17,756 214W
  confirmed cases of vehicle excise duty evasion have been recorded by the Stingray systems. It is not possible to give details by region.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what revenue has been generated from enforcement action against vehicle excise duty evasion through detection by the Stingray mobile camera system since October 2001. [85953]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between 11 October 2001 (the national launch of the Stingray automatic number plate reader mobile camera system) and 31 October 2002, £2.08 million has been generated from enforcement action against VED evaders caught by the Stingray systems. This includes penalties, fines, court costs and relicensing revenue.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total running cost for the 11 units of the Stingray mobile camera system since October 2001. [85954]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between 11 October 2001 (the national launch of the Stingray ANPR system) and 31 October 2002, the total cost of operating the units was some £1.43 million including publicity.

  Supplementary Credit Approvals
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities received supplementary credit approvals related to roads maintenance and repair in each financial year since 2000–01; and what the total amount received was in each case for(a) flood damage and (b) other causes. [86110]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All local authorities in England (outside London) received capital support in the form of supplementary credit approvals for road maintenance in 2000–01 and 2001–02. Capital support to authorities for road maintenance in 2002–03 is in the form of basic credit approvals except for major maintenance schemes with a gross cost exceeding £5 million. The following four authorities have received supplementary credit approvals in 2002–03 for major maintenance schemes:Bedfordshire
  Halton
  Newcastle Upon Tyne
  Oldham

  The support made available to authorities each year does not separately identify the provision for road maintenance and repair relating to flood damage and to other causes. We separately provided £23 million in 2001–02 in support to the following 22 authorities in England for the repair of roads worst affected by flooding in the previous winter and spring:

  Amount in thousands (£000)

  Local authority names

  Flood damage 2001–02

  Brighton and Hove

  341

  Derby

  106

  Hartlepool

  66

  Herefordshire

  988

  Medway

  162

  Portsmouth

  180

  Redcar and Cleveland

  195

  215W

  Amount in thousands (£000)

  Local authority names

  Flood damage 2001–02

  Telford and The Wrekin

  401

  West Berkshire

  364

  Devon

  879

  East Sussex

  1,656

  Gloucestershire

  894

  Hampshire

  5,051

  Kent

  5,333

  North Yorkshire

  1,258

  Northumberland

  100

  Shropshire

  256

  Surrey

  1,440

  West Sussex

  1,684

  Wiltshire

  930

  Oldham

  931

  LB Richmond

  50

  Total

  23,265

  Traveline Website
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the contract to run the traveline website was awarded; to whom it was originally awarded; who holds this contract; what the length and cost of the contracts(a) were at the time of award and (b) are now; what the terms of reference and expected outputs of the contract were; what assessment has been made of the delivery of the contract; what changes have been made to the original contract; and what further changes are planned. [86091]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The traveline website is owned by the traveline partners not by the Department for Transport. We are not therefore in a position to comment on the contracts entered into by those bodies.

  In 2001 the traveline parties, under the leadership of Buckinghamshire County Council submitted a bid to the then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for 58K Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) to develop the original traveline portal site.

  This was supplemented by a grant of 25K during 2002 to extend the traveline portal functionality. This work will be completed in the first quarter of 2003.

  The traveline parties have agreed with the owners of a site offering a comprehensive index of public transport information (pti.org.uk) to merge websites and functionality, given the complementary nature of these sites. As part of the merger, the controlling company, pt/ Website Ltd., will include representatives from transport operators and local authorities.

  It will be a matter for pt/Website Ltd. and the various traveline partners nationally to consider how and when to assess the effectiveness of their web services.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trunk road excavations there have been in each Shropshire constituency in each year since 1997, and what the cost was in each case. [85633]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.
  216W
  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 12 December 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number and cost of trunk road excavations in each Shropshire constituency since 1997.
  From your question, we assume that you are seeking information on utility companies' works (water, gas, electricity, telecommunications, etc.) which involve trunk road excavations. I am afraid historical information of this type is not held centrally in a form that would be readily availableֵ It would be time consuming and expensive to collect, involving detailed searching through manual records from a number of different sources. That said, since September we have had a new streetworks system in place that will allow us to collect the number of streetworks excavations per utility within a specific area.
  I am sorry that I cannot send a more helpful reply. If you consider that the information that we have for the last two months for the trunk roads in Shropshire would be useful, it can be provided. The contact within the Agency is Andrew Slater, he can be contacted at our offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8504.

  Waterloo-Exeter Railway Line
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision to award a franchise to South West Trains on the Waterloo to Exeter line on(a) track doubling west of Salisbury, (b) car parking at Salisbury station and (c) the re-opening of Wilton station. [86228]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Stagecoach's initial proposals for a 20-year franchise—submitted in July 2000—included double tracking of the line and car park expansion at Salisbury, but not the re-opening of Wilton station. The Strategic Rail Authority subsequently proposed to place the Exeter line in the Wessex franchise. Consequently, double tracking of the line and the expansion of car parks were excluded from Stagecoach's Best and Final Offer when submitted to the SRA in November 2000. The new approach to the South West Trains franchise, announced on 6 November 2002, includes the route but excludes infrastructure enhancements. Alternative means of pursuing infrastructure projects are being considered by the Strategic Rail Authority.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the operation of the franchise for the west coast main line. [85335]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The main operator of long distance rail services on the west coast main line is Virgin trains. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) manages this rail franchise, and all of the other rail franchises. The SRA is working with Virgin trains to ensure that an appropriate level of service is provided while the major up-grade of the west coast main line is in progress.

DEFENCE

  Airbus 400
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how much, and by what percentage, the unit
  217W
  costs of each Airbus 400 ordered for the RAF will change as a result of Germany's decision to reduce its Airbus 400 order. [86381]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: We welcome the official announcement from the German Government concerning its participation in the A400M programme with an off take of 60 aircraft.

  The cost impact, if any, of the reduction in German off take will be determined through negotiation with the prime contractor, Airbus Military. We will clearly hope to minimise any price increase to the United Kingdom.

  Aircrew
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircrew in the United Kingdom forces were born in Scotland; how many are pilots of(a) combat aircraft, (b) transport aircraft and (c) helicopters, in each arm of the service; and how many are other aircrew by (i) arm of service and (ii) function. [85999]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Apache
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 171W, on the Apache, what assessment he has made of the cost of upgrading the Apache's night vision system. [85379]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The cost of a possible enhanced night vision system for Apache has yet to be fully established.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed by the Atomic Weapons Establishments at(a) Aldermaston, (b) Burghfield and (c) Blacknest. [86064]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 29 November 2002, the number of people employed at each of the Atomic Weapons Establishments (AWE) in the United Kingdom was as follows:

  Number

  AWE Aldermaston

  3,190

  AWE Burghfield

  317

  AWE Blacknest

  8

  Total

  3,515

  The figures quoted are staff, both full and part-time, employed by AWE plc.

  Barracks (Infantry)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to increase barrack accommodation in Scotland for infantry units; and at what locations. [86009]
  218W
  Dr. Moonie
  Major Army Infantry units are currently based at three locations in Scotland, detailed in the following table. We have no plans to increase accommodation for infantry units in those locations. The former Army Training and Recruitment site at Glencorse, near Penicuik, will, however, be occupied by an infantry battalion in the future.

  Unit

  Location

  1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  Fort George, Inverness

  1st Battalion The Royal Scots

  Dreghorn Barracks, Edinburgh

  1st Battalion The Highlanders

  Redford Infantry Barracks, Edinburgh

  Challenger 2 Tanks
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank; and when desert modifications will be complete. [85664]

  Mr. Hoon
  Challenger 2 is a world class tank. In 1999 it exceeded very demanding reliability targets during a series of rigorous trials which tested the performance of the tank under simulated battlefield conditions. It has also given excellent service in Kosovo and Bosnia.

  The Ministry of Defence expects that a range of measures identified to improve Challenger 2 performance in desert conditions will be completed in good time for any possible future operations.

  Combat Assault Boot
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 473W, what steps he has taken to discover whether individual soldiers have failed to be issued with the combat assault boot because of recent production difficulties. [86690]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no reports of soldiers being without a pair of serviceable combat assault boots. If there were a shortage, units would report the problem and action would then be taken to resolve the issue. Moreover we have made positive checks with the chain of command who have found no evidence of soldiers being without boots. We have a system whereby orders are prioritised to ensure that all urgent demands are met. All such demands for combat assault boots are being met.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 473W on the combat assault boot which company manufactures the combat assault boot and where they are based; how many soldiers are issued with the combat assault boot; how many pairs are issued each year to each soldier; what representations he has received from individual units about the shortage of combat assault boots; and whether combat assault boots are issued to Royal Navy and RAF personnel; [86743]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the (a) production and (b) availability of the combat assault boot. [86689]
  219W
  Dr. Moonie
  UK Safety, based in the United Kingdom, are the main manufacturer of the Combat Assault Boot (CAB). Iturri, based in Spain, also supply a relatively small number of boots. UK Safety relocated within the UK earlier this year and experienced some initial difficulties with production.

  Every soldier is issued with two pairs of CAB during basic training and these are replaced as and when necessary through Unit Quartermasters. As explained in my answer of 2 December 2002, Official Report, column 473W 79,000 pairs of CAB were issued to Army Units for the year 1 November 2001 to 31 October 2002. We have not received any representations from units about shortages of CAB. No serviceman should be without at least one pair of serviceable CAB.

  All Royal Navy and Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel are issued with one pair of CAB, the exception being RAF Regiment and Royal Marines personnel who are issued with two pairs on the same basis as soldiers.

  Contracts (Foreign Companies)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of work he requires to be carried out in the UK on contracts awarded to foreign companies. [85427]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: It is the Government's policy to provide the armed forces with the equipment which they require at the best value for money for the taxpayer. Contracts are negotiated on an individual basis and there is no policy requirement for a particular percentage of work to be undertaken in the United Kingdom. However, as stated in our new defence industrial policy published on 14 October, the benefit to the UK economy from Ministry of Defence contracts is taken into account when selecting contractors. A copy of the Government's defence industrial policy is in the Library of the House.

  Defence Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the(a) British Forces Post Office, (b) Central Data Management Agency, (c) Defence Analytical Services Agency, (d) Defence Aviation Repair Agency, (e) Defence Bills Agency, (f) Defence Estates, (g) Defence Export Services Organisation, (h) Defence Procurement Agency, (i) Defence Scientific and Technical Laboratory, (j) International Visits Control Office, (k) Meteorological Offices, (l) Ministry of Defence Police, (m) Defence Scientific Advisory Council (n) Disposal Service Agency, and (o) Hydrographic Office; how many are employed in Scotland in each case; and what the personnel costs of each agency are. [85997]

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

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civil and (b) military personnel are employed at (i) the Clyde Submarine Base, Faslane and (ii) the Royal Naval Armaments Deport, Coulport. [86001]
  220W
  Dr. Moonie
  The number of civilian and military personnel employed at HMNB Clyde and RNAD Coulport, including Ministry of Defence civilian and military personnel and employees of Babcock Naval Services, the industrial partner, but excluding crews on ships and submarines visiting or undergoing maintenance at these bases is:

  Civilian

  Military

  HMNB Clyde

  3,042

  1,677

  RNAD Coulport

  655

  55

  DERA
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) total staff budget for DERA and (b) the staff budget for DERA in Scotland was in the last year for which figures are available. [86007]

  Dr. Moonie
  DERA was disestablished on 1 July 2001, when two new organisations, QinetiQ and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), were created. QinetiQ is a plc, and all operational inquiries should be addressed to the Chief Executive. Dstl remains a part of the Ministry of Defence. For the financial year 2001–02, Dstl's total staff budget was £118.3 million. It is not possible to separate out the costs for the 52 employees based in Scotland as these individuals belong to a number of larger cost centre groups.

  Dockyard Personnel
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) military personnel are employed at (i) the Dockyard, Rosyth and (ii) the Royal Dockyard, Devonport. [86063]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of civilian and military personnel employed at the Royal Dockyards in Rosyth and Devonport is:

  Civilian

  Military

  Rosyth

  2,205

  10

  Devonport

  5,954

  1,048

  The totals include employees of the privately owned Rosyth and Devonport Dockyards and also Ministry of Defence civilian employees and military staff at both Rosyth and the Devonport Naval Base, which is adjacent to Devonport Dockyard. These figures exclude crews on ships and submarines visiting or undergoing maintenance work at the bases.

  Foxhunting
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the terms of the licence under which fox hunting occurs on his Department's land. [86609]

  Dr. Moonie
  A copy of the current licence will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Future Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of steel required for the future carriers will be produced in the UK. [84087]

  Dr. Moonie
  This will be a matter for the Prime Contractor when selected.

  Guards Battalions
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many trained officers and soldiers serve in the Guards battalions, broken down by nationality; [86003]

  (2) what the (a) establishment and (b) current strength is of each of the regular Scottish infantry battalions; and if he will list each element of company strength serving in them; [85998]

  (3) what the (a) establishment and (b) the current strengths is of each of the regiments in the Foot Guards; and if he will list each element of company strength serving with them, indicating where each battalion has soldiers attached to it from another battalion, which battalion they are from and in what numbers. [86004]

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

  International Defence Projects
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list aborted international defence projects to which the United Kingdom has subscribed development costs since 1997; what the cost was to the United Kingdom of each; and who the partner nations were. [86379]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  MOD Staff (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Department's civilian jobs are in Scotland, broken down by location. [86000]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is set out in the following table showing the position as at 1 October 2002.

  MOD civilian strengths for staff serving in Scotland by county as at 1 October 2002

  Scottish county

  FTE strength

  Borders

  2

  Central

  321

  Dumfries

  32

  Fife

  964

  Grampian

  871

  Highland

  75

  Lothian

  581

  Shetland IS.

  31

  Strathclyde

  5,059

  Tayside

  504

  Western IS.

  4

  Total

  8,444

  222W
  Notes:

  1. Figures include full time equivalent values for part timers.

  2. Figures are individually rounded and may not sum precisely to the totals shown.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed in Scotland by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies responsible to his Department; where these staff are located; and how many staff are employed in (i) England, (ii) London and the South East, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) the United Kingdom. [86002]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is set out in the following tables showing the position as at 1 October 2002.

  MOD civilian strengths by requested Government Office Region as at 1 October 2002

  (FTE)

  MOD (excluding agencies)

  Executive agencies

  Total

  Borders

  1

  1

  2

  Central

  132

  189

  321

  Dumfries

  25

  7

  32

  Fife

  526

  439

  964

  Grampian

  728

  144

  871

  Highland

  41

  34

  75

  Lothian

  448

  133

  581

  Shetland IS.

  20

  11

  31

  Strathclyde

  1,054

  4,005

  5,059

  Tayside

  174

  330

  504

  Western IS.

  —

  4

  4

  Total

  3,148

  5,296

  8,444

  Notes:

  1. Figures include full time equivalent values for part timers.

  2. Figures are individually rounded and may not sum precisely to the totals shown.

  MOD civilian strengths by requested Government Office Region as at 1 October 2002

  (FTE)

  Specified locations

  Strengths

  London and the South East

  25,008

  England

  66,665

  Wales

  4,224

  Northern Ireland

  3,221

  United Kingdom

  82,554

  Notes:

  1. Figures include full time equivalent values for part timers.

  2. Figures are individually rounded and may not sum precisely to the totals shown.

  3. Figures in the breakdown exclude 2,348 MOD civilian staff for whom allocation to a specific region is not possible.

  Nimrod MRA4
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Nimrod MRA4 to enter service; and what delays have been encountered with this project. [85454]

  Dr. Moonie
  The current contract requirement for the first aircraft to be delivered into service is August 2004 and the In-Service Date requirement of seven aircraft is March 2005. The current contract dates result from the contract re-negotiation that took place in
  223W
  1999, following technical and programme difficulties encountered by BAE Systems in meeting the original contract placed in 1996.

  More recently, BAE Systems have acknowledged a delay in the programme for the first flight of Nimrod MRA4. This delay has been caused by a combination of factors arising from the challenging concurrent engineering and parallel working on this highly complex aircraft. The consequences of first flight slippage are being urgently examined, jointly, by the Company and the Department. The results of this work so far indicate that first flight is unlikely before the second half of 2003 and we continue to examine the consequences this may have on ISD. Until this work is completed, it would be premature to speculate on the impact of this slippage on the timescale for the entry into service of Nimrod MRA4.

  RAF Lynham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the recent possession valuation of the RAF Lyneham site after contamination re-evaluation. [85183]

  Dr. Moonie
  No decision has yet been taken on the future role of RAF Lyneham. Were the site to be surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements, and to be sold for agricultural use, the estate has been estimated to be worth £11.25 million. This includes an estimation of remediation cost of £0.75 million.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training and exercises have been carried out to prepare for the deployment of the armed forces in the event of an outbreak of smallpox; and if he will make a statement. [85890]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The armed forces are not responsible for dealing with an outbreak of smallpox. The Department of Health would take the lead and could, if appropriate, call upon the limited skills of the armed forces. These skills are subject to constant refinement through training and exercises.

  Details of the response to a smallpox outbreak are available on the DoH website at www.doh.gov.uk/epcu/cbr/biol/smallpoxplan.htm.

  Weapons Training
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military(a) units and (b) personnel are trained to deal with nuclear, chemical or biological incidents within the UK. [84529]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The United Kingdom has a capability, involving the emergency services and a number of Government Departments and agencies, to make safe terrorist chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) devices. The Ministry of Defence and the armed forces would contribute to the response with personnel and equipment from a number of units based in the UK and available to respond at very short notice. I am
  224W
  withholding precise details of the number of units and personnel in accordance with Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Beyond this, all armed forces personnel are given basic training to protect themselves in a nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) environment. The Joint NBC Regiment receives specialist training. It is configured for military operations (primarily overseas) but could provide assistance to the civil power in the UK if appropriate and if not already deployed.

  The Civil Contingencies Reaction Forces announced earlier this year will also be equipped and trained to protect themselves in a CBRN environment if called upon to assist the civil power during an incident in the UK.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Clean Water
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the assistance given by her Department to increase the provision of clean water to(a) Zambia, (b) Lesotho, (c) Mozambique, (d) Zimbabwe, (e) Swaziland and (d) Botswana. [85644]

  Clare Short
  In Zambia, DFID is providing basic infrastructure and other services, including water supply systems and sanitation improvements, in urban areas of Lusaka and Livingstone. So far, 420,000 urban and peri-urban poor have improved their livelihoods as a result of the project.

  In Lesotho, our current support is focused on their Poverty Reduction Strategy, which includes the water sector within a comprehensive approach to planning government and donor spending.

  In Mozambique, DFID is providing £3.8 million through UNICEF to a Rural Water Supply and Sanitation project in Zambezia Province in Northern Mozambique. The expected outcome is to develop and implement a Provincial Rural Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Master Plan. This will include affordable water and sanitation options for poor communities. It will prioritise under-served geographical areas and will operate in partnership with the Provincial Government.

  In Zimbabwe, DFID's programme is focused on the humanitarian crisis but we spent £8 million in the late 1990s on helping to develop national water policy, and assisting the implementation of the Integrated Rural Water and Sanitation Programme in Bikita and Lupane Districts.

  In Swaziland, DFID has provided £1.98 million, with matched funding by the Government of Swaziland, for a three year rural water supply programme building the capacity of rural communities to manage their water supply systems. Consideration is also being given to some funding for school water supplies as part of the current emergency relief programme.
  225W
  In Botswana we are only indirectly involved in rural water supply, through a £2 million contribution to the Government's recently approved Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Programme, intended to support a broad range of initiatives having an impact on rural poverty.

  DFID is also supporting the water sector in southern Africa through regional initiatives, including £0.9 million of support to the regional office of the Global Water Partnership, and have made provision for £ 2.0 million to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) aimed at both capacity building and support for specific pro-poor projects in the water sector.

  Development Education
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Department for Education and Skills regarding the inclusion of development education in the National Curriculum. [85744]

  Clare Short
  There has been frequent contact over the last four years with the Department for Education and Skills regarding the inclusion of development and the global dimension in the subjects taught under the national Curriculum. These discussions led, among other things, to the production of a joint DFID and DfES booklet "Developing a global dimension in the school curriculum"; the ongoing production of guidance to teachers on how to bring the global dimension into specific subjects; and the inclusion of developing countries in the Teachers International Development Programme.

  Ethiopia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial contribution has been made by(a) the UK Government and (b) the EU to (i) the WFP's appeal for Ethiopia and (ii) the Government of Ethiopia to address the food shortages. [85631]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Meriden on 25 November.Official Report, column 29–30W.

  Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in the research and development of new vaccines for developing countries under GAVI; and if she will list research programmes funded under GAVI. [85745]

  Clare Short
  GAVI was designed to support research and development (R&D) of new vaccines relevant to developing countries. The first phase of its work was to identify candidate vaccines and stimulate research and innovation, which complemented existing research.

  Two potential vaccines, both of which are at an advanced stage of development, were selected for support: against rotavirus (the most common cause of severe dehydrating diarrhoea among children) and pneumococcal disease (a cause of pneumonia and meningitis).
  226W
  GAVI has also developed the concept of Accelerated Development and Introduction Plans (ADIPs), which will manage the support to each vaccine and aim to help demonstrate its efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness, encourage uptake and support its introduction. Competitive bids to run the ADIPs for rotavirus and pneumococcal vaccine were requested and proposals were submitted in October 2002. The GAVI board is now in the process of deciding how to respond to these bids. Once the ADIP contracts are awarded then the support to R&D will start.

  Global Fund
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department has contributed to the Global Fund to fight Aids, TB and Malaria in 2002; and how much she plans to contribute in 2003. [86242]

  Clare Short
  My Department pledged £138 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) over five years. Contributions for calendar year 2002 will be £50 million. £25 million was paid in April 2002 and a further £25 million will be paid in December 2002. As the fund gets established, we will closely monitor its effectiveness and the value it adds to the international effort against the three diseases, and review our contributions accordingly. A further £25 million will be contributed in calendar year 2003, depending on performance.

  Global Health Fund (Grants)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the grants allocated by the Global Health Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria have been for(a) HIV prevention and (b) the provision of anti-retroviral drugs. [85746]

  Clare Short
  Under the first round of applications to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) US$ 616 million was approved and committed for the first two years. Nearly 70 per cent. of these resources are for HIV/AIDS programmes.

  Of the 28 countries with approved HIV/AIDS proposals from the first round, 20—over 70 per cent.—include some money for highly active anti retro viral therapy (HA ART). The first round proposal form did not request specific data from applicants on how much money would be expended on antiretrovirals. However, the Fund estimates that approximately 20 per cent. of money from the first round was allocated to the provision of drugs (some of which will be for antiretrovirals), and 20 per cent. on commodities (some of which will be for HIV prevention).

  Rape (Democratic Republic of Congo)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to(a) reduce incidents of rape and (b) provide support for rape victims in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [85880]

  Clare Short
  We are extremely concerned about the levels rape and violence to which women in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are subjected.
  227W
  Through our Embassies in Kinshasa and Kigali, and through direct contact with local authorities when visiting the East, the UK Government raised the urgent need to address these issues with representatives from all sides including the RCD and Rwandan authorities. We are establishing a DFID office in Kinshasa from December 2002 and will be better placed to raise issues with relevant authorities in government held areas. We also support a number of civil society organisations, including International Alert and local rights organisations, that are working in eastern DRC to monitor and raise rights abuses with authorities, as well as providing some limited support to women victims.

  Rwanda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much financial support the United Kingdom Government has given to(a) the International Criminal Tribunal Court and (b) the establishment of Gachacha community courts in Rwanda in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002. [85743]

  Clare Short
  The United Kingdom provides support to the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) through assessed annual contributions made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from the Conflict Prevention Pool. The UK share of the budget was £3.475 million in 2001 and £3.782 million in 2002. The United Kingdom has not so far provided any direct support to the establishment of Gacaca community courts in Rwanda. DFID has however provided substantial direct budgetary support to the Government of Rwanda amounting to £18 million in 2001–02 and 22 million in 2002–03. The Government of Rwanda can allocate these funds to finance priority activities such as Gacaca in accordance with their national poverty reduction and reconciliation objectives. DFID representatives in Kigali participate in donor coordination mechanisms related to Gacaca. We are reviewing options for possible support to the Gacaca process in 2003

  Sexual Abuse (Zimbabwe)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in(a) investigating allegations and (b) reducing incidents of sexual abuse in the Tongogara refugee camp in Zimbabwe. [85881]

  Clare Short
  The country representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, together with the Zimbabwean authorities, have completed their investigation. Both parties have implemented a number of measures to address the problems found. Two nongovernmental organisation staff have been dismissed, and the number of personnel working in the camp has been increased. There is now a greater 24-hour presence, including Police officers and women personnel. UNHCR's office has also been strengthened to ensure on-going monitoring of the work of NGO partners implementing support programmes for the refugees.

WALES

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sum is paid to Wales under the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and what the budget is for England and Wales. [84190]

  Mr. Touhig
  The total budget of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to fund regeneration projects in coalfield (and former coalfield) communities across England, Scotland and Wales is £50 million over three years from its launch in late 1999. Wales' allocation is £3.462 million.

  Pay Differential
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the pay differential between Wales and the rest of the UK in the last 12 months. [82200]

  Peter Hain
  Based on the latest figures available (from the New Earnings Survey, April 2001—April 2002), the average personal salary in Wales is £20,784.40 (£399.70 p.w). The Office for National Statistics publishes figures for GB rather than the UK. The corresponding figure for GB as a whole is £24,164.40 (464.70 p/w). Expressed as a differential, the average Welsh salary is 13.99 per cent. lower than the average salary for GB as a whole.

  Salaries
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the average personal salary is in(a) Wales and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom. [82375]

  Peter Hain
  Based on the latest figures available (from the New Earnings Survey, April 2001—April 2002), the average personal salary in Wales is £20,784.40 (£399.70 p.w). The Office for National Statistics publishes figures for GB as opposed to the UK. The equivalent figure for GB as a whole is £24,164.40 (£464.70p/w).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Accommodation Centres
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his powers(a) to make proposals for and (b) to select sites for an accommodation centre, with special reference to the provisions of part 2 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [85452]

  Beverley Hughes
  Section 16 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 gives the Secretary of State power to arrange for the provision of premises for the accommodation of persons in accordance with part 2 of that Act. Nothing in part 2 of the Act limits the discretion of the Secretary of State in respect of the proposed sites for accommodation centres or in respect of which sites he may decide to submit planning notifications.

  Animal Experiments
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what animal experiments licensed by the Home Office have involved the feeding of genetically modified crop plants to farm animals and poultry since 1997; when the experiments took place and how many animals were involved; which genetically modified crops were used in the experiments; how long the experiments lasted; what their respective completion dates were; what their reference numbers were; and which experiments received public funding. [85070]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A small number of studies looking at the nutritional value and safety of some genetically modified food-stuffs have been licensed by the Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. However, it is not departmental policy to give details which could identify where and by whom work licensed under the 1986 Act is undertaken. Other information requested is not readily available from departmental records and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to tackle anti-social behaviour. [82977]

  Mr. Denham
  We have already introduced measures to tackle anti-social behaviour including changes to increase the effectiveness of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in the Police Reform Act 2002. We have increased police capacity by creating and funding community support officers and strengthening the powers to issue Fixed Penalty Notices. We will build on this through the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

  The Queen's speech outlined a new drive to tackle Anti-Social Behaviour—we will be producing a White Paper in the New Year and a bill to reinforce this drive.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what forecasts have been made of the likely impact of new(a) licensing and (b) anti-social behaviour provisions in (i) the North West, and (ii) Burnley; and if he will make a statement. [83416]

  Mr. Denham
  The Licensing Bill, introduced to the House of Lords on 14 November, was accompanied by a Regulatory Impact Assessment, and has been deposited in the Library. The expected impacts include reductions in binge drinking prior to fixed closing times and related drunkenness in the streets. A more gradual dispersal of consumers should also lead to a decrease in reports of nuisance and noise. We believe that these provisions will benefit people throughout the country.

  The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will build on existing provisions and fill gaps, where appropriate, to tackle anti-social behaviour—wherever it occurs.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the prevalence of anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement. [83677]

  Mr. Denham
  The prevalence of anti-social behaviour is assessed using information from the British Crime Survey, which provides a measure of the public's230W
  perception of the level of disorder and anti-social behaviour in their area. The survey asks about problems caused by noisy neighbours or loud parties, teenagers hanging around on the streets, rubbish or litter lying around, vandalism and graffiti, racial attacks, drug dealing and people being drunk or rowdy.

  Asylum Seeker Housing
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his reply of 3 December 2002, (ref 84175) on asylum seekers, how many asylum seekers have been housed by Clearsprings Management Ltd., broken down by local authority area; what fees have been paid per asylum seeker for their housing broken down by local authority; and what other contracted services Clearsprings Management Ltd. provides for his Department. [86208]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has only one contract with Clearsprings Management Ltd. to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers. I am unable to give details about payments to Clearsprings under the terms of this contract since this information is commercial in confidence.

  Statistics are currently not available on the number of asylum seekers placed by NASS in accommodation owned by individual accommodation providers. To provide these figures would involve a disproportionate cost.

  Benefits Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for(a) patterns and (b) levels of crime of the phased withdrawal of payable order books for payment of social security benefits, with particular reference to sources of finance for the purchase of illegal drugs. [84401]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Home Office has not made any assessment of the implications for patterns and levels of crime associated with this proposal. I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions monitors claims activity to inform counter-fraud activity and will look for any changes in patterns of behaviour during the rollout to direct payment.

  Burrell Case
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 98W, regarding the Burrell Case, when he was informed that the trial would collapse. [84621]

  Hilary Benn
  The right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary and Attorney General keep in close contact on a range of matters. This issue came up in the course of that regular contact.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the approved number of places is at Chelmsford Prison; and how many prisoners are housed there; [86508]
  231W
  (2) what proposals he has to provide additional prison places in Essex. [86509]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: There are no immediate plans to build a new prison in Essex, or to increase the number of prison places in existing prisons in the area. The Prison Service is continually reviewing its estate, and it may be that such plans are considered at a future date.

  On 29 November 2002, the operational capacity of Chelmsford Prison was 576. On the same day, the total population at the prison was 567.

  Correspondence
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West of 5 November 2002, regarding airport security; and for what reason his reply has been delayed. [85875]

  Mr. Denham
  The hon. Member's letter was received in the Home Office on 19 November 2002. The correspondence was transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling) on 4 December 2002, who will be replying shortly.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of criminal injuries compensation budget for 2002–03 was allocated in the first six months of the financial year. [86163]

  Hilary Benn
  51 per cent.

  Criminal Justice
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish(a) Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2001 and (b) Prison Statistics England and Wales 2002. [84310]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: It is proposed to publish Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 2001 on 12 December

  Prison Statistics for England and Wales 2002 is planned for publication in 2003.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which Indian cities the outsource of personnel of the Criminal Records Bureau is located. [84922]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) personnel located in India. However, some data processing work relating to CRB disclosure applications has been outsourced by Capita to Hayes Plc and is undertaken at a site in Chennai, formerly known as Madras.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed with the Chief Executive of the Criminal Records Bureau the performance of the Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [86059]
  232W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: My noble Friend, Lord Falcolner of Thoroton, holds weekly meetings with the Chief Executive of the Criminal Records Bureau to discuss the operational performance of the Bureau. In addition to these meetings, the Chief Executive also provides Ministers with both weekly and monthly reports detailing the current operational situation.

  Custody Plus
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost of(a) introducing and (b) running the custody plus scheme. [84308]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002≤: The majority of the costs for implementing custody plus (both the costs of introducing the new sentence and of running it thereafter) fall on the Probation Service who need to build up capacity to manage an increased case load of approximately 50,000 per annum as a result of this new sentence. Current estimates are that an additional £19 million, £70 million, £136 million, £175 million, £186 million and £194 million for the financial years 2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 and 2008–09 respectively will be needed for the Probation Service to implement all the sentencing provisions in the Bill. Costs are expected to be in the order of £194 million annually thereafter.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the prevalence of domestic violence within different categories of family configuration and marital status; [83856]

  (2) what research into the prevalence of domestic violence has been funded by central government in the last five years; and which of these studies break down their results by (a) family configuration and (b) marital status. [83857]

  Mr. Denham
  The British Crime Survey (BCS) provides overall trend information on the number of incidents of domestic violence. The BCS figures are derived from a sample and so are subject to sampling error. Moreover, the BCS is carried out by face-to-face interviews and some respondents may be unwilling to reveal experience of domestic violence to interviewers. Copies of the BCS are available in the Library.

  However, the 1996 BCS included a self-completion component on domestic violence to encourage disclosure. Results from this were published in Home Office Research Study No.191—copies are available in the Library. This more confidential approach to measurement revealed that the proportion of women who were victims of domestic assault in the preceding year was over three times higher than in the main BCS. This study also has information on the marital status of victims (page 29), and whether there are children in the household (page 32).

  In addition, BCS interviews conducted in the 2001–02 financial year provide the following information (from face-to-face interviews).
  233W

  Living arrangements

  Percentage of respondents1

  Married

  0.2

  Cohabiting

  0.7

  Single

  1.3

  Separated

  4.4

  Divorced

  1.0

  Widowed

  0.2

  Head of household under 60

  Single adult and child(ren)

  3.8

  Adults and child(ren)

  0.7

  No children

  0.6

  Head of household over 60

  0.1

  All adults

  0.6

  1 Who were victims of domestic violence once or more

  The 2001 BCS also contained an interpersonal violence self-completion module designed to estimate the extent of domestic violence, sexual victimisation and stalking. The module included questions on the marital status of victims and the family configuration. Results are expected to be published in Summer 2003,

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics regarding domestic violence are tracked at UK level. [85311]

  Mr. Denham
  Domestic violence is not separately identified in recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has collected information from police forces on the number of reported incidents of partner-on-partner violence since 1993. The British Crime Survey (BCS) can provide information on the number of incidents of domestic violence against women and men. The Home Office also collects information on all homicides, which can identify the relationship between the victim and perpetrator.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there is a standard model for the role of domestic violence officer in the UK. [85315]

  Mr. Denham
  There is currently no standard role for domestic violence (DV) officer in the UK. Home Office Circular 60/1990 emphasised the need for the establishment of dedicated units or specialist officers to deal with DV incidents. "Policing domestic violence—a modular training programme", a national training product developed by Centrex and issued in November 2003, will provide a structured but flexible approach to the delivery of domestic violence training within the police service including to domestic violence officers.

  Drugscope
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much central government funding was provided to Drugscope in each of the last five years. [85097]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Drugscope and its predecessor organisations the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependency received the following funds from the Home Office, Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  234W

  £

  1998–99

  774,000

  1999–2000

  1,287,322

  2000–01

  1,215,188

  2001–02

  1,092,990

  2002–03

  706,511

  2002–03 figures relate to spend to date and known commitments and may not reflect accurately the final outturn figure.

  These figures are based upon information available from departmental accounting systems and do not include all payments for consultancy work.

  In addition, Drugscope was also successful in securing £76,294 over the two years 2002–03 and 2003–04 from the Recovered Assets Fund.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibilities he has for emergency planning and the co-ordination of the work of emergency planning authorities; and how his exercise of such responsibilities in London differs from that elsewhere in(a) England and (b) the UK. [84605]

  Mr. Denham
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Blair) made clear to the House on 20 November, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) has responsibility for ensuring effective arrangements are in place to co-ordinate the Government's response to major emergencies.

  The Home Secretary chairs three Cabinet Committees which co-ordinate this work: DOP (IT) (T) which oversees the work to strengthen the UK's defences against terrorism, DOP (IT) (R) which works to build the UK's resilience and ability to manage the consequences of major emergencies; and the Civil Contingencies Committee which meets to oversee lead department's management of major emergencies and manage their wider effects. The devolved Administrations are represented on the relevant committees.

  The Cabinet Office provide the Home Secretary with direct support headed at official level by Sir David Omand, who is the Permanent Secretary in charge of security and intelligence co-ordination. All Departments have a responsibility to plan, prepare, train and exercise for handling major incidents and emergencies that might occur within their field of responsibility. It is their Ministers' responsibility to ensure that they are ready to take the leading role on behalf of central Government in managing the initial response to a major emergency, mitigating its immediate effects, and organising the development of a recovery plan.

  My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Prescott) is replying to you on his responsibilities in this area, and on the specific arrangements for London. My right hon. Noble Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Lord McDonald) has responsibility for the work of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, including the payment of the Civil Defence Grant.
  235W
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local agreements have been established between fire authorities and health authorities at local level in relation to the handling of an NBC attack. [85424]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: A national Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate and the Department of Health for the mass decontamination of casualties following a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incident was drawn up in December 2001. The MoU is intended to provide a national framework for locally agreed plans and procedures for mass decontamination.

  Agreements have already been established to cover the fire authorities in 19 of the 28 strategic health authorities in England. In all other areas, agreements are being finalised for adoption.

  The Devolved Administrations have adopted the approach of agreeing a single Memorandum of Understanding to cover all fire and health authorities.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Ministers have met under his chairmanship in the past six months to discuss civil protection. [85426]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: In line with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, information on the proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees is not disclosed. However, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has regular contact with his colleagues in relation to his responsibilities for counter terrorism and civil contingency.

  Entertainment Venues
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in developing arrangements under which entertainment venues would contribute to the policing and public order costs arising from their activities. [85072]

  Mr. Denham
  We have set up a working group, comprising representatives of the Home Office, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the association of Chief Police Officers and the football authorities, to consider a range of strategic football issues, including police charging policy in connection with matches, and the investment of football clubs in the wider community.

  The Government is also concerned at the costs incurred in policing entertainment venues, particularly pubs and clubs which operate late into the night and major events such as sporting and outdoor entertainment. We welcome schemes where entertainment outlets contribute to the additional policing costs associated with alcohol related disturbance.

  Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy regarding exceptional leave to remain. [85524]
  236W
  Beverley Hughes
  Our policy is to give protection to those people who need it. However exceptional leave has acted as a pull factor for people to come to the United Kingdom in the belief that they will be given exceptional leave if their asylum claim is refused.

  We have decided to tighten up the basis on which leave will be granted to those who have been refused asylum. The current exceptional leave provisions will be replaced by a new form of "Humanitarian Protection" which will offer protection to those who have protection needs but are not covered by the 1951 Convention.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of police officers who will be removed from normal duties to escort Green Goddesses during the duration of the firefighters' strike; and what estimate he has made of the cost to police authorities of this additional responsibility in terms of overtime, cancelled rest days and non-availability for routine activity. [81666]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that between 5,000–6,000 police officers, mostly working rest days, were used per day to escort Green Goddesses and staff control rooms during the firefighters dispute.

  I have been advised by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) that it is very difficult to predict exactly what the final cost to police authorities of supporting emergency fire cover will be, as this will depend on the nature of the strike activity.

  Immigration
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for permanent leave to remain have been made since January; how many were made in(a) 2001 and (b) 2000; what the average waiting time is to determine applications for permanent leave to remain; what the waiting time was in December (i) 2001 and (ii) 2000; what estimate he has made of how many extra staff would be needed to reduce the waiting time to three months; and if he will make it his policy that supporting documentation is copied upon receipt of the application and returned to the applicant while waiting for determination. [85751]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information on the number of people granted settlement (permanent leave to remain) is as follows. Information on the number of applications made for settlement is not available.

  (a)106,820 granted settlement in 2001; and

  (b)125,090 granted settlement in 2000.

  There are no published data on decision times to determine applications for settlement. Our aim is to screen all postal applications within three weeks. Most applications (i.e. those which are straightforward) are decided on an initial screening. Due to a busy period for immigration applications between September and November, the initial screening of new applications is at present taking up to eight weeks on average. We are

  237W
  working to reduce this to three weeks or less, but are unlikely to achieve that for the next two to three months because of the exceptionally high intake. Because of the high number of applications, some which need further inquiries or more detailed consideration can take over 12 months to decide. Information on general processing times for applications is provided to applicants on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) website at www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk

  We are looking at what extra resources will be required to provide a better service.

  Where applications are handed into the Public Enquiry Office and cannot be completed on the day, the sponsor's passport is copied and handed back to the caller. We will extend this practice in January to those new postal applications where the application cannot be decided on initial consideration.

  Immigration (Removals)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were removed by his Department in November. [85526]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that information on the number of people removed under Immigration Act powers in November 2002 is not yet available. Figures for total removals will be published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002", which is due for publication in August 2003.
  Monthly statistics showing the number of asylum removals are available from the Home Office quarterly asylum statistics bulletin. Figures for November will be available in "Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2002, United Kingdom", which is scheduled for publication in February 2003.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of cases is in each division at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [85525]

  Beverley Hughes
  At the end of September 2002, there were 37,200 asylum cases awaiting an initial decision, including work in progress.

  On the same date, there were an estimated 47,000 appeals lodged with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) that had not yet been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority. This figure includes non-asylum appeals.Information on the number of cases outstanding in other divisions of IND is not available.

  Information on the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Internet Child Pornography
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources are available to the police to deal with the recent names given to them by US detectives investigating internet child pornography. [85410]
  238W
  Hilary Benn
  The new National Policing Plan requires forces to include child protection in their local policing plans, strengthen their partnership arrangements and carefully select and train staff working in this area.

  This reinforces the Joint Chief Inspectors' Report on Arrangements to Safeguard Children recommendation that police forces and authorities should review the role, remit, location and status of child protection units to ensure that child protection is dealt with to a consistently high standard.

  As part of the investment programme for police services in England and Wales, this year (2002–03) the police received an overall funding increase of 6.1 per cent. (on top of record spending and a record increase of 10.1 per cent. in 2001–02) taking the total provision to £9,010 million. In addition policing will receive an increase of £1.5 billion for policing as a wholeby 2005–06 over the 2002–03 figure.The Home Office has also decided to provide an additional £¼ million in this financial year only to assist the Association of Chief Police Officers national structure to support operations to combat child abuse on the internet.

  Operational decisions on allocation of police resources to combating child exploitation rest with police authorities and chief officers. There is no central record of the additional resources which chief officers across forces may have allocated to deal with investigations resulting from this operation.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan Police officers there were in each of the last 10 years. [82478]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: The information is set out in the table.

  Metropolitan police

  Year1

  Police officers2

  1992

  28,154

  1993

  27,867

  1994

  27,699

  1995

  27,480

  1996

  27,343

  1997

  26,677

  1998

  26,094

  1999

  26,073

  2000

  25,485

  2001

  324,878

  2002

  26,223

  1 As at 31 March

  2 Figures are for full-time equivalent strength

  3 Police strength in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for March 2001 was reduced as a result of boundary changes on 1 April 2000 between the MPS and the Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey forces. Consequently it is not possible to make like with like strength comparison over the 10 years

  Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to make performance data relating to police basic command units publicly available; and if he will make a statement. [84311]
  239W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Information is already published about the performance of police basic command units (BCUs) in reducing and detecting crime in respect of six types of crime which are of particular public concern. The most recent published figures, covering the year 2001–02, can be found in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/02 which was published in July.

  The National Policing Plan described the on-going work to develop a more rounded picture of police performance. Performance radar diagrams will be introduced to provide a quick and visual representation of police performance across a number of policing responsibilities. Following discussion with forces and police authorities these will be published as appropriate. In due course these will cover both forces and BCUs.

  Police (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian police workers there were in Staffordshire in each of the last 10 years. [84176]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: The information is set out in the table.

  Staffordshire police

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Police strength1

  Civilian support staff strength1

  1993

  2,179

  737

  1994

  2,208

  746

  1995

  2,231

  749

  1996

  2,209

  753

  1997

  2,211

  763

  1998

  2,292

  866

  1999

  2,238

  1,004

  2000

  2,170

  858

  2001

  2,129

  935

  2002

  2,133

  1,030

  1 Figures are full-time equivalents for civilian support staff. For police officers full-time equivalent strength figures were introduced from March 1995, following the introduction of part-time working for officers.

  Police Service Targets
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the targets he has set which apply to the police service. [83675]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Policing Plan, which was presented to Parliament on 29 November 2002 in accordance with Section 1 of the Police Reform Act 2002, sets out, for the first time in one document, the strategic national priorities for the police service over the next three years and the indicators against which the performance of the service will be judged.

  The police service is asked, through police authorities and police forces, to contribute to the Home Department achieving its Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets. These have been detailed in Section 10 and Annex A of the National Policing Plan. A summary of actions that Chief Officers and police authorities should take into account is at Annex B of the same document. The number of Best Value Performance Indicators, which was 32 in 2001–02, has dropped to 19 in 2002–03 and will remain 19 for 2003–04.
  240W
  All forces and authorities are subject to audit and inspection, and each is required to demonstrate a continuous drive for efficiency by meeting an annual target of savings/efficiency gains equivalent to 2 per cent.; of their annual budget.

  Police Training
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police recruits who commenced training completed their probation service in each police authority area in each year since 1995. [82492]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Tables showing the numbers of officers appointed on probation (which is the closest equivalent to recruits entering training have been placed in the Library). Data on officers confirmed on appointment (i.e. having completed their probation) has been collected only since 2001. That data is given for 2001–02 but it does not, of course, relate directly to the numbers appointed in that year.

  Post-Release Supervision
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take measures to make the extended post-release supervision mandatory for ten years for sexual and violent offenders. [82674]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government are committed to the protection of the public. This is reflected in provisions within the Criminal Justice Bill to introduce new sentences for sexual and violent offenders who have been assessed as dangerous. These sentences will replace existing provisions for dealing with sexual and violent offenders, including the extended supervision provision in section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

  Under the new sentences an offender who commits a specified sexual or violent offence carrying a maximum sentence of between two and 10 years must be sentenced to the new extended sentence. Release during the second half of this sentence will be upon recommendation of the Parole Board and the Court will be required to add periods of extended supervision of up to nine years to the sentence.

  Prison Health Service (Wales)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in transferring funding responsibility for prison health services to the NHS in Wales. [85834]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: I am in touch with the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Welsh Assembly. Welsh Assembly and Home Office officials are considering the arrangements that would be needed to effect the transfer of responsibility for prison health services to the national health service (NHS) in Wales.

  Prison Releases (Drug Addicts)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people leaving prison were drug addicts in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [85711]
  241W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The Prison Service does not measure the number of prisoners leaving prison with drug-related problems.

  Prisons
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the rise in the prison population on(a) the assault rate on (i) prisoners and (ii) staff, (b) offending behaviour courses, (c) staff-prisoner ratios, (d) family visits and (e) purposeful activity. [82424]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Prison Service is working to minimise the disruption caused to prisoners and their regime by the population increase.

  The rate of positive adjudications of assault has reduced in recent months. This is due in part to prisoners spending more time in their cells but the current assault rate is also depressed pending the introduction of new adjudication arrangements brought in after the removal of added day punishments. Although the population increase has affected staff-prisoner ratios, the operational capacity of each establishment is set to minimise the risks to security, safety and control.

  With population close to operational capacity, a greater number of prisoners must be moved to maximise the available accommodation. This increases the number of prisoners being held away from their home area and for some, the greater distance can disrupt family visits. Prisoners held temporarily in police cells are not granted family visits, although the aim is that the time an individual prisoner spends in police cells is kept to a minimum and that prisoners who are particularly vulnerable are accommodated in prisons, wherever possible.

  The Prison Service aims to avoid transferring prisoners that are on or awaiting offending behaviour programmes, however some disruption is inevitable while programmes are relocated away from local establishments which suffer most from increased turnover. The average level of purposeful activity across the estate has fallen slightly.

  Romford
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the policing and public order costs generated by entertainment venues in Romford town centre. [85073]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that his estimate of the cost of policing disorder in Romford town centre between 7pm and 6am, when entertainment venues attract much of their clientele, is, so far this year, in the region of £240,000.

  "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" White Paper
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to proceed with the proposals contained in paragraphs 7.6, 7.10 and 7.11 of the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven". [85404]
  242W
  Beverley Hughes
  We expect to reach a decision shortly on these proposals. A Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules will then be laid before Parliament.

  Sexual Offenders Register
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are on the Sexual Offenders Register; and how many were on the register in 1997. [85384]

  Hilary Benn
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders cautioned for, convicted of, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of an offence specified in Schedule One to the Act since the date of its implementation to notify the police of their names, addresses, dates of birth and intentions to travel abroad for eight days or longer. The requirements of the Act also apply to offenders who were serving a sentence for a relevant offence, either in prison or in the community, at the date of its implementation (1 September 1997). There is, however, no central register of sex offenders and offenders subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act are not separately identified in criminal statistics.

  Information on the number of 'registered' sex offenders in a police area is submitted by police and probation services under the requirements placed on them established by section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

  As at 31 March 2002, police forces in England and Wales had notified the Home Office of 18,513 'registered' sex offenders.

  I am informed by the Scottish Executive that as at 28 August 2002, 1,816 registered sex offenders were recorded by the Scottish Criminal Record Office as being administered by Scottish Police Forces.

  The provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 were commenced on 1 September 1997. A Home Office evaluation of the way the Act had been implemented was published in July 2000. This indicated that at 31 August 1998, one year after implementation, 8,608 sex offenders were subject to the Act's requirements. Figures covering the last three months of 1997 are not available.

  Violent Crime (Havering)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of violent crime were recorded in the London borough of Havering in the last year, broken down into(a) offences of violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery and (d) criminal damage; what proportion of those offences occurred within Romford town centre between 7 pm and 6 am; and what percentage of recorded violent crime within Havering this represents. [85074]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of violent crimes recorded in Havering for the year ending March 2002 are given in the table.
  243W

  Numbers of violent crimes in Havering, near ending March 2002

  Number

  Violence against the person

  3,225

  Sexual Offences

  173

  Robbery

  549

  Numbers of recorded crimes for areas within London boroughs are not available centrally. Numbers of recorded criminal damage offences by London boroughs for this time period are not yet available centrally.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Beacon Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanism is in place to have funds returned from beacon schools in the event of their closure. [85558]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: In the event of a beacon school closing, the local education authority's Standards Fund allocation is reduced accordingly. Any unspent beacon funds held by the school would be identified alongside other grants still held and returned to the local education authority and then offset against future Standards Fund payments by the Department.

  Examination Results
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the 2002 GCSE results for(a) Chesham Park Community College and (b) other secondary schools. [86227]

  Mr. Miliband
  The 2002 GCSE results will be published in the secondary school performance tables towards the end of January 2003. These tables will include the results for Chesham Park Community College.

  Laboratory Technicians
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what extra grant he has made available to schools for laboratory technicians. [84755]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2003–04 we are making available to local education authorities, through Standards Fund Grant, £268 million to cover the costs of recruiting extra school support staff and extra administrative help, particularly for small schools, and £37.45 million for the training and development of support staff.

  This additional funding should contribute significantly to the transformation of the school workforce, of which school science laboratory technicians, as well as many others who work to support teachers in the classroom, are vital members. We estimate that, during this Parliament, schools should have the capacity to recruit at least an extra 50,000 full-time equivalent support staff, including science technicians. In addition, the new National Network of Science Learning Centres will provide training and professional development opportunities for technicians.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the total expenditure of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travelling in 2001–02; [84791]

  (2) what the total budget of (a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84940]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the financial year.

  Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

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

  Per Capita Allocations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Government allocates per year to educate a child aged 11 to 16 years in the Portsmouth, South constituency; and if he will make a statement. [85869]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not hold information on funding provided at constituency level. Most funding provided by the Department is distributed via local education authorities. The table shows the Government's education Standard Spending Assessment and departmental grants allocated to Portsmouth local education authority in 2002–03. Where possible, funding intended for secondary schools has been identified; but for most grants it is not possible to break down the allocations for secondary schools (pupils aged 11–16). Grants are mainly allocated across all phases and the amounts going to each type of school will be a matter for local decision.

  £ million

  Standard Spending Assessment1

  37.737

  Standards Fund Grant2

  5.530

  School Standards Grant3

  0.745

  Teachers Threshold Grant

  1.038

  Capital Funding4

  5.532

  1 Figure reflects education SSA settlement figures (secondary sub-block).

  2 Figure comprises recurrent departmental contribution, excluding grants specifically allocated for early years or infant/primary purposes.

  3 Figure reflects funding for secondary schools (excluding all special schools).

  4 Funding includes Basic Need (ACG), Standards Fund Grant (Departmental contribution), New Deal for Schools, Schools Access Initiative and Voluntary Aided School Grant. It does not include funding for Class Size initiative (which is relevant only to primary schools).

  University Merger (London)
  Mr. Frank Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 731W, on University Merger (London), what reply he gave to the President of University College and the Rector of Imperial College. [86746]

  Margaret Hodge
  A copy of my reply has been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled Children
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will implement the recommendation of the Steering Group of the Joint Fundamental Review of the Housing Adaptations Service on the abolition of the means test in relation to disabled children and their families. [85397]

  Mr. Browne
  The means test is an essential tool to allow the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to target grant towards those most in need. Any such exemption would seriously undermine the ability of the Housing Executive to target resources effectively. I will shortly be setting up a Working Group to review the means test to ensure that disabled children are not disadvantaged by it.

  East Antrim Institute
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress towards providing a new East Antrim Institute building on the Larne Campus. [85622]

  (b) Audits

  £

  College

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Armagh College of Further and Higher Education

  12,135

  11,378

  14,119

  Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education

  53,519

  61,671

  45,216

  Castlereagh College of Further and Higher Education

  10,797

  10,264

  9,406

  Causeway Institute of Further and Higher Education

  4,633

  9,090

  13,692

  East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education

  3,847

  13,806

  14,364

  East Down Institutes of Further and Higher Education

  12,220

  12,220

  12,224

  East Tyrone College of Further and Higher Education

  13,500

  12,000

  14,700

  Fermanagh College of Further and Higher Education

  10,855

  8,049

  9,071

  Limavady College of Further and Higher Education

  8,965

  9,135

  9,310

  Lisburn Institute of Further and Higher Education

  10,000

  8,500

  13,000

  Newry and Kilkeel Institute of Further and Higher Education

  17,014

  12,178

  20,539

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list Northern Ireland primary schools which have an enrolment of 30 pupils and under, together with the current enrolment at each such school(a) in the controlled sector and (b) in the maintained sector. [86431]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information for 2002–03 is not yet available. For 2001–02 the information is as follows.
  246W
  Jane Kennedy
  In April 2002, the then Minister announced that £1.5 million was being made available for the provision of a new facility at the Larne campus of East Antrim Institute. The institutes is currently taking the project through procurement with construction expected to commence around May 2003.

  Emergency Rehousing
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of NIHE tenants who have sought alternative emergency re-housing in Northern Ireland due to intimidation by paramilitary organisations since 1998. [85754]

  Mr. Browne
  Where Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants seek alternative accommodation because of intimidation they are treated as being homeless. In such cases information on the source of intimidation and on the tenure of the applicant is not recorded.

  However since 1 April 1998, 6,740 households presented to the Housing Executive as homeless due to intimidation/civil disturbance.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent by each Northern Ireland further education college on(a) consultancy fees and (b) audits in the last three years. [82680]

  Jane Kennedy
  Within the time available it is not possible to separate our consultancy costs. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as this information becomes available. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  In the last three years, the following amounts have been spent by each Northern Ireland Further Education College on Audits:

  Year 1 to year 7 enrolment

  Controlled Sector

  Earl of Erne PS

  17

  Tullywhisker PS

  12

  Ballyrock PS

  24

  Mosside PS

  17

  Glenarm PS

  26

  O'Neill Memorial PS

  24

  Drumbo PS

  22

  Groomsport PS

  24

  247W

  Year 1 to year 7 enrolment

  Downshire PS

  23

  Ardmore PS

  20

  Toberlane PS

  22

  Eglish PS

  26

  Churchtown PS

  24

  Granville PS

  26

  Maintained sector

  St. Matthew's PS, Garvaghey

  30

  Envagh PS

  16

  St. Davog's Scraghey PS

  27

  St. Columba's PS, Dromore, Omagh

  21

  St. Mary's PS (Laught)

  16

  St. Patrick's PS, Seskinore

  28

  St. Joseph's PS, Fintona

  10

  Magilligan PS

  30

  St. Mary's PS, Rathlin Island

  5

  Braid PS

  29

  St. Patrick's PS Aughtercloney, Ahogill

  25

  Brackalislea PS

  20

  St. Mary's PS, Aghadowey

  27

  Tir-na-og PS

  27

  St. Joseph's PS, Ahoghill

  24

  Guiness PS

  27

  St. Mary's PS, Ballygowan

  29

  Our Lady's PS, Keady

  11

  St. James's PS, Tandragee

  26

  All Saints PS, Banbridge

  18

  The Drelincourt Infants School

  25

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Broadcasting Standards
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to regulate the provision of subtitles, signing and audio-description of broadcasts to ensure the maintenance of quality standards. [85813]

  Dr. Howells
  The Communications Bill gives Ofcom a requirement to produce, publish and from time to time review, a code relating to provision of television services for the deaf and visually impaired and the means by which such services should be promoted. The code will include guidance on the technical standards to be attained for subtitling, signing and audio description as the current code produced by the Independent Television Commission does.

  Church Licences
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on introducing additional licence fees for churches that stage plays and concerts; and if she will make a statement. [85149]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received concerning the proposed enforcement of local authority licensing on church venues and the payment of fees for musical performances in churches; and if she will make a statement. [84504]
  248W
  Dr. Howells
  In total, this Department has received eleven representations in connection with the proposal in the Licensing Bill to extend the licensing requirement beyond Greater London, where it currently applies. Among these representations, only one was from an organisation, which has since met with my officials to discuss their concerns.

  Earlier, following the publication of the White Paper on licensing reform in April 2000, we received eight responses from religious organisations; none of these letters took issue with the proposal to create a level playing field for the licensing of churches and other places of religious worship.

  The Government are aware of the concerns that some people have about the licensing of churches. We have had discussions about this issue with the Church of England and, along with other faith groups, will seek to ensure that the new licensing system does not impose an unnecessary burden on them while still providing the necessary safeguards for the public.

  Community Fund Grants
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which projects in the Sedgefield constituency have benefited from community fund grants. [86606]

  Dr. Howells
  The projects in the Sedgefield constituency that have benefited from community fund grants are as follows.

  Applicant Name

  Community Fund Main Grants

  Fishburn Community Action Group

  Puppies Playgroup

  Sedgefield Locality Carers Centre

  St. Francis Luncheon Club

  South West Durham Social Resource Centre

  St. Alban and St. Paul Trimdon Station Parochial Church Council

  Cornforth Partnership

  Cornforth Partnership

  Trimdon Grange Play Area Association

  Trimdon Village Hall

  Sedgefield District Help Furniture Scheme

  Community and Voluntary Sector Organisations Sedgefield CAVOS

  Trimdon Village Hall

  Cornforth Partnership

  Sedgefield Locality Carers Centre

  Dean Bank and Ferryhill Literary Institute

  Ferryhill LAD.D.E.R. Centre Ltd.

  Sedgefield Locality Carers Centre

  249W
  Small Grants Scheme

  Coundon Comets Juvenile Jazz Band

  Sadberge Village Hall Association

  REMAP GB (Wear and South Tyneside)

  Heighington Village Hall Association

  Neasham Reading Room and Club

  Great Aycliffe Village Hall Association

  The Acorn Players

  Middleton St. George Youth Club

  Trimdon Colliery Community Association

  Middleton St. George Pre School

  Youll House Thornley Senior Citizens' Club

  Hurworth Village Hall

  Cellar Sound

  Awards For All Schemes

  Bradbury Parish Meeting

  Hurworth and District Over 60s Club

  Hurworth Community Association Senior Citizens Club

  New Thornley Partnership

  Age Concern Chilton

  Deaf Hill Ward Regeneration Partnership

  Ferryhill Station and Chilton Lane Ward Residents Association

  Brafferton and Coatham Mundeville Village Hall Association

  Wear Valley Senior Citizens Dance Club

  Hurworth Community Association Senior Citizens Club

  Chilton West Residents' Association

  Hurworth and District Over 60s Club

  Ferryhill Kids Club

  St. Vincent De Paul Society, St. Mary's and St. Joseph's Furniture Help Scheme

  Trimdon United Junior Football Club

  Oakleaf Badminton Club—Junior Section

  Hurworth Village Hall

  Timothy Hackworth Primary School

  Rockliffe Park Cricket Club

  1st Peterlee Scout Group

  Spennymoor Disabled Club

  Chilton and Windleston Old Age Pensioners Association

  Sedgefield Cricket Club (Junior Section)

  The Little Rascals Trimdon Grange Parent and Toddler Group

  Hurworth and District Over 60s Club

  Sedgefield Community College

  Ferryhill Kids Club

  Trimdon Grange Community Centre Association

  West Cornforth Senior Citizen's Association

  The Durham Light Infantry (Horden/Peterlee Branch)

  Aycliffe and District Bus Preservation Society

  Diabetes UK—Bishop Auckland

  Alington House Quilters

  Pioneering Care Partnership

  Over the Hedge "Millennium Project Group"

  Ferryhill Village Women's Institute

  Dolphin Junior Badminton Club

  Auckland Croquet Club

  Over the Hedge "Millennium Project Group"

  250W

  Rainbow Fun Club

  Ferryhill Amateur Operatice Society

  Age Concern Thornley

  Yarm and District Saddle Club

  Chilton and Windlestone Disabled Club

  Ferryhill Town Council

  Chilton and Windlestone Disabled Club

  Neasham Reading Room and Club

  Ferryhill Station and Chilton Lane Ward Residents Association

  Trimdon Past and Present History Society

  Wheatley Hill Out of School Hours

  Darlington Ladies FC

  Age Concern Durham County Gold Collective Club

  Wingate Infant School

  Cellar Sound

  Tyne and Wear Women's Basketball Club

  Darlington and District Netball League

  St. Francis Luncheon Club

  Fishburn Art Group

  Greenfield School Community and Arts College

  Kelloe Cricket Club

  Bishop Middleham Village hall

  Sarah Scott School of Highland Dancing

  Darlington Ladies FC

  Aycliffe Village Primary School

  Newton Aycliffe Athletics Club

  Trimdon Station Residents Association

  St. Francis Church Committee

  Teesside Lions Wheelchair Sports Club

  Action for Dystonia—Diagnosis, Epidemiology and Research

  Sedgefield Development Partnership

  Newton Aycliffe Cricket Club

  TARKA Ltd.

  Deaf Hill Primary School

  Trimdon Colliery Community Association

  Trimdon Grange Community Centre

  New Thornley Partnership

  Trimdon Millennium Celebrations Group

  Newton Aycliffe Youth A.F.C.

  National Playday Steering Group

  Newton Aycliffe RFC Junior Rugby

  Wellfield School

  Thornley Young People's Project

  Thornley Tapestry and Arts Group

  Neasham Reading Room and Club

  Castle Eden Playgroup (Parent/Toddler)

  East Durham Play and Community Network

  Jayenell Gymnastic Club

  Sedgefield Saxons

  Trimdon's Little Tykes

  Ferryhill Town Youth FC

  Tees Valley Cougars

  Sedgefield Area Committee

  The Newton Aycliffe Royal British Legion Pipes and Drums

  Darlington Table Tennis Club

  Heighington Budo Club

  Age Concern Thornley

  East Durham Play and Community Network

  251W

  Eaglescliffe Thunder

  The Eastbourne Cardinals

  Ian Ramsey School Association

  Fishburn Amateur Boxing Club

  West Cornforth Out of School Fun Club

  Wheatley Hill Mothers Club

  8th Darlington (Cockerton Green) Scout Group

  Cornforth Partnership

  Sadberge Village Hall Association

  Wingate Women's Institute

  Wheatley Hill Community Association

  Wheatley Hill Heritage Society

  Newton Aycliffe Over Sixties Club

  DISC Ltd.

  Sedgefield Arts and Recreation Community Association

  Trimdon 2000 Ltd.

  Community and Voluntary Organisations Sedgefield

  Ferryhill Station Primary School

  Northumberland Table Tennis

  Ferryhill School

  Entertainment Licences
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the cost of the licensing provisions to churches and chapels; and if she will make a statement. [84505]

  Dr. Howells
  The estimated fees in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published with the Licensing Bill were between £100 and £500 for a premises licence with a subsequent annual charge of between £50 and £150. Fees would be set centrally by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in secondary legislation and would not be made final until that secondary legislation has been brought into force. Any variation in fee levels would most likely relate to the size of the venue so that smaller venues pay less than large ones.

  The Government are aware of the concerns that some people have about the licensing of churches. We have had discussions about this issue with the Church of England and, along with other faith groups, will seek to ensure that the new licensing system does not impose an unnecessary burden on them while still providing the necessary safeguards for the public.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consultations she has had with representatives of faith organisations about the Government's proposals for entertainment licences for buildings whose prime purpose is religious. [84618]

  Dr. Howells
  This Department has received 11 representations from different representatives of religious organisations concerning the proposal to extend the licensing requirement beyond Greater London. Among these representations, only one was from an organisation, whom officials have since met to discuss their concerns.

  We sent the White Paper, that was published in April 2000, to 231 organisations in order to gain their responses in respect of our proposals. We received eight responses to this consultation from religious organisations, including one from the Churches Main
  252W
  Committee. None of these were concerned with the proposal to create a level playing field for churches and other places of religious worship.

  The Government are aware of the concerns that some people have about the licensing of churches. We have had discussions about this issue with the Church of England and, along with other faith groups, will seek to ensure that the new licensing system does not impose an unnecessary burden on them while still providing the necessary safeguards for the public.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the licensing of religious buildings for entertainments under the provisions of the Licensing Bill extends to(a) churchyards and other open ground within the curtilage of the building and (b) other secular buildings within the curtilage of the religious building; and if she will make a statement. [84619]

  Dr. Howells
  A premises licence or temporary provision would be required for any place where a licensable activity is to take place, be it a church, a secular building within the curtilage of the church, or an open area within the curtilage of the church, such as a churchyard.

  The application for the premises licence would have to be accompanied by an operating plan which would specify the areas that would be licensed.

  The Government are aware of the concerns that some people have about the licensing of churches. We have had discussions about this issue with the Church of England and, along with other faith groups, will seek to ensure that the new licensing system does not impose an unnecessary burden on them while still providing the necessary safeguards for the public.

  Ladbrook Report
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the Ladbrook Report on BBC News 24; whether the report has been sent to the BBC; and whether she plans to initiate similar reviews of the BBC digital channels. [85083]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published Richard Lambert's independent review of BBC News 24 on 5 December and has placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The report was sent to the BBC on 2 September 2002. My right hon. Friend intends to hold similar reviews of all new BBC public services. The next service to be reviewed will be BBCi (formerly BBC Online).

  Lottery Funding (Sport)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to increase the amount of Lottery funding available for sport. [86136]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government has guaranteed that sport will continue to receive its current 16 2/3 per cent. share of the funds the Lottery raises for good causes until the end of the current licence period in 2009 at the very least. Sport has benefited significantly from the creation of the newer good cause of health, education and the environment through, for example, the £750 million PE and sport in schools initiative by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). My Department,
  253W
  the National Lottery Commission and Camelot are continuing to work to maximise income for all the good causes.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many oral questions her Department has answered on sport in each parliamentary session since May 1997. [86511]

  Dr. Howells
  293 oral questions on sport have been answered by my Department since May 1997. These are broken down by parliamentary year as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  61

  1998–99

  46

  1999–2000

  54

  2000–01

  41

  2001–02

  91

  Figures include those oral questions which received either oral or written answers.

  Pigeons
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Greater London Authority regarding a proposed fine for feeding pigeons in Trafalgar Square; and if she will make a statement. [84445]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with the Greater London Authority regarding a proposed fine for feeding pigeons in Trafalgar Square.

  The Mayor for London wrote to my right hon. Friend on 21 November informing her of his wish to introduce a Bylaw to prohibit the feeding of pigeons on Trafalgar Square. The Greater London Authority have published formal notice of their intention to apply to the Secretary of State for confirmation of the Bylaws. My right hon. Friend is the confirming authority for Bylaws relating to Trafalgar Square.

  Social Inclusiveness
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department has taken to extend social inclusiveness by increasing the involvement of identified priority groups in each of the sectors her Department has responsibility for; and if she will make a statement. [83746]

  Mr. Caborn
  Opening up our institutions to the wider community, to promote lifelong learning and social cohesion, is now a strategic priority for the Department. Progress on that priority will be assessed through one of the Department's four Public Service Agreement targets for the 2003–06 period:to increase significantly take-up of cultural and sporting opportunities by new users aged 20 and above from priority groups.
  254W
  As set out in the DCMS Service Delivery Agreement, the cultural and sporting opportunities will include those provided by arts facilities funded via the Arts Council of England, the national and regional museums and galleries, community sport, the historic environment, and the internet via Culture Online. These initiatives will build on existing projects such as Creative Partnerships and Space for Sport and Arts, which are bringing new opportunities to deprived areas around the country.

  Sports (Recognition)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the sports recognised by her Department. [86512]

  Mr. Caborn
  Recognition of sports is a matter for the sports councils which currently recognise 112 activities. Recognition is based on a number of criteria including primarily "physical effort" and "skills". A full list which is publicly available, as follows.

  List of activities recognised by the national sports councils

  Aikido

  American Football

  Angling

  Archery

  Arm Wrestling

  Association Football

  Athletics

  Australian Rules Football

  Badminton

  Ballooning

  Baseball

  Basketball

  Baton Twirling

  Biathlon

  Bicycle Polo

  Billiards and Snooker

  Bobsleigh

  Boccia

  Bowls

  Boxing

  Camogie

  Canoeing

  Caving

  Chinese Martial Arts

  Cricket

  Croquet

  Crossbow

  Curling

  Cycling

  Disability Sport

  Dragon Boat Racing

  Equestrian

  Fencing

  Fives

  Flying

  Gaelic Football

  255W

  Gliding

  Golf

  Gymnastics

  Handball

  Hang/Para Gliding

  Highland Games

  Hockey

  Horse Racing

  Hovering

  Hurling

  Ice Hockey

  Ice Skating

  Jet Skiing

  Ju Jitsu

  Judo

  Kabaddi

  Karate

  Kendo

  Korfball

  Lacrosse

  Lawn Tennis

  Life Saving

  Luge

  Modern Pentathlon

  Motor Cycling

  Motor Sports

  Mountaineering

  Movement, Dance, Exercise and Fitness

  Netball

  Orienteering

  Parachuting

  Petanque

  Polo

  Pony Trekking

  Pool

  Quoits

  Racketball

  Rackets

  Racquetball

  Rambling

  Real Tennis

  Roller Hockey

  Roller Skating

  Rounders

  Rowing

  Rugby League

  Rugby Union

  Sailing

  Sand/Land Yachting

  Shinty

  Shooting

  Skateboarding

  Skiing

  Skipping

  Snowboarding

  Softball

  Sombo Wrestling

  Squash

  Skater/Street Hockey

  256W

  Sub-Aqua

  Surf Life Saving

  Surfing

  Swimming and Diving

  Table Tennis

  Taekwondo

  Tang Soo Do

  Tenpin Bowling

  Trampolining

  Triathlon

  Tug of War

  Unihoc

  Volleyball

  Water Skiing

  Weightlifting

  Wrestling

  Yoga

  Underwater Archeology
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the Government contract with Marine Odyssey Inc. for commercial salvage on an historic wreck upon the prospects for future UK accession to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. [82988]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not envisaged that there will be an impact, as this agreement is a unique pragmatic solution to a situation in which the archaeological heritage is at risk. It enables the Government to ensure that the site is excavated responsibly. Although the UK is not currently bound by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the Government has stressed from the beginning that the project must as far as possible be developed in line with the rules contained in the Annex to the Convention, which are seen as representing best practice for maritime archaeology.

  Wrecks
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what English Heritage's role is in relation to proposed salvage operations on the wreck believed to be that of the 17th century warship, Sussex. [82978]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage has this year become the Government's advisors on underwater heritage, and they have become involved in this project by chairing an independent Archaeological Review Group which is scrutinising the Project Plan to ensure that it complies with appropriate archaeological standards. They will also be asked for advice on post-excavation conservation, research and publication.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on the protection, management and care of historic wrecks of non-UK origin located in the UK's domestic waters. [82987]

  Dr. Howells
  The Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 contains provisions which provide protection of wrecks in UK waters which are deemed to be of historical, archaeological or artistic significance, regardless of their
  257W
  origin. This is a devolved matter; the protection and management of wrecks in the waters of the devolved administrations is a matter for the relevant First Minister.

  No distinction is made in the protection or management of wrecks in English waters based on whether or not they are of UK origin.

  In England, the policy has long been for English Heritage to be granted powers to provide assistance in relation to archaeological sites which are situated below the mean low water mark. The National Heritage Act 2002 extended these powers with effect from 1 July 2002, and DCMS is in the process of drafting directions in consultation with the devolved heritage agencies and English Heritage.

  Formal transfer of responsibility is expected to take place shortly, which will mean that English Heritage will be able to perform the functions for underwater archaeology that they can for land-based archaeology, for instance giving grants, contributing towards the costs of research, and providing educational facilities and services, public information and advice, and entering into certain agreements.

TREASURY

  Bio-ethanol Fuel
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) British Sugar, (b) the National Farmers Union, (c) the Country Land and Business Association and (d) other groups on the level of duty on bioethanol road fuel. [86282]

  John Healey
  We have received a number of representations about the level of duty on bioethanol.

  Business Support
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to devolve business support services to regions other than the north-west, east midlands and west midlands. [85946]

  John Healey
  The Government will consider the development of the RDA pilots before taking a decision on the general roll-out of RDA-led management and coordination of business support. However, outside the pilot areas, RDAs have been given additional funding and flexibilities which will enable them to work with SBS and other business support providers to improve the coherence and quality of services for small businesses. In the north-east, for example, the RDA has launched a new strategy to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the business support infrastructure.

  Childcare Tax Credits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the take-up rates were for child care tax credit in each year since it was introduced. [86664]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of such take-up rates would have to be based on household survey data. These surveys contain too few sample cases to produce reliable estimates.

  Credit Unions
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask TheChancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government is taking to encourage the development of credit unions and community banking; and whether the Government has set targets for the development of credit unions and community banking. [85762]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government believes that the availability of financial products is essential to ensure access to wider mainstream services and is an important component in tackling social exclusion. There are a number of ways in which access to financial services can be improved and providers each have a different contribution to make. The Government has not set targets for growth in particular sectors—it is ultimately for consumers to decide which services are most appropriate for them.

  The Government is involved in a number of initiatives to increase the accessibility of financial services at a local or community level.

  We are in the process of delivering a programme of legislative and regulatory changes to help improve the operational flexibility of credit unions. Universal banking services, using the post office network, will build on and extend the accessibility of bank accounts to areas without bank branches or ATM machines. New Deal of Communities partnerships have developed or are planning projects to counter financial exclusion. These and similar projects typically involve co-operation between local government, local agencies, financial service providers or voluntary groups.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the trends in growth of credit unions and the community banking sector have been since(a) 1997 and (b) 1992. [85800]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on the trends in growth of credit unions is set out in the table. Comprehensive data covering the different developments and initiatives in the provision of banking services at local or community levels is not centrally available.

  Credit Unions in Great Britain

  Number of Credit Unions

  Number of members at end year

  Total assets (£000)

  1992

  383

  88,007

  32,489

  1993

  427

  110,079

  44,671

  1994

  475

  138,582

  60,742

  1995

  530

  161,502

  79,945

  1996

  550

  190,825

  100,348

  1997

  596

  224,674

  123,979

  1998

  630

  255,596

  147,940

  1999

  666

  295,826

  180,633

  2000

  687

  325,058

  214,977

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 3 December; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [85860]
  259W
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 3 December. ECOFIN discussed a Presidency proposal on the taxation of savings. The proposal confirmed the agreement at the Feira European Council that the ultimate objective of the EU should be exchange of information on as wide a basis as possible. And it confirmed the rejection at Feira of an EU-wide withholding tax, which would have had severe implications for the London bond market.

  ECOFIN discussed the Commission's negotiations with the third countries named in the Feira conclusions, and in particular the negotiations with Switzerland. The Presidency proposed that Switzerland should implement the OECD standard of exchange of information on request, and that the Commission should hold further discussions with them on this. The ultimate objective would be automatic exchange of information.

  Under the Presidency proposal, Switzerland would be required to apply a withholding tax until moving to automatic exchange of information. The rate would be 20 per cent. for the three years from 2004 and 35 per cent. thereafter. Austria, Luxembourg and Belgium would be required to apply a similar rate of withholding tax until Switzerland move to the OECD standard of exchange of information on request, at which point they would have to move to automatic exchange of information. Austria, Luxembourg and Belgium would have to apply the OECD standard of exchange on request from no later than 2011. The other 12 member states would apply automatic exchange of information from 2004 as agreed at the Feira European Council.

  I gave a report on our discussions with Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and the overseas territories in the Caribbean. I made clear that automatic exchange of information would apply in all the territories.

  The Commission will hold further discussions with Switzerland, and the Presidency expect to hold a further meeting of ECOFIN later this month.

  The Paymaster General (in her capacity as Chair of the Code of Conduct Group) presented the Code of Conduct Group's report on the rollback of harmful tax measures. The Presidency indicated that the Group's report, along with the third component of the tax package, the directive on interest and royalties, would be considered at the additional ECOFIN meeting later this month.

  The Presidency invited Ministers to reach political agreement on the draft directive on energy taxation. As a number of other member states continued to have reservations with the text, the Presidency concluded that agreement was not possible at this stage and there would be a further discussion at the additional ECOFIN meeting later this month. The draft directive on VAT administrative co-operation will also be considered at the additional ECOFIN and I stressed that the UK was prepared to be constructive in reaching agreement on this. Ministers discussed a number of financial services issues. ECOFIN adopted conclusions on implementing streamlined legislative procedures (the so-called "Lamfalussy model") across the financial services sector. There was a discussion on whether the new
  260W
  procedures should be implemented immediately or delayed pending further discussions with the European Parliament. The Presidency called a vote to decide this. There was a simple majority in favour of immediate implementation, which the UK supported.

  The Commission presented its proposal for a revised directive on investment services. I expressed UK disappointment at the Commission's late amendment to the text on pre-trade transparency. This change would be anti-competitive and would deliver a poor deal for the retail investor. I also stressed that late changes such as this, which flew in the face of consultation results, were likely to undermine market confidence in the consultation process and the Lamfalussy arrangements.

  Ministers noted Commission reports on corporate governance and progress on the Financial Services Action Plan and efficiency and integration indicators.

  ECOFIN noted the President of the European Court of Auditors presentation of the Court's annual report for 2001 and adopted conclusions on the streamlining of economic policy co-ordination processes and on the use of structural reform indicators.

  Under any other business, Commissioner Solbes gave an oral presentation on the Commission Communication on strengthening economic policy co-ordination, which Ministers noted.

  Economic Tests
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm 5664) Box 2.3, what technical work needed to enable assessment of the five economic tests has been completed. [86285]

  Ruth Kelly
  As we set out in the 'Paper for the Treasury Select Committee on the Treasury's Approach to the Preliminary and Technical Work', issued on 6 September, "A number of supporting studies will be published encompassing the preliminary and technical work … When the assessment is complete, the detailed supporting studies will be published alongside, all to be subject to intensive public scrutiny and debate." More detail on the supporting studies is given in the 6 September paper.

  Enterprise Areas
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the 2000 enterprise areas announced in the Pre-Budget Report fall within(a) Roxburgh and Berwickshire and (b) the Scottish Borders. [85698]

  John Healey
  The enterprise areas in Scotland are defined as the 15 per cent. most deprived areas as identified by the Scottish Index of Deprivation 1998. There are no areas within Roxburgh and Berwickshire or the Scottish Borders that fall into this category.

  However, other measures taken by the Government in the Pre-Budget Report will benefit businesses in these areas, including the announcement of the extension of the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme to firms in the

  261W
  retail, catering and several other sectors from April 2003. The Scottish Executive will introduce on 1 April 2003 a tapering mandatory small business rate relief, worth in total around £45 million to qualifying businesses. The Scottish Executive will also be distributing the Small Business Service's start-up guide, which will bring together information on all Government requirements and support for SMEs in a single start-up pack by spring 2003.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of local government regarding the relaxation of requirements for detailed planning permission in enterprise areas announced in the Pre-Budget Report. [85964]

  John Healey
  The Pre-Budget report announced that the Government will consider how to encourage local authorities to introduce Local Development Orders to relax planning control in enterprise areas. The Government's proposals on LDOs were the subject of wide public consultation following the issue of the Government's Green Paper, "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change" (December 2001).

  Firefighters
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increase in the net value of firefighters' pensions which would result from a 1 per cent. increase in the current annual wage bill: and if he will make a statement. [86279]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the Firefighters Pension Scheme rests with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on 9 December 2002.

  Infant Mortality
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the infant mortality rate in the families of members of the armed forces has been in each year since 1990. [86216]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Murrison, dated 10 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on what the infant mortality rate was in the families of members of the armed forces in each year since 1990. (86216)
  The table below provides infant mortality rates where either the mother or father was recorded as being in the armed forces at registration. At the registration of births and deaths of children, information on the occupation is only collected for the father and the mother, not for other members of the family. Father's occupation is only collected for births that occur inside marriage and those outside marriage that are jointly registered by both parents. Information on mother's occupation is seldom provided.
  262W

  Infant mortality: numbers and rates where either the father or mother was recorded at death registration as being in the armed forces, England and Wales, 1990–2001

  Number of deaths

  Rate1

  1990

  79

  6.4

  1991

  70

  5.9

  1992

  73

  5.8

  1993

  46

  4.1

  1994

  43

  4.1

  1995

  41

  3.9

  1996

  50

  5.3

  1997

  53

  6.2

  1998

  45

  5.3

  1999

  34

  4.2

  2000

  26

  3.3

  20012

  32

  4.3

  1 Per 1,000 live births. Figures for live births are a 10 per cent. sample coded for mother's and father's occupation. Information on the father's occupation at birth is not collected for births outside marriage if the father does not attend the registration of the baby's birth. These births and any subsequent infant deaths are excluded from the figures, unless where information was provided that the mother was in the armed forces (8 deaths in 1990–2001).

  2 Provisional.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Insurance
  Andy King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives from the insurance industry to discuss the impact of the level of insurance premiums on the building and construction industries. [86045]

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of(a) the insurance industry and (b) business regarding the future of employers' liability insurance. [85960]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury is in regular contact with industry on a wide range of insurance matters. In the Pre-Budget Report, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor, announced that the Department for Work and Pensions would undertake a formal review of the operation of employers' liability compulsory insurance.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Andy King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was received from insurance premium tax(a) in the first year it was levied and (b) last year. [86041]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the yield from taxing insurance premiums since 1997 in(a) cash and (b) real terms. [85700]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures for receipts of insurance premium tax in cash terms are available in Table 2.1D of the Office for National Statistics publication, "Financial Statistics".

  Andy King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he last reviewed insurance premium tax; [86042]
  263W
  (2) what plans he has to (a) reduce and (b) cap insurance premium tax. [86044]

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effects of a reduction in insurance premium tax; [85967]

  (2) whether the review of employers' liability insurance announced in the pre-budget report will consider the possibility of reducing insurance premium tax. [85966]

  Ruth Kelly
  As with all taxes, Insurance Premium Tax is kept under review and any changes are announced in the annual Budget.

  Mental Health (Children)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Office for National Statistics will publish its report on children's mental health services. [86467]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 10 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the Office for National Statsistics (ONS) report on children's mental health services. (86467)
  In March 2000 ONS produced a report which presented the findings of a survey of the mental health of children and adolescents, aged 5–15, in Great Britain (Meltzer et al, 2000). The survey was carried out between January and May 1999. It was commissioned by the Department of Health, the Scottish Health Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.
  The first part of the report focused on the prevalence rates of mental disorders among young people. The second part showed the way in which children and adolescents with particular disorders vary from those without any disorder on a range of factors including their background, personal and familial characteristics, physical health, use of services and social functioning.
  In this context, children's mental health services included health, social, educational and voluntary care services which provided treatment and advice given to young people with mental health problems. In the ONS report, the data presented on the use of services come from parents' reports of who they went to seek help from if they thought their child had a significant mental health problem.
  Six months previously, in September 1999, the Audit Commission produced a report of their two-year national audit of the specialist child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) provided by health authorities and trusts. (Audit Commission, 1999).
  References.
  Meltzer H, Gatward R, Goodman R & Ford T (2000) Mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain, London: The Stationery Office
  Audit Commission (1999) National Report—Children in mind: child and adolescent mental health services

  Modern Apprenticeship Taskforce
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) remit, (b) terms of reference and (c) guidance are for the new Modern Apprenticeship Taskforce. [85958]

  John Healey
  Working alongside DfES and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), the new National Modern Apprenticeship Taskforce has been created to recommend effective and innovative ways of ensuring that modern apprenticeship programmes respond to the changing needs of employers and young people. It will generate greater employer engagement in Modern Apprenticeships and provide strategic oversight of the MA system. It will advise the Government and the LSC on forward strategy and support progress towards meeting the Government's target that, by 2004, 28 per cent. of 22 year olds will have participated in a Modern Apprenticeship.

  Oil Prices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on his projected GDP growth in 2003 and 2004 of an average oil price of(a) $30 in 2003 and 2004, (b) $40 in 2003 and $30 in 2004; and (c) $60 in 2003 and $40 in 2004. [85648]

  John Healey
  By raising production costs and so constraining supply, higher oil prices tend to depress GDP growth, simultaneously pushing up inflation and unemployment. The UK differs from most other major industrialised economies in that it is a small net exporter of oil. Potential GDP losses therefore may be partly offset by increased UK incomes deriving from North Sea production due to the improvement in the terms of trade.

  In practice, the overall economic effects from rising oil prices are difficult to estimate as they depend largely on second round impacts on wages and other prices, as well as movements in business and consumer confidence.

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the review of pension contribution statistics by the National Statistician has been completed; what conclusions have been reached; and if he will place the full report in the Library. [85659]

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

  Letter from K. Dunnell to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 10 December 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the review of pension contribution statistics. I am replying in his absence.
  The review of pension contribution statistics by the National Statistician has been completed. The conclusions are set out in the review report, "Review of ONS Pensions Contributions Statistics", which was published on 10 October 2002 and may be found at the following web address: www.statistics.gov.uk/ about/Consultation by theme/downloads/Pension Contribution Report.pdf, along with a statement from the National Statistician at: www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pens1002.pd f.

  265W
  An action plan taking forward the recommendations of the Review of ONS Pensions Statistics was published on 29 November and may be found at the following web address: www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology by theme/downloads/ pension review action plan.pdf along with a statement from the National Statistician at: www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pen1002.pdf.
  Copies of the report have also been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what safeguards he proposes to put in place to prevent inappropriate or low quality developments as a result of the relaxation of requirements for detailed planning permission in enterprise areas announced in the Pre-Budget Report. [85963]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Pre-Budget Report announced that the Government will consider how to encourage local authorities to introduce Local Development Orders (LDOs) to relax planning control in enterprise areas.

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will provide that LDOs can only be introduced for the purpose of implementing policies in an adopted development plan document. They will be subject to the same public consultation as that development plan document. The Secretary of State may direct that a draft LDO be submitted to him for his approval, and may, in extreme circumstances, revoke an adopted LDO.

  Poverty
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition the government uses of(a) relative and (b) absolute poverty as applicable to government policy; and what plans the government has to review the utility and appropriateness of definitions of poverty in respect of government policy. [85760]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the purposes of the Public Service Agreement target to reduce the number of children living in low income households by a quarter by 2004–05 compared to 1998–99, the Government measure the number of children in households with an equivalised income below 60 per cent. of the contemporary median, as reported in "Households Below Average Income". This is a measure of relative income distribution; statistics on absolute measures based on income thresholds fixed in real terms are also published, as is information on pensioners and working-age adults.

  Low income is central to poverty. But poverty is a complex multi-dimensional issue, related to many other aspects of people's lives—including health, housing, the quality of the environment, and opportunities to learn. A broader set of indicators related to poverty and social exclusion, going beyond income, is published in the annual report "Opportunity for All".

  Looking further ahead, the Government are committed to finding a measure of child poverty that will both underpin effective policy-making and enable the public to gauge progress towards the long-term goal of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it within a generation. In April 2002 the Department for
  266W
  Work and Pensions launched a consultation exercise on measuring child poverty in the long-term. Preliminary conclusions are due to be published by spring 2003.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the use of a version of the budget standards model to define poverty; and what assessment he has made of the effect on poverty of the poorest households of change since 1977, using a budget standards model. [85761]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A wide range of research has been produced into what constitutes an "adequate" level of income for a family with children, following different budget standards models. However, there is no simple answer to the question of which level of incomes is adequate for all family types. Different research methods tend to make different assumptions and generate a range of estimates. It would be difficult to justify any one set of assumptions against another equally plausible set.

  Statistics based on relative and absolute low income going back to 1979 are published in "Households Below Average Income".

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask The Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total revenue from stamp duty was in each year since 1997. [85948]

  Ruth Kelly
  Stamp Duty revenues for each financial year since 1997–98 are given as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Stamp duty revenue

  1997–98

  3455.2

  1998–99

  4623.4

  1999–2000

  6897.8

  2000–01

  8164.6

  2001–02

  7103.5

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the stamp duty thresholds were in each year since 1997. [85949]

  Ruth Kelly
  Stamp duty thresholds and rates for this period for the transfers of land, buildings and property, other than stocks and shares, are given in the table (the rate is nil for considerations up to £60,000):

  Percentage

  Commencing date

  Considerations exceeding £60,000, but not exceeding £250,000,

  Considerations exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £500,000

  Considerations exceeding £500,000

  16 March 1993

  1

  1

  1

  8 July 1997

  1

  1.5

  2

  24 March 1998

  1

  2

  3

  16 March 1999

  1

  2.5

  3.5

  28 March 2000

  1

  3

  4

  Training and Management Courses
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions officials from his Department have had with small businesses regarding
  267W
  expanding training and management courses: and if he will publish the research he has commissioned regarding a proposed expansion; [85961]

  (2) what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of the banking industry concerning the University for Industry, and if he will make a statement. [85957]

  John Healey
  The Government welcome a proposal from high street banks to provide leadership support for prospective and existing businesses by creating a virtual university for small businesses with ready access to information, advice, support and mentoring through the internet and more specialist training courses. The Government are currently in discussion with a number of banks to develop the detail, and will consult with small businesses as the proposal develops.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the evidence he employed to choose which areas he has placed within those entitled to area cost adjustment. [86626]

  Mr. Leslie
  A full methodology guide to the area cost adjustment has been published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website (www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0304/acatech.pdf). A copy has also been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Asylum Seekers (Rough Sleeping)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements he has made for contact assessment outreach workers in the rough sleepers unit to record the number of destitute asylum seekers sleeping rough. [85815]

  Mrs. Roche
  Contact and assessment teams funded by local authorities and the Homelessness Directorate already record details of anyone they encounter who is sleeping rough and this will include any destitute asylum seekers.

  British-Irish Council
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on matters discussed and decisions taken at the meeting of the British-Irish Council on 22 November; if he will place in the Library and on his Department's website copies of papers discussed at the Council; and if he will list the Council attendees. [86472]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 December 2002,Official Report, column 75W.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responsibilities he has for emergency planning and the co-ordination of the work of 268W
  emergency planning authorities; and how his exercise of such responsibilities in London differs from that in (a) England and (b) the UK. [84604]

  Mr. Leslie
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itcham stated today, responsibility for the arrangements for co-ordinating the Government's response to major emergencies lies with him.

  My right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is represented on the three Cabinet Committees which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itcham mentions and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside chairs.

  As my right hon. Friend also stated, all Departments have a responsibility to plan, prepare, train and exercise for handling major incidents and emergencies that might occur within their field of responsibility. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is thus responsible for the following areas:
  fire policy and the central Government management and inspection of the fire service, which has a key role to play in emergency planning.
  the regional co-ordination unit and the Government offices of the regions. Government offices provide an important link between central Government and local government on a wide range of issues including emergency planning. Government offices also play a role in communication and co-ordination during any emergency.
  In addition, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, has specific responsibility for London resilience. As the capital city, the financial capital and the seat of Government, London is in a unique position, with unique requirements for emergency planning. A new strategic emergency planning regime for the capital, developed in response to the events of 11 September 2001, is headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich with the Mayor of London as his deputy. This regime co-ordinates the emergency planning work of the London boroughs, transport operators, utilities, London NHS, the emergency services, other civil authorities in London and the business community.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposals for reform of local government on enhancing(a) accountability, (b) openness and (c) probity; and what additional powers and resources will be made available for investigating and addressing complaints and malpractice. [85669]

  Mr. Leslie
  Building on the reforms in the Local Government Act 2000, which have brought about new council constitutions and established a new ethical framework for local government, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is now implementing the next stage. As set out in our response to the Transport, Local Government and Regional Affairs Committee's report on the draft Local Government Bill, this Bill marks a key stage in the Government's commitment to giving all local authorities new freedoms and flexibilities.
  269W
  Already under way is a long-term evaluation study of new council constitutions and the new ethical framework, which will establish the extent to which the reforms achieve the sought-for improvements in local authority efficiency, accountability and transparency.

  As to additional measures for investigating and addressing complaints and malpractice, the Government intend in the new year to introduce regulations under the Local Government Act 2000 to provide for the handling by local standards committees of cases of alleged misconduct.

  Mobile Phone Network
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will review his Best Practice guidelines on mobile phone network development to take account of the results of the Deloitte and Touche review of the mobile phone operators' compliance with the 10 commitments; and if he will make a statement; [86571]

  (2) how he plans to monitor implementation of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development; and whether this will be separate from the monitoring of the phone operators' 10 commitments by Deloitte and Touche. [86572]

  Mr. McNulty
  The "Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development" was published on 11 November this year. The code contains guidance for operators and local authorities on the sitting of mobile phone masts and base stations.

  The review by Deloitte and Touche, commissioned by the Federation of Electronics Industries (FEI), is a comprehensive assessment on the operators' 10 commitments. The review has not yet been completed; we expect it early next year. Once it has been received, we will then assess the need to review the guidance.

  Pathfinder Projects
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was originally budgeted for each national pathfinder programme in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; what funds budgeted for were not spent in each year; and whether they were carried forward. [81937]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 118w.

  Regional Government (Exmoor)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effect of regional government on Exmoor, with special reference to funding for the national park. [86235]

  Mr. Leslie
  The White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511) makes it clear that elected assemblies will only be established in those English regions outside London which choose to have one. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently taking soundings about the level of interest in each region in having a referendum about establishing an elected assembly.
  270W
  The White Paper does not propose any changes in the current arrangements for funding National Park Authorities.

  Elected regional assemblies will have a responsibility to ensure that countryside, landscape, recreation and rural issues are addressed in their regional strategies (for example regional spatial strategies and regional cultural strategies). They will also be expected to 'rural proof their activities.

  The White Paper invited views on the way in which regional stakeholders should be involved in the work of elected assemblies, and the Government will announce specific proposals in due course. National Park Authorities have been involved in this consultation.

  Rent Restructuring
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out the formula that(a) RSLs and (b) local authorities will need to implement as a minimum to reach the target rents set under his rent restructuring policy for (i) 2003–04, (ii) 2004–05 and (iii) 2005–06. [85679]

  Mr. McNulty
  Rent restructuring in the social sector aims to produce a fairer and more coherent pattern of rents, while keeping rents affordable and well below market levels. We want social rents to reflect the size, condition and location of properties, as well as the level of local earnings relative to the national average to take account of affordability.

  These factors have been included in the following national rents formula, where weekly rent is equal to:
  70 per cent. × average rent for the sector (LA or RSL) × (county manual earnings/national average manual earnings) × bedroom weight
  Plus
  30 per cent. × average rent for the sector × (property value/national average property value for the sector)
  The national rents formula is capped at a maximum level, varying according to the number of bedrooms. This will ensure rents do not rise to unreasonably high levels in high value areas.

  Registered social landlords and local authorities are being encouraged to start moving their rents towards the rents formula over a 10 year period from April 2002, in 10 roughly equal steps, while keeping annual rent changes within limits of RPI + ½ per cent. ± £2 per week.

  Showmen
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what support he will provide to local authorities for the provision of winter quarters for showmen. [84481]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no special provision for local authorities to provide accommodation for travelling showmen. If my hon. Friend the member for Chorley has particular concerns, perhaps he will write to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Student Houses
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of student houses in multi-occupancy in Charnwood borough council. [85028]
  271W
  Mr. McNally
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate costs. However as part of their part of their housing investment programme returns, Charnwood reported having a total of 102 houses in multiple occupation on 1 April 2002.

  Water Measurements (Wards)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those wards, grouped by counties and unitary wards or metropolitan authorities, in England and Wales whose boundaries contain estuaries, rivers and inland shore waters; what the percentage is of the area of each such ward that is comprised of water measured, where applicable, from the high water mark; and what effect such measurement has on the way in which population(a) density and (b) sparsity is measured for official statistical purposes. [85950]

  Jahn Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 10 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I am replying to your recent question on wards whose boundaries contain estuaries, rivers and inland shore waters. (85950)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) can provide the information requested on the percentage of the area of electoral wards/divisions and local authorities in England and Wales which comprise inland water. Information on the effect these measurements have on the population density is not available.
  ONS has recently received area measurements produced by the Ordnance Survey for Great Britain using their 1:10,000 scale 2001 Boundary Line product (boundaries as at May 2001). Early next year, these measurements will be made available on the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk). However if the request is urgent, ONS is willing to provide an extract on CD-ROM which will list three measurements and the percentage of inland water for all electoral wards/divisions and local authorities in England and Wales. The three measurements will be:
  area to Mean High Water: defined as the total area of an administrative unit measured in hectares and includes all tracts of inland water; where the administrative area is bounded by tidal water it is measured to Mean High Water mark.
  area of inland water: defined as the surface area of inland water areas exceeding 1sq kin within the area to Mean High Water, measured in hectares, within the administrative unit. Inland water includes features such as lakes and reservoirs; rivers, canals and streams are not included in this area measurement.
  land area: area to Mean High Water excluding area of inland water.
  Population density figures and land area measurements will be published as part of the 2001 Census Key Statistics during April 2003. The land area measurement has been used in accordance with the Eurostat directive.

  If a CD-Rom giving the above information is required, you should contact Alan Taylor at our Titchfield office on 01329 813536.

  There are no plans to provide population density figures based on other area measurements.

  Westminster/Kensington and Chelsea (Support)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much external financial support was given to(a) Westminster and (b) Kensington and Chelsea in
  272W
  each year since 1992, giving the percentage change in each case expressed in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms. [85828]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The figures for the level of total external support and the percentage change in cash terms and real terms for Westminster in each year since 1992 are set out in the table.

  Westminster

  Total external

  Percentage change

  support (£000)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1991–92

  188,142

  —

  —

  1992–93

  222,967

  18.5

  14.8

  1993–94

  186,794

  -16.2

  -18.2

  1994–95

  188,144

  0.7

  -0.6

  1995–96

  193,729

  3.0

  0.1

  1996–97

  190,100

  -1.9

  -4.9

  1997–98

  194,241

  2.2

  -0.9

  1998–99

  187,720

  -3.4

  -5.9

  1999–2000

  192,738

  2.7

  0.2

  2000–01

  194,839

  1.1

  -1.1

  2001–02

  198,752

  2.0

  -0.1

  2002–03

  205,117

  3.2

  0.7

  The figures for the level of total external support and the percentage change in cash terms and real terms for Kensington and Chelsea in each year since 1992 are set out in the table.

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Total external

  Percentage change

  support (£000)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1991–92

  106,064

  —

  —

  1992–93

  131,641

  24.1

  20.2

  1993–94

  109,283

  -17.0

  -19.0

  1994–95

  110,594

  1.2

  -0.1

  1995–96

  109,602

  -0.9

  -3.6

  1996–97

  109,063

  -0.5

  -3.6

  1997–98

  108,858

  -0.2

  -3.2

  1998–99

  107,887

  -0.9

  -3.5

  1999–2000

  110,941

  2.8

  0.4

  2000–01

  112,777

  1.7

  -0.5

  2001–02

  117,917

  4.6

  2.4

  2002–03

  122.280

  3.7

  1.2

  Total external support consists of revenue support grant, redistributed national non-domestic rates, central support protection grant (in 1999–2000 and 2000–01), SSA reduction grant (between 1994–95 and 2000–01) and Inner London education grant (until 1994–95).

  The real terms percentage change figures are calculated using the HM Treasury GDP Deflator where 2001–02 equals 100.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was granted from each source of support within his Department to(a) Westminster city council and (b) the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, outside the revenue support grant, in each year since 1997. [85831]

  Mr. Leslie
  The available information on funding for local authorities provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for which figures were requested is given in the tables.
  273W
  The figures included in the tables exclude funding provided by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the former Department of Transport, Local Government

  Westminster city council

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Revenue Funding

  Central Support Protection Grant

  —

  —

  —

  4,206

  4,866

  —

  —

  SSA Reduction Grant

  893

  —

  15,580

  8,500

  1,625

  —

  —

  Housing Revenue Account subsidy1

  23,850

  22,489

  21,656

  21,102

  20,214

  25,626

  30,763

  Supporting People Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  313

  Beacon Council Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  Total Revenue Funding (excluding Revenue Support Grant and redistributed business rates)

  24,743

  22,489

  37,236

  33,808

  26,726

  25,726

  31,076

  Capital Funding

  Basic Credit Approvals Issued

  12,196

  2,761

  4,910

  5,681

  22,188

  12,612

  15,148

  Capital Receipts Initiative—housing SCA2

  —

  2,039

  6,618

  7,176

  —

  —

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme SCA2

  975

  1,029

  644

  40

  —

  —

  —

  Social Housing Grant

  5,177

  4,522

  7,100

  4,371

  10,254

  5,136

  3—

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  749

  1,123

  Street Wardens Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  115

  Street Crime Wardens Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108

  Estate Action Grant4

  —

  9,001

  5,860

  2,301

  2,687

  3,817

  1,785

  Rough Sleeping Grant

  —

  —

  —

  513

  757

  1,628

  1,860

  Priority Needs Order

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66

  Bed and Breakfast Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,443

  Homelessness Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  Local e-government Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  525

  Total Capital Funding

  18,348

  19,352

  25,132

  20,083

  35,886

  23,968

  23,241

  1 HRA Subsidy figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are estimates, as payments have yet to be completed.

  2 SCA = Supplementary Credit Approvals

  3 Social Housing Grant data for 2002/03 is currently unavailable.

  4 2002–03 Estate Action figure is the amount of funding agreed. To date Westminster have claimed £862,350.

  Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Revenue funding

  Central Support Protection Grant

  —

  —

  —

  1,121

  —

  —

  —

  SSA Reduction Grant

  10,838

  8,412

  5,487

  3,158

  —

  —

  —

  Housing Revenue Account subsidy1

  40,063

  38,247

  35,313

  33,453

  30,987

  46,011

  19,410

  Supporting People Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  268

  Beacon Council Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  Total Revenue Funding (excluding Revenue Support Grant and redistributed business rates)

  50,901

  46,659

  40,800

  37,732

  31,009

  46,106

  19,678

  Capital Funding

  Basic Credit Approvals Issued

  8,895

  5,686

  4,183

  5,411

  17,081

  12,652

  12,740

  Capital Receipts Initiative—housing SCA2

  —

  1,095

  3,959

  4,319

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme SCA2

  600

  600

  217

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Social Housing Grant

  6,649

  5,026

  4,076

  6,766

  7,754

  9,477

  3—

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  540

  811

  Estate Action Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  517

  Rough Sleeping Grant

  —

  —

  —

  371

  208

  208

  —

  Priority Needs Order

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Bed and Breakfast Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,377

  Homelessness Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  168

  Local e-government Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  ISB Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  126

  —

  Total Capital Funding

  16,144

  12,407

  12,435

  16,867

  25,082

  23,003

  15,849

  1 HRA Subsidy figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are estimates, as payments have vet to be completed.

  2 SCA = Supplementary Credit Approvals.

  3 Social Housing Grant data for 2002–03 is currently unavailable.

  Youth Provision (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what housing assistance is available to young people 274W
  and the Regions for areas fo work that are nor the responsibility of the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  resident in Battersea who have left care homes or foster parents (a) over the age of 16 and (b) over the age of 18. [85523]
  275W
  Mr. McNulty
  Care leavers in Battersea can obtain housing assistance from the London borough council for Wandsworth. Help is available through the housing providers that work with Wandsworth, such as Shaftesbury Homes and Aruthusa, NACRO and the Wandsworth Independent Living Scheme. The council also offer specialist services for the black minority ethnic community, offenders and young parents. Care leavers wishing to access these services can do so by contacting their social worker or Wandsworth's homeless persons unit. Alternatively the Connexions service personal advisers help those leaving care who may become homeless in Wandsworth through working with voluntary organisations such as Grenfell, Threshold and Patchwork Housing. Advice on services which are available to young people between 16 and 18 years of age is best obtained by an individual setting out their detailed circumstances to the agencies listed.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Carlson v. Townsend
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action she has taken as a result of the judgment in the Court of Appeal in the case of Carlson v. Townsend. [86520]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The implications of the judgment in Carlson v. Townsend was one of the issues considered by the Personal Injury Protocol Working Party as part of its comprehensive review of the protocol. The findings of the working party will be considered as part of the on-going process of monitoring the working of the protocol.

  Equal Access Workshops
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when workshops to examine difficulties of equal access to legal services took place; what the(a) cost and (b) purpose of each workshop was; what minority ethnic organisations she consulted on the programme of these events; how many persons and what organisations have been represented at events; and what plans she has for further events in the next 12 months. [86017]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Five Community Legal Service (CLS) Diversity Workshops have taken place. The target groups and the costs of the relevant workshops were as follows:

  Workshop

  £

  Children and Young People

  4,738.90

  People with Disabilities

  3,668

  Minority Ethnic Groups

  2,763.87

  Older People

  616.58

  Women's issues

  750

  The purpose of the workshops was to see how access to legal help and advice could be improved for each of
  276W
  the five target groups. In particular the aim of the workshops was to assess the following issues as they specifically applied to the target group:
  the need for advice within the target group;
  the areas where advice was most likely to be sought, and why;
  the barriers to advice;
  the importance of knowing legal rights, and the impact and social consequences of not knowing those rights; and
  ideas for developing CLS partnership work for the target group in question.
  No minority ethnic organisations were consulted on the programme of the workshops.

  A list of the organisations and the total number of people who attended the events is shown in the following list.

  A decision has not yet been made about the number or nature of further events.

  List of attendees for CLS Diversity Workshops

  Children and Young People—15 January 2002

  (21 external delegates)

  Child Poverty Action Group

  Shelter

  Federation of Independent Advice Centres

  Local Government Association

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Youth Access

  The Law Society

  Connexions

  NACAB

  Children's Rights Alliance

  The Home Office

  National Children's Homes

  Race Equality Unit, DTI

  Children's Legal Centre

  Commission for Racial Equality

  National Youth Agency

  DFES

  Legal Aid Practitioners Group

  Family Law Association

  Law Centres Federation

  Harlow Young People's Information Centre

  People with Disabilities—13 May 2002

  (24 external delegates)

  Disability Rights Commission

  Federation of Independent Advice Centres (2 delegates)

  277W

  Help the Aged

  Disability Unit

  NACAB (2 delegates)

  Bury and District Disabled Advisory Council

  Disability Information Services

  Law Centres Federation

  Garden Court North Chambers—Bar Council

  Advice Services Alliance

  Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB)

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID)

  British Dyslexia Association

  Shelter

  Employment Services

  Disability Rights Commission

  British Council of Disabled People

  Dial UK

  LCD Disability Network

  MIND

  Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People

  Federation of Independent Advice Centres

  Minority Ethnic Groups—17 September 2002

  (27 external delegates)

  Action for Integration and Tolerance

  Norwich and Norfolk Racial Equality Council

  Lambeth Law Centre (3 delegates)

  South London Tamil Welfare Group

  Diversity Unit, LCD

  Iranian Association

  BT Ethnic Minority Network

  Somali Welfare and Development

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Federation of Independent Advice (2 delegates)

  Home Office

  Latin American Association

  Chinese Information and Advice Centre

  Halkevi Turkish Community (2 delegates)

  Connexions Service

  Cambridgeshire Travellers Initiative

  Asylum Aid

  Confederation of Indian Organisations

  University College, London

  Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

  Federation of Irish Societies

  Consumers' Association

  Ghana Welfare Association

  278W
  Older People—29 November 2002

  (23 external delegates)

  Maturity Works

  Cruse Bereavement Care

  Department of Work and Pensions

  Neovenator

  Latin American Association

  Wise Owls

  Beth Johnson Foundation

  Better Government for Older People

  Thamesmead Law Centre

  Help the Aged

  NACAB

  ASRA Housing Association

  SADACCA Elderly Day Care Centre

  Action on Elder Abuse

  Scottish Older People Advisory Group

  Friends of the Elderly

  Department of Health

  Counsel and Care for the Elderly

  Association of Retired People over 50

  Jobcentre Plus

  Islington PCT

  Association of Greater London Older Women

  DTI

  Women's issues—28 October 2002

  (13 external delegates)

  Rights of Women

  Fawcett Society

  Calderdale Well Woman Association

  Women's Link

  Awareness in Practice

  Equal Opportunities Commission (3 delegates)

  ADVANCE

  South Essex Rape and Incest Centre

  Domestic Violence Working Group

  National Domestic Violence Helpline

  Northern Ireland Women's Support Network

  Local Boundaries (Wales)
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether the review of local government boundaries in Wales will report in December. [85620]

  Yvette Cooper
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Medical Reports
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will issue directions to regulate the use of agreed medical reports. [86521]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department does not intend to regulate the use of agreed medical experts. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), allows parties in civil proceedings to instruct a single joint expert. To regulate this further would incur unnecessary costs and defeat the objectives of the CPR—to make civil disputes easier, quicker and cheaper to resolve.

  Personal Injury
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what monitoring has taken place on the Personal Injury Pre-action Protocol. [86519]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To assess pre-action behaviour and the effect of the protocols, the Civil Justice Council and the Law Society jointly commissioned research by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and the University of Westminster. The report, "More Civil Justice?", which was published on 25 April 2002, focused on three specific areas of dispute: personal injury, clinical negligence and housing disrepair. The study found that in all three areas there was evidence of a culture change and better communication between opposing sides, which has increased the number of claims settling without going to court.

  The report included a number of recommendations that are being considered by the Personal Injury Working Party in the comprehensive review of the protocol that it is currently conducting.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department's plans to conduct a customer information campaign on the change to automated credit transfer payment will start; what form it will take; what its budget is; and if he will make a statement. [86054]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions will be converting people to Direct Payment over a two-year period, with the first payments going into accounts from April 2003. A customer information campaign will support the conversion.

  We have already started to notify customers about the change to Direct Payment. The first invitation letters asking for account details started to go out to some Child Benefit customers at the end of October. We have also made information publicly available on the internet, through news releases to the media, and in articles aimed at advisers.

  Next year the information campaign will give even more customers the information they need to help them make the best choice for their circumstances. The main element of the campaign is direct mail and we will write to all customers who are currently paid their benefits and state pensions by paper based methods. This is to let them know how Direct Payment affects them, and what options are available to them. We will support the mailing with an advertising and information campaign using a range of publicity media.

  The detail of the campaign is still being developed, but a budget of up to £25 million is available for the campaign, spread over a three-year period (2002–03 to 2004–05).

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his policy towards claims for backpayments of bereavement benefits following the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights on this subject on 11 June. [84318]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: Bereavement benefits were introduced from April 2001 and, for the first time, extend the help available to both men and women. For information on the judgment referred to, which concerns benefits which pre-date bereavement benefits, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on 27 November 2002, Official Report, column 320W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend the deadline for claiming bereavement payments; whether the change will be retrospective; and if he will make a statement. [86612]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We want bereaved people to claim and receive the help that they and their families are entitled to when they need it—immediately after the bereavement. Most people do; more than four fifths claim within four or five weeks of their loss. However, we acknowledge that not all bereaved people find it possible to claim as promptly as the current rules for the lump-sum Bereavement Payment require. We are therefore extending the time limit for claiming Bereavement Payment and aligning it with the period over which a person can receive Bereavement Allowance—namely 12 months. We see this as a sensible alteration that will simplify the scheme for everyone while remaining compatible with underlying benefit entitlement rules.

  We laid amending regulations on 24 October 2002, which will give effect to this change for claims in respect of deaths that occur on or after 1 April 2003.

  Children's Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what benefits are available to children with mental health problems. [83187]

  Maria Eagle
  The term "mental health problems" covers a wide variety of symptoms. Where those symptoms impair a child's normal functioning to the extent that they amount to a severe mental disability, the child may be entitled to Disability Living Allowance1. The additional benefits which, subject to the normal entitlement conditions, are available to families with disabled children who qualify for Disability Living Allowance are shown in the table. The Family Fund Trust, which is funded by government, also provides grants to families of severely disabled children in order to ease the stress of their day-to-day life.
  281W
  Benefits available to families with children with a mental disability who qualify for Disability Living Allowance
  Disabled child's Disability Living Allowance component and rate
  Care component (all rates) and mobility component (all rates).
  Highest rate care component.
  Highest or middle rate care component.
  Higher rate mobility component.

  Additional benefits that may be available to families of severely disabled children
  Disabled child premium in income related benefits2, or disabled child tax credit in Disabled Person's Tax Credit or Working Families Tax Credit.
  Enhanced disability premium and the disabled child premium in income related benefits, or enhanced disability tax credit.
  Invalid Care Allowance3
  Access to the Motability. "Blue Badge" and Vehicle Excise Duty Exemption schemes.

  Notes:

  1 Children under 16 years of age with a mental disability can qualify for the care component and the lower rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance if they are so severely disabled that their need for attention, supervision or watching over by another person is substantially in excess of that normally required by children of their age. Those who qualify for the highest rate of the care component may also qualify for the higher rate of the mobility component if they exhibit extreme and unpredictable disruptive behaviour as the result of arrested or incomplete development of the brain.

  2 Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance (income related), Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  3 Entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance can also give entitlement to the Carer Premium in income related benefits.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Birt
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister when Lord Birt began working as an adviser to the Prime Minister on transport issues; when this role is due to end; and what the expected(a) date and (b) nature of the outcome of his work are. [86086]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Birt was appointed in October 2001 as my unpaid strategy adviser for a period of up to three years. The nature of Lord Birt's work is to provide private internal advice to me and other Cabinet Ministers on a range of issues. This advice is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to government Information.

  Catherine Meyer
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he sent the letter to the Chancellor of Germany concerning the case of Catherine Meyer; and when the reply was received. [86723]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him in the House on Monday 28 October,Official Report, column 554 and the answer I gave him on Monday 25 November, Official Report, column 20W,

HEALTH

  A and E
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) role and (b) grade is of Mr. Richard Woodfield within the Medicines Control Agency; and what assessment he has made of the performance of Mr. Woodfield in relation to the specialist natural health retail sector. [85084]

  Ms Blears
  Mr. Richard Woodfield is a senior civil servant employed by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). He is the group manager with responsibility for regulatory policy on herbal medicines and management of the MCA's European support unit. I am not prepared to provide any further personal information about Mr. Woodfield.

  Acute Hospitals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died while waiting on ambulance trolleys at acute hospitals in the past 12 months. [86040]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not collected centrally. However, we have not been made aware of any deaths attributable to waiting times in ambulances at accident and emergency departments.

  Adverse Events
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on current research into adverse events in hospitals. [85774]

  Mr. Lammy
  As set out in the report, "An Organisation with a Memory", international research demonstrates that significant numbers of adverse events occur in healthcare systems across the world.

  In the United Kingdom, the Department has commissioned a programme of research into patient safety, which seeks to build upon and complement international work in this area. The programme is led by Professor Richard Lilford at the University of Birmingham. Work already completed includes systematic reviews of existing international research and examining the nature of errors in primary care. A number of studies are currently under way looking at obstetric injury, errors in accident and emergency units and the operating theatre, and errors resulting in litigation. Professor Lilford is working closely with the National Patient Safety Agency. Further information is available from the University of Birmingham patient safety research programme website at www.publichealth.bham.ac.uk/psrp.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of NHS patients affected by adverse events in British hospitals in the last 12 months. [85775]
  283W
  Mr. Lammy
  At the present time, we do not know what proportion of national health service patients are affected by adverse events in British hospitals. However, as reported in "An Organisation with a Memory", a report of an expert group on learning from adverse events chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, it is estimated that errors may occur in 10 per cent. of hospital admissions. This is in line with research carried out in other countries including New Zealand, Canada and Denmark.

  The Government established the National Patient Safety Agency in July 2001 to improve the safety of NHS patient care by promoting an open and fair culture and by introducing a national reporting and learning system for adverse events. It is planned for the reporting and learning system to be rolled out across the NHS from summer 2003. The system will, in time, enable us to understand the true nature and extent of adverse events in the NHS and prevent them being repeated.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002—ambulance staff vacancies in NHS trusts, by DHSC and NHS trust—three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  Ambulance staff (excluding HA staff)

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  Three month vacancy number

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  England (excluding HA staff)

  0.5

  90

  16,320

  16,920

  Midlands and Eastern

  0.9

  40

  4,850

  5,060

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust

  2.4

  10

  470

  480

  East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  810

  890

  East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  900

  910

  Essex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  640

  720

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  11.8

  30

  220

  220

  Lincolnshire Ambulance and Health Transport Services NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  410

  410

  Shropshire's Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  190

  190

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  260

  270

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  290

  290

  West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  670

  670

  London

  0.0

  0

  2,310

  2,330

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  20

  20

  London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  2,280

  2,300

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  Parkside Health NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Northern

  0.3

  20

  4,560

  4,810

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  230

  260

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  730

  740

  Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.2

  0

  580

  620

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  560

  560

  North East Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  2.5

  20

  580

  590

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Tyneside PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Manchester PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  420

  450

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  580

  590

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  870

  1,010

  Southern

  0.5

  30

  4,600

  4,720

  Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  320

  340

  Cornwall Healthcare NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Dorset Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  230

  230

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  2.9

  10

  210

  210

  Ambulance Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the turnover rate for ambulance staff is, broken down by trust area. [85769]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on ambulance staff turnover is not collected centrally.

  Ambulance Staff (Vacancies)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for(a) paramedics and (b) ambulance staff, broken down by NHS trust area. [85784]

  Mr. Hutton
  Separate information for paramedic vacancies is not collected centrally. Information for all ambulance staff is shown in the table.

  Between March 2001 and March 2002 the three month vacancy rate for ambulance staff fell from 1.4 per cent., to 0.5 per cent.
  285W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002—ambulance staff vacancies in NHS trusts, by DHSC and NHS trust—three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  Ambulance staff (excluding HA staff)

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  Three month vacancy number

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  2.8

  10

  390

  400

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  60

  60

  Kent Ambulance NHS Trust

  0.8

  10

  610

  650

  Oxfordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  130

  140

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  2—

  2—

  280

  290

  South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Surrey and Hampshire Borders NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Surrey Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  340

  350

  Sussex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  670

  680

  Two Shires Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  340

  340

  West Country Ambulance Service NSH Trust

  0.4

  0

  820

  820

  Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  200

  210

  1 Figures where sum of staff in post and vacancies is less than 10.

  2 Did not receive a return

  Key notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is at 31 March 2002.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  3. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey, March 2002.

  5. Staff in post data are from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001.

  6. Staff in post data exclude staff employed by health authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from trusts, PCTs and special health authorities.

  7. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  8. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  Other notes:

  9. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  10. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  11. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  12. Only those NHS trusts employing ambulance staff are listed.

  Sources:

  Vacancy numbers and rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002

  Non-medical staff in post: Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce census September 2001

  Broadband Connectivity
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide pharmacies with broadband connectivity; and if he will make a statement. [83902]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are no specific plans to provide broadband connectivity to pharmacies. Hospital pharmacies will have access to the broadband networking arrangements for hospitals being put in place as part of the national health service modernisation programme. Community pharmacists are of course part of the NHS "family", but apart from those participating in the electronic transfer of prescriptions pilots do not make use of the national NHS network.

  The broadband networking plans set out in the Government's "21st century IT" strategy document focus on the needs of NHS trusts and general practitioner practices. As stated in the strategy document, it is anticipated that the trials will continue to grow and involve a sizeable number of GPs and pharmacists with a natural migration into rollout. This project will create greater connectivity to NHSnet for pharmacists allowing the access to the benefits that this service provides. We will review the need for broadband access to pharmacies as the strategy develops.

  Child Dental Health
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of children with tooth cavities in(a) Lancashire and (b) the north-west of England; in each of the previous five years. [85330]

  Mr. Lammy
  The British association for the study of community dentistry (BASCD) carries out surveys to monitor the dental caries experience of five, 21 and 14-year-old children. The survey of five-year-olds is carried out every second year and the surveys of 12 and 14-year-olds are carried out every four years.

  The number of children with tooth cavities for five, 12 and 14-year-old children by health authority in Lancashire is shown in table 1 for the years 1995–96 to 2000–01 and for the north-west region in table 2. The percentages of children with dental caries are taken from the BASCD survey results and the number of children with caries are estimated by applying these percentages to estimates of the total population of these children.
  287W

  Table 1: Number and percentage of children with tooth cavities in Lancashire 1995–96 to 2000–01—Lancashire health authorities

  Five-years-old

  12-years-old

  14-years-old

  Health authority area

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1995–96

  East Lancashire

  3,900

  55

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Morecambe Bay

  1,800

  49

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North-west Lancashire

  2,500

  48

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Lancashire

  1,800

  45

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  10,000

  50

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1996–97

  East Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  2,700

  38

  1—

  1—

  Morecambe Bay

  1—

  1—

  900

  23

  1—

  1—

  North-west Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1,300

  25

  1—

  1—

  South Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1,500

  37

  1—

  1—

  Total

  1—

  1—

  6,400

  32

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  East Lancashire

  4,000

  52

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Morecambe Bay

  1,900

  48

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North-west Lancashire

  2,800

  47

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Lancashire

  1,700

  43

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  10,400

  48

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  East Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  3,200

  45

  Morecambe Bay

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,000

  26

  North-west Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2,200

  41

  South Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1,900

  47

  Total

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  8,300

  41

  1999–2000

  East Lancashire

  3,600

  50

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Morecambe Bay

  1,600

  42

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North-west Lancashire

  2,700

  49

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Lancashire

  1,700

  44

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  9,500

  47

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2000–01

  East Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  2,600

  35

  1—

  1—

  Morecambe Bay

  1—

  1—

  800

  20

  1—

  1—

  North-west Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  2,100

  35

  1—

  1—

  South Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1,700

  37

  1—

  1—

  Total

  1—

  1—

  7,200

  33

  1—

  1—

  1 Data not collected by BASCD for this age group for this year.

  Table 2: Number and percentage of children with tooth cavities in the north-west region 1995–96 to 2000–01—north-west region

  Five-years-old

  12-years-old

  14-years-old

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1995–96

  42,300

  50

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  27,400

  32

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  41,800

  46

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  31,400

  37

  1999–2000

  39,100

  46

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  28,500

  31

  1—

  1—

  1 Data not collected by BASCD for this age group for this year

  Computers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance the NHS gives to trusts about the replacement time for computer equipment. [85791]

  Ms Blears
  No general guidance is given. The replacement of computer equipment will be decided by individual national health service organisations depending on local circumstances.

  Congenital Malformation Database
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted into the United Kingdom congenital malformation database since it was established. [84256]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  289W
  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. L. Smith, dated 10 December 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on what research has been conducted into the United Kingdom congenital anomaly database since it was established. (84256)
  The National Congenital Anomaly System (NCAS) was set up in 1964 and only monitors congenital anomalies in England and Wales. Reporting to the system is voluntary and only live births and stillbirths are included. A number of articles and papers have been written using data from NCAS and on the quality of the data held on NCAS. Listed below are the articles using national data of which ONS are aware.
  Research using the National Congenital Anomaly System:
  Botting BJ. Limb reduction defects and coastal areas. Letter. Lancet, 1994; 343: 1033–1034.
  Botting B, Rosato M, Wood R. Teenage mothers and the health of their children. Popul Trends. 1998 Autumn;(93): 19–28
  Busby A, Dolk H, Collin R, Barry Jones R, Winter R. Compiling a national register of babies born with anophthalmia/micropthalmia in England 1988–94. Arch Dis Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed 1998;79:F168–173
  Doyle PE, Beral V, Botting B, Wale CJ. Congenital malformations in twins in England and Wales. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991;45(1):43–8.
  Gilbert R. Clusters of anophthalmia in Britain. Difficult to implicate Benomyl on current evidence. BMJ 1993;307:340–341.
  Mastroiacovo P, Castilla E, Arpino C, Botting B, Cocchi G, Goujard J, Marinacci C, Merlob P, Metneki J, Mutchinick 0, Ritvanenen A, Rosano A. Congenital malformations in twins: an international study. Am J Med Genet 1999;83:117–124
  Morris JK, Wald NJ. Quantifying the decline in the birth prevalence of neural tube defects in England and Wales. Journal of Medical Screening, 1999 6; 4:182–185
  Murphy M, Seagroatt V, Hey K et al. Neural tube defects 1974–94 down but not out. Arch Dis Child 1996; 75: F133-F134
  Office for National Statistics. Congenital anomaly statistics Series MBS. London: The Stationery Office
  Office for National Statistics. Health Statistics Quarterly no 4. Annual update: congenital anomaly statistics 1998 London: The Stationery Office, 1999
  Office for National Statistics. Health Statistics Quarterly no 8. Annual update: congenital anomaly statistics 1999 London: The Stationery Office, 2000
  Office for National Statistics. Health Statistics Quarterly no 12. Annual update: congenital anomaly statistics 2000 London: The Stationery Office, 2001
  Office for National Statistics. Health Statistics Quarterly no 16. Annual update: congenital anomaly statistics 2001 London: The Stationery Office, 2002
  Rogers SC, Weatherall JAC, OPCS, Anencephalus, spina bifida and congenital hydrocephalus. England and Wales 1964–1972. Studies on medical and population subjects. No 32 London: HMSO 1976:
  Rosano A, Smithells D, Cacciani L, Botting B, Castilla E, Cornel M, Erickson D, Goujard J,
  Irgens L, Merlob P, Robert E, Siffel C. Stoll C, Sumiyoshi Y. Time trends in neural tube defects prevalence in relation to preventive strategies: an international study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Oct;53(10):630–5
  Smeeton NC, Rona RJ, Sharland G, Botting BJ, Barnett A, Dundas R. Estimating the prevalence of malformation of the heart in the first year of life using capture-recapture methods. Am J Epidemiol, 1999; 150 (7):778–785
  Swerdlow AJ, Melzer D. The value of England and Wales congenital malformation notification scheme data for epidemiology: male genital tract malformations. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1988; 42(1):8–13.
  290W
  Tan KH, Kilby MD. Whittle MJ, Beattie BR, Booth IW, Botting BJ. Congenital anterior abdominal wall defects in England and Wales 1987–93: retrospective analysis of OPCS data. BMJ. 1996 Oct 12;313(7062):903–6.
  Research into the quality of data on the National Congenital Anomaly System:
  Alberman E, Botting B. Recommendations for improving national data on congenital anomalies are being implemented. BMJ. 1997 Apr 26;314(7089):1278
  Botting B. The impact of more complete data from Wales on the National Congenital Anomaly system. Health Statistics Quarterly 2000; 5: 7–9.
  Botting B. Improving the completeness of Down syndrome notification. Health Statistics Quarterly, 2000a ; 6: 14–17
  Busby A, Dolk H, Collin R, Barry Jones R, Winter R. Compiling a national register of babies born with anophthalmia/micropthalmia in England 1988–94. Arch Dis Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed 1998;79:F168–173
  Coleridge HL. The National Congenital Anomaly System-why it needs midwives' support. RCM Midwives J. 2002;5(5): 188–9
  Cuckle H, Nanchahal K, Wald N. Birth prevalence of Down's syndrome in England and Wales. Prenatal Diagnosis 1991; 11: 29–34.
  Dutton SJ, Owens JR, Harris F. Ascertainment of congenital malformations: a comparative study of two systems. J Epidemiol Community Health 1991; 45: 294–298.
  Hey K, O'Donnell M, Murphy M, Jones N, Botting B, use of local neural tube defect registers to interpret national trends. Archives of disease in childhood. 1994; 71: F198-F202
  Hill GB, Spicer CC Weatherall JAC The computer surveillance of congenital malformations. Br Med Bull 1968; 24 (3) :215–218
  Huang T, Wall HC, Wald NJ, Morris JK, Mutton D, Alberman E. Reliability of statistics on Down's syndrome notifications. Journal of Medical Screening 1997; 4:95–97.
  Knox EG, Armstrong EH, Lancashire R. The quality of notification of congenital malformations. J Epidemiol Community Health 1984; 38: 296–305.
  Knox EG, Lancashire R. Epidemiology of congenital malformations. London: HMSO,1991.
  Morris JK, Wald NJ. Quantifying the decline in the birth prevalence of neural tube defects in England and Wales. Journal of Medical Screening, 1999 6; 4:182–185
  Murphy M, Seagroatt V, Hey K el al. Neural tube defects 1974–94 down but not out Arch Dis Child 1996; 75: F133-F134
  OPCS The OPCS Monitoring Scheme for Congenital Malformations—Occasional Paper 43- A review by a Working Group of the Registrar General's Medical Advisory Committee. London: OPCS 1995
  Payne JN. Limitations of the OPCS congenital malformation notification systems illustrated by examination of congenital malformations of the cardiovascular systems in districts within the Trent region. Public Health 1992; 106: 437–448.
  Rahi JS, Botting B. Ascertainment of children with congenital cataract through the National Congenital Anomaly System in England and Wales. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 Sep;85(9): 1049–51.
  Smeeton NC, Rona RJ, Sharland G, Botting BJ, Barnett A, Dundas R. Estimating the prevalence of malformation of the heart in the first year of life using capture-recapture methods. Am J Epidemiol, 1999; 150 (7): 778–785
  Swerdlow AJ, Melzer D. The value of England and Wales congenital malformation notification scheme data for epidemiology: male genital tract malformations. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1988; 42(1): 8–13.
  Weatherall JAC. An assessment of the efficiency of notification of congenital malformations. The Medical Officer, 1969; 121:65–68
  Weatherall JAC. Congenital malformations, surveillance and reporting. Population Trends 11, 1978, 27–29

  Consultants' Contract (Press Releases)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of press releases made by his Department regarding slide 9 of the "A New Consultant Contract—The Framework for Agreement" presentation given by Mr.Andrew Foster, Director of Human Resources for the national health service. [86250]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not issued any press release regarding any aspect of the presentation given by Mr. Andrew Foster, national health service director of human resources.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, dated 11 June and 24 July 2002, concerning new prescription policing arrangements. [81725]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 26 November 2002.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for his Department to improve the response rate to letters to hon. Members on behalf of their constituents. [83280]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: A customer service project has been set up under the Department's change programme. The aim of this project is to significantly improve the Department's performance in handling telephone, written and e-mail inquiries from members of the public and their representatives, and to maximise the potential of the Department's website and other forms of communication media.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many replies remain outstanding to letters from hon. Members which were sent by them before 3 December 2001. [84064]

  Mr. Lammy
  None.

  Mr. Desmond Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the letter of Ronnie Cairnduff of Hampshire Care dated 31 July. [84724]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department is unable to locate a copy of Mr. Caimduff s correspondence and the Customer Service Unit apologises for this and is seeking a copy of this correspondence.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for the 17 month delay in responding to a letter from the hon. Member for Totnes dated 27 June 2001 concerning Mrs. Alyson Bellenes of Marldon, Devon and St. John's Wort. [85245]

  Mr. Lammy
  Firstly, I apologise for the unacceptable delay in replying to the hon. Member's correspondence. Unfortunately, the Department did not receive the original correspondence but did receive the copy the hon. Member forwarded on 21 November. The delay was caused by administration difficulties within the Department.
  292W
  To prevent this kind of delay from reoccurring the Department has introduced a new correspondence tracking system designed to track correspondence throughout the Department via the electronic mailing system. A customer service project has been set up under the Department's change programme with the following objectives:
  to improve significantly the Department's performance in handling telephone, written and e-mail inquiries from members of the public and their representatives.
  to maximise the potential of the Department's website and the other forms of communication media as a source of information to the public.
  The project will give further impetus to improving performance in the timeliness and quality of responses to correspondence.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the honourable Member for Walsall North will receive a reply to his letter of 22 October regarding a constituent, Departmental Ref P01018138. [85889]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 5 December.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the letter of 5 September to him from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield concerning Mr. and Mrs. C. Brewster. [86649]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 9 December.

  Delayed Admissions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total cost to NHS ambulance trusts of delayed admissions to accident and emergency departments in the last 12 months. [85767]

  Mr. Lammy
  None

  Delayed Ambulance Transfers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on delayed transfers from ambulances to accident and emergency departments. [85766]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have received no formal representations but are aware of local concerns about delayed transfers from ambulances into accident and emergency departments. Normally any such problems are resolved locally through dialogue between the hospital, ambulance service and any other interested parties.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the £100 million for social services that is being taken from NHS budgets will be ring-fenced for tackling delayed discharge. [85232]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: A decision on how the funding will be allocated has not yet been made. Details will be announced as soon as possible.

  Dental Treatment
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to make periodontal treatment available on the NHS in all dental practices; [84595]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the full range of dentistry treatment is available on the NHS. [84596]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under their national health service terms of service general dental practitioners have a duty to provide for their registered patients all treatment that is necessary to secure and maintain oral health. The statement of dental remuneration, which includes fees for surgical and non-surgical periodontal treatments, lists most of the treatments that are available on the NHS.

  Dentistry
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of dentistry treatment on the NHS; and how many dentists in each PCT are(a) practising, (b) offering the full range of treatment on the NHS and (c) able to take on new patients on the NHS. [84597]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of general dental service (GDS) dentists in each primary care trust (PCT) in England at 30 June 2002 is contained in the table that has been placed in the Library. Dentists practising in more than one PCT are counted in each PCT in which they practice.

  Information about dentists in other national health service services, for example community dental service, personal dental service, hospital dental service is not yet available by PCT.

  GDS dentists are required to provide a full range of NHS treatment to maintain the oral health of the patients that are registered with them for capitation (children) or continuing care (adults).

  Details of the GDP that are currently accepting new patient registrations is monitored by PCTs locally and is not centrally available. Patients wishing to register with a dentist can obtain details of GDS dentists registering new patients in their area by telephoning NHS Direct or their local PCT.

  Depo Provera
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from general practitioners about the adequacy of supplies of depo provera injectable contraceptive; and what action he has taken as a result. [86605]

  Ms Blears
  We have received representations from a number of health professionals, including general practitioners, about the current shortage of the injectable contraceptive depo-provera which has been caused by production problems. Departmental officials have been in regular contact with the manufacturer of this product to assist rapid action to alleviate the shortage and are aware that limited stocks are now available. Normal supplies of this product are expected to be available from 16 December.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the National Service Framework for Diabetes. [86073]

  Mr. Lammy
  We shall be publishing the delivery strategy for the diabetes national service framework in the next few weeks.

  Digital Television
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the value of the use of digital television in the modernisation of the NHS. [83021]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department, working with commercial partners from the media and broadcasting industries, has recently run four pilot projects exploring health applications of digital interactive television. The different projects were chosen to explore a variety of different types of digital television service and different digital TV platforms. Information was broadcast on health conditions, healthy living and local health services using text-based material, video-on-demand and a mixture of scheduled programmes and text-based information. A range of transactional services such as booking appointments with general practitioners was also explored.

  Following the completion of these pilot projects, a programme of work will begin to develop a version of NHS Direct for digital TV and to make it available nationwide. Working with commercial partners, the Department and the NHS will develop a service that will enable people to have easy and fast access at home to trusted information and advice on health, health care and the NHS. Such a service will complement the already very successful NHS Direct telephone helpline and the NHS Direct online website. The Department will also continue to explore the more transactional uses of digital TV.

  The process of selecting commercial partners will begin early in the new year with the Department issuing an invitation to tender to develop and run an NHS Direct information service on digital TV. The Department's intention is, in time, to provide this service across all digital TV platforms.

  Emergency Admissions Policy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on admissions from ambulances to accident and emergency departments. [85765]

  Mr. Lammy
  Patients who arrive at accident and emergency departments (A&E) by ambulance should be transferred in to A&E as soon as is practical and in patients' best interests.

  Emergency Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on linkage between emergency ambulance services and the fire services. [85785]
  295W
  Mr. Lammy
  Pre-hospital patient care remains an integral part of the health care system. The Government support the sharing of facilities and other joint working between ambulance and fire services if it is practical and mutually beneficial.

  Epilepsy
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what submissions his Department has received from organisations representing epilepsy(a) patients, (b) carers and (c) service providers as part of its review of commissioning arrangements for specialised services. [86237]

  Mr. Hutton
  The majority of epilepsy services are provided in a primary or secondary care setting and are not specialised services; consequently they are not within the remit of this review. There have been no specific submissions to the review from organisations solely representing epilepsy patients, carers or service providers. There have been submissions from the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, the College of Health and London Health Link.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how and to what extent the views and opinions of epilepsy patients and their carers are being taken into account as part of the review of commissioning specialised services. [86526]

  Mr. Hutton
  The review is considering the commissioning arrangements for specialised services in general, it is not looking at any one particular specialised service. The majority of epilepsy services are provided in a primary or secondary setting and, as such, are not tertiary services; consequently they are not within the remit of this review.

  Firefighters
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the length of training required to train firefighters to fulfil paramedic responsibilities. [85780]

  Mr. Lammy
  There have been no discussions on this subject between the Department and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what contribution his Department made to the Bain report, with special reference to firefighters taking on paramedic duties; [85781]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the possibility of using firefighters as paramedics. [85782]

  Mr. Lammy
  Sir George Bain's review is independent and I understand that he is still in the process of developing and refining his final proposals. Pre-hospital patient care is an integral part of the health care system, but firefighters can assist ambulance services by providing basic life support and defibrillation if that provides a faster response to life-threatening 296W
  emergencies. This does not require the same level of training as that undergone by ambulance service paramedics.

  Five-a-day Initiative
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the pilot schemes for the five-a-day initiative took place. [86373]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The pilot schemes for the five-a-day local community initiatives were in Airedale and Craven, County Durham, Hastings, Sandwell and Somerset.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Sunderland and Homerton NHS trusts will be granted foundation status. [85564]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: Applications to become national health service foundation trusts will be invited from acute and specialist NHS trusts that were awarded three stars in the performance ratings announced in July 2002. City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust and Homerton University Hospitals NHS Trusts are eligible to apply.

  We will shortly issue a publication that will set out our detailed proposals on establishing NHS foundation trusts. Alongside this, or shortly after publication, we will invite applications to become NHS foundation trusts.

  General Practitioners (Age)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were seeking locum work(a) in May 1997 and (b) at the latest available date in (-) North Yorkshire, (ii) York and (iii) England. [85805]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not currently available. Information on locum doctors working in the hospital, community health service and public health service (HCHS) sectors on 30 September 2002 is currently being analysed and validated and should allow us to show how many locum doctors were working on that date. This information should be available in the new year. However it will not show how many locum doctors in that sector were available for or seeking locum work.

  Supplementary lists, compiled by primary care trusts, should allow us to estimate the number of general practitioners seeking work in specified areas. The data is currently being validated and should be available in the new year.

  Herbal Remedies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce simplified registration schemes for herbal remedies under the provisions of the amendments made by the European Parliament to the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. [85085]

  Ms Blears
  If the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products is agreed we would plan to introduce a regulatory scheme for traditional herbal
  297W
  remedies, as would be required under the current proposals. If the scope of the Directive is extended to give member states flexibility to introduce or retain simplified registration arrangements for other categories of traditional medicines we would in principle be open to the use of such flexibility. We would intend to have more detailed discussions with interested parties on this latter issue when the prospects for the amendment proposed by the European Parliament become clearer.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to regulate herbal remedies that they estimate could endanger people's health if taken in large enough quantities. [85387]

  Ms Blears
  Potentially any herbal remedy could put health at risk if taken in sufficient quantity. The proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products is under negotiation in Europe. The current proposals would ensure that traditional herbal remedies registered under the scheme were accompanied by systematic information about dosage and other information relating to the safe use of the product. This contrasts with the current position for unlicensed remedies under Section 12(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 where there are no such specific requirements for information to be given.

  HFEA Consultation
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason respondents to the questionnaire on the HFEA's consultation document, "Sex Selection: Choice and responsibility in human reproduction" are asked to identify themselves as "pro life". [84613]

  Ms Blears
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority gave organisations responding to its consultation on sex selection the opportunity to identify themselves as "pro life" because it is particularly interested in whether such groups would condone sex selection techniques, such as sperm sorting, that do not involve the destruction of embryos.

  Hospitals (Hotel Charges)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on hotel charges for hospital services; [83344]

  (2) if he will make a statement on charging patients for hospital food; and which hospitals charge patients for meals on the ward. [83347]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government have no plans to introduce "hotel" charges including charges for food in national health service hospitals.

  Human Genetics Commission
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the procedures are for(a) appointing (i) members and (ii) chairpersons of working groups for the HGC and (b) addressing potential conflicts of interest among HGC working group members and chairpersons. [85288]

  Ms Blears
  The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) establishes working groups and sub-groups in the manner that it sees fit to conduct its work. The precise 298W
  discussions leading to the creation of groups are a matter of public record and can be found in the minutes of HGC and its business committee.

  HGC publishes a Register of Members' interests and the chair of HGC expects members to declare relevant interests.

  Improving Design Standards
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how he intends to implement the recommendations in the joint OGC/CABE report, Improving standards of design in the procurement of public building. [85190]

  Mr. Lammy
  We support the Office of Government Commerce/Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment report, and our design programme includes action plans to deliver its recommendations including:Raising the profile of design through HRH Prince Charles as the NHS Design Champion, Lord Hunt as ministerial design champion and design champions in NHS trusts,
  Partnering with key design bodies such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), The Prince's Foundation, the Kings Fund and others,
  Supporting the NHS by developing guidance, publications and training.

  Laundry Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the role of effective laundry practice in preventing health care associated infections. [85295]

  Mr. Lammy
  The prevention and control of infection is part of the overall risk management within the health care environment. All national health service organisations must ensure that they have effective systems in place to prevent and control health care associated infections and HSG(95)18 provides advice and guidance on the use of laundry practices to reduce the possible risk of infections. There is no central analysis of the role of effective laundry practice in preventing health care associated infections.

  Levonelle
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to prevent unauthorised sales of the contraceptive pill Levonelle. [84037]

  Ms Blears
  The Pharmaceutical Societies of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have set professional standards and developed comprehensive guidance for pharmacists on the retail supply of emergency hormonal contraception (EHC). Under these guidelines pharmacists are required to deal with the request personally and to use their professional judgment to decide whether the supply is necessary and in the requestor's best interests.

  Malaria
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of malaria were diagnosed in the UK in 2001; and what the cost was to the NHS of treating them. [85153]
  299W
  Ms Blears
  2,050 cases of malaria were reported in the United Kingdom in 2001. The individual cost of treating malaria is not available.

  Medical Research Projects
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list Government funded medical research projects, their objectives and projected completion dates. [86037]

  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for medical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant in aid from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, via the Office of Science and Technology. Details of 1,611 current projects funded by the MRC can be found www.mrc.ac.uk/index/current-research.

  Details of 782 on-going projects funded by the Department and the national health service can be found on the National Research Register at www doh.qov.uk/research/nrr.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by the Medicines Control Agency at each major salary grade; what the total wage bill of the agency is; what its total income is from(a) charges and (b) other sources; and what plans he has to submit the agency to (i) greater control, (ii) closer scrutiny and (iii) enhanced accountability. [84211]

  Ms Blears
  At 31 October 2002 MCA had a total of 522.5 full time equivalent (FTEs) employees. These are analysed by grade as:

  FTEs

  Integrated payband 1

  127.6

  Integrated payband 2

  115.2

  Integrated payband 3

  110.6

  Integrated payband 4

  111.6

  Senior civil service

  57.5

  Total

  522.5

  The salary costs of MCA are expected to be £22,248,000 for the year 2002–03. For the financial year 2001–02 MCA income from charges was £36,730,000. For the financial year 2002–03 the initial budget was set at £40,000,000. MCA's incomes comes entirely from charges so there are no other sources.

  On 13 June 2002, we announced that the Medicines Control Agency would be merged with the Medical Devices Agency from 1 April 2003, with improved governance arrangements, including a new post of chairman and non-executive members on the board. The new agency will be called the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Professor Alasdair Breckenridge, CBE, has been appointed as its chairman-designate, following an open competition.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with mental health problems detained due to a risk of suicide had a face to face 300W
  assessment by a mental health professional within seven days of discharge from a hospital in the last year for which figures are available. [85636]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not available in the requested format. However, preliminary data relating to the target set for patients with severe mental illness and/ or deliberate self harm shows an encouragingly high rate of follow up by face to face contact with a mental health professional. Further work is being done to ensure that our strategy to prevent suicide is fully implemented.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of mental health services following the introduction of the Mental Health Act 1999. [86142]

  Jacqui Smith
  Partnership arrangements under the Health Act 1999 have been available to National Health Service bodies and local government since April 2000. Since then, the Department has been notified of 44 partnerships involving mental health services. In addition, three of the first five care trusts were formed from mental health service providers.

  The use of the Health Act 1999 is also being monitored through the annual local implementation plan process and in 2002 information has been collected on joint planning and the use of the flexibilities. Just under 90 per cent. of all local implementation teams reported that they were involved in joint planning and half were making other use of the flexibilities.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance targets his Department sets for monitoring mental health services to deaf people. [86146]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has just concluded a wide consultation of mental health services for deaf people. Together with an expert group, it is considering the large number of responses received and will publish conclusions in the New Year. The arrangements for monitoring performance will be considered as part of this.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  :To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the length of time spent by GPs on mental health training; [86155]

  (2) what proportion of (a) GPs and (b) practice nurses have received formal mental health training. [86157]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the proportion of general practitioners (GPs) who have received formal mental health training is not collected centrally. However, all doctors are expected to have an understanding of the psychological factors that affect patients and have the knowledge and skills of assessment of the mental state of patients.

  The content of the general practice training curriculum is the responsibility of the joint committee on postgraduate training for general practice (JCPTGP), which is the competent authority for general practice training in the United Kingdom. The JCPTGP is an independent professional body, and it is required by section 9(3) of the Vocational Training Regulations

  301W
  1997 to determine and publish the curriculum to be followed by a GP registrar (ie, a trainee GP). While not all GP registrars are required to spend a period of training in psychiatry, those who do may spend not less than six months or more than 12 months training in the specialty.

  The Regulations mentioned above specify seven competencies which must be tested, and which the curriculum must therefore teach:
  factual medical knowledge sufficient to enable the doctor to perform the duties of a GP;
  the ability to apply factual medical knowledge to the management of problems presented by patients in general practice:
  effective communication, both orally and in writing; the ability to consult satisfactorily with general practice patients;
  the ability to review and critically analyze the practitioner's own working practices and to manage any necessary changes appropriately;
  clinical skills; and
  the ability to synthesize all of the above competencies and apply them appropriately in a general practice setting.
  Therefore, GPs are expected to learn in training, the skills needed to deal with all their patients. As mental health issues are relatively common. GP registrars would be often exposed, while training, to the assessment, management and monitoring of patients with mental health problems.

  The General Medical Council's education committee has the general function of promoting high standards of medical education and co-ordinating all stages of medical education to ensure that students and newly qualified doctors are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes essential for professional practice. As pre-registration house officers, all doctors, including those who will eventually become GPs, are expected to have training in the psychological and social factors that affect patients. As senior house officers, all doctors are expected to develop medical knowledge and skills of assessment of the mental state of patients.

  With regard to practice nurses, information about the proportion who have received formal mental health training is not collected centrally. Workforce development confederations are in the best position to understand local educational needs. Therefore, they work with National Health Service trusts, which are responsible for making decisions in which they balance development of existing staff and investment in training.

  NHS Appointments (Political Affiliations)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each year since 1996 who have been appointed to a position within the NHS have declared a political interest, broken down by political parties; and what proportion of the total number of appointees this represents for each political party. [83293]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The tables give the appointments made by Ministers to national health service bodies since the Government first took office in 1997, and the appointments subsequently made by the NHS Appointments Commission since it was established in 2001.
  302W

  Table 1: Secretary of State for Health appointments to NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities from 2 May 1997 to 2 July 2001.

  Political party

  Appointees

  Proportion of total appointments (percentage)

  Conservative

  305

  5.1

  Independent

  54

  0.9

  Labour

  1,499

  25.1

  Liberal Democrat

  230

  3.9

  Other

  34

  0.6

  Total declaring political interest

  2,122

  35.6

  Not politically active

  3,842

  64.4

  Total appointments for period

  5,964

  100.0

  Table 2: Appointments Commission appointments to NHS trusts, primary care trusts, health authorities, strategic health authorities and care trusts from 2 July 2001 to 1 November 2002

  Political party

  Appointees

  Proportion of total appointments (percentage)

  Conservative

  143

  5.2

  Independent

  28

  1.0

  Labour

  599

  21.9

  Liberal Democrat

  111

  4.1

  Other

  16

  0.6

  Total declaring political interest

  897

  32.8

  Not politically active

  1,835

  67.2

  Total appointments for period

  2,732

  100.0

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the running costs of NHS Direct were in 2001–02. [86060]

  Mr. Lammy
  In 2001–02, the running costs for NHS Direct were £98.6 million.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors, (b) administrators and (c) nurses are employed by NHS Direct. [86067]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Direct employ approximately 2,500 (whole time equivalent) members of staff nationally. Of these around 1,050 are nurses, 470 call handlers, and 210 health information advisers. The remaining staff consists of managers, trainers, nurse supervisors and administration staff. Each of the 22 sites for clinical governance purposes employs a medical director (doctor).

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients spoke to a doctor within an hour of contacting NHS Direct, in the most recent period for which figures are available. [86068]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of callers to NHS Direct spoke to a qualified health professional in the most recent period for which figures are available. [86069]

  Mr. Lammy
  Calls made to NHS Direct involving clinical symptoms result in the caller speaking to a qualified health professional. The remaining calls are health information inquiries that are dealt with by health information advisers.

  NHS Litigation Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many caseworkers are employed by the national health service litigation authority; and how many were employed in each year since 1998. [84894]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: As at 31 October 2002, there were a total of 93 caseworker posts within the national health service litigation authority. For the previous years, the numbers of caseworkers employed by the authority were as follows:

  Number of caseworkers

  March 2002

  76

  March 2001

  56

  March 2000

  39

  March 1999

  16

  March 1998

  8

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed review of the workings of NHS Professionals. [85300]

  Mr. Hutton
  An internal assessment team has been established to take stock of the progress to date on implementation of NHS Professionals. The assessment will include a review of the different approaches in the provision of temporary staffing and recommend the most viable options for continuing to deliver this service in- house.

  The assessment team will report their findings by mid December.

  NHS Salaries
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-medical employees of the national health service were paid a salary of more than £80,000 in each year since 1997–98. [86249]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: Information in the precise form requested is not available because some sources do not distinguish between medical and non-medical staff. What information we have is in the table.

  The figures are for health authorities (HAs), national health service trusts, primary care trusts (PCTs) and special health authorities (SHAs).

  Has all staff and directors

  NHS trusts administration, others and directors

  PCTs administration, other and directors

  SHAs all staff and directors

  1997–98

  153

  324

  Not applicable

  36

  1998–99

  215

  399

  Not applicable

  45

  1999–2000

  290

  483

  Not applicable

  66

  2000–01

  n/a

  593

  3

  82

  2001–02

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  Staff in HAs are not analysed into medical and non-medical in the accounts or summarisation forms. The figures include all staff employed in HAs although a number of these will be classified as medical.
  304W
  All figures include directors with remuneration over £80,000. However medical directors cannot be excluded from the numbers from the information available in the accounts or schedules, i.e., the numbers are inflated in terms of the question actually asked.

  Figures in health authorities in 2000–01 and in all bodies for 2001–02 are not available as they are not disclosed in the accounts or summarisation schedules.

  Sources:

  Health authority audited accounts 1997–98 and 1998–99

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000

  NHS trust audited summarisation schedules 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01

  Special health authority audited accounts 1997–98 to 2000–01

  NICE
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy that compulsory NHS funding will not be required for older NICE-approved technologies where they are superseded by newer, more cost-effective and medically advanced NICE-approved treatments. [85045]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The statutory funding obligation applies to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology guidance which is extant at this time. When NICE reviews it's earlier guidance it takes account of new technologies which may have emerged since the original appraisal.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government is taking to ensure that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's recommendations to the NHS in England and Wales regarding the drugs donepezil (Aricept), rivastigmine (Exelon) and galantamine (Reminyl) are implemented at a local level. [85466]

  Mr. Lammy
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) in England are under a statutory obligation to provide funding for treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We expect PCTs to meet these statutory obligations and will arrange to investigate allegations that patients are being denied treatment deemed appropriate by relevant clinicians.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the National Institute of Clinical Excellence's decision-making process, with particular reference to the effect of the speed of its decision-making process on the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. [85469]

  Mr. Lammy
  No. This is a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence itself. The Institute reviewed its appraisal process in consultation with stakeholders in February 2001 and will carry out a further review in 2003. The Health Select Committee has also completed an inquiry into the work and processes of the institute.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 512W, on NICE, if he will list the NICE appraisals that have received appeals. [86803]
  305W
  Mr. Lammy
  The 19 technology appraisals that received appeals were:

  1. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety

  2. Cox -II inhibitors for skeletomuscular disease

  3. Docetaxel and paclitaxel for ovarian cancer

  4. Hip prostheses for primary total hip replacement

  5. Human growth hormone in adults

  6. Inhaler devices for treatment of asthma in older children

  7. Inhaler devices for under fives

  8. Interferon beta and glatiramer for multiple sclerosis (first appeal)

  9. Interferon beta and glatiramer for multiple sclerosis (second appeal)

  10. Irinotecan oxaliplatin and raltitrexed drugs for colorectal cancer (first appeal)

  11. Irinotecan oxaliplatin and raltitrexed drugs for colorectal cancer (second appeal)

  12. Laparoscopic surgery for hernia

  13. New advances in hearing aid technology for hearing disability

  14. Proton pump inhibitors for dyspepsia

  15. Riluzole for motor neurone disease

  16. Rituximab for follicular lymphoma

  17. Taxanes for breast cancer

  18. The use of the newer (atypical) antipsychotic drugs in treatment of schizophrenia 19.Vinorelbine for breast cancer

  Non-Barrier Textiles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the extent of the use of cotton and other non-barrier textiles in operating theatres in the NHS. [85296]

  Mr. Lammy
  Market data for 2001 indicates that approximately 50 per cent. of the textiles used in operating theatres in the national health service are made of cotton and other non-barrier textiles. The remaining 50 per cent. are made of high tech synthetic barrier fabrics and single use disposable products.

  Occupational Therapy
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times are for occupational therapy services for children in(a) Birmingham health authority, (b) Birmingham and Black Country strategic health authority area and (c) England. [84967]

  Mr. Lammy
  Waiting times for occupational therapy services for children are not collected centrally and therefore the information is not available.

  Patient Discharge
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) of 28 November 2002,Official Report, column 413W, on patient discharge, what financial incentives the Community Care (Delayed Discharges, etc.) Bill places on the national health service to ensure that they tackle delayed transfers of care. [86256]
  306W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The national health service has clear incentives to reduce the time that people wait for discharge; not least because this frees up capacity to treat more patients who are waiting for treatment. The access and capacity targets and the monitoring of performance ensure that this is given a high priority. The provisions in the Community Care (Delayed Discharges) Bill will ensure that there are financial incentives for social services to play their part in providing community services where delays are their responsibility. In addition, from April 2004, the NHS will be introducing a new system of financial flows that will ensure that acute trusts do not benefit financially where patients are re-admitted to hospital within a set period.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many PCTs have signed head leases on GP surgeries; and if he will make a statement. [85719]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding reply 9 December 2002]: Primary care trusts have delegated authority to enter into head leases and to sublet to general practitioners and other tenants. However, the Department does not collect this information centrally and it is therefore not known how many premises PCTs have signed head leases for which are occupied by GPs or others.

  Psychiatric Emergency Re-admissions
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reasons underlying the failure to meet the public sector agreement of the rate of psychiatric emergency readmissions by April 2002. [85634]

  Jacqui Smith
  The psychiatric emergency readmission rate has been reduced from the baseline of 14.3 per cent. in 1997–98 to 12.7 per cent. at the last quarter of 2001–02. Further falls are expected with the implementation of community-based service models such as assertive outreach and crisis resolution.

  Smoking
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of primary care trusts have a trained healthcare professional to support those wishing to give up smoking. [85695]

  Ms Blears
  This information not collected centrally. All primary care trusts are required to make available smoking cessation services to support smokers who wish to quit. The services must be delivered by a trained adviser, usually a healthcare professional.

  Treatment Agencies
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 2 December 2002 to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin),Official Report, column 597, if he will break down by treatment types the people in contact with treatment agencies.[86052]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: The table shows the numbers of drug misusers in treatment by type of service 2000–01
  307W

  Agency type

  Number of people

  In-patient

  2,424

  Community: Specialist services

  103,094

  Community: General Practitioners

  8,180

  Structured day programmes

  706

  Residential rehabilitation

  1,902

  Others

  2,216

  England total

  118,522

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistical Bulletin Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000–01.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spends on educating the public about prevention and awareness of tuberculosis. [83330]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: £324,471.59 was spent on this year's Tuberculosis Awareness campaign.

  Waiting Times
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken to reduce waiting times for admission to accident and emergency departments from ambulances. [85764]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government are committed to bringing down waiting times for all accident and emergency (A&E) patients, no matter how they arrive at the A&E department. By the end of 2004, virtually all patients should be admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours of arrival at A&E.

  If for any reason a patient who arrives by ambulance is not transferred in to A&E within 15 minutes, the patient is nevertheless then treated as having arrived at A&E for the purposes of measuring performance against the four hour target.

  Where local delays occur they can be addressed through emergency care networks—which bring together all local participants in the emergency care system to iron out problems and spread good practice—and the emergency care collaborative, a new national programme aimed at reducing waiting times for all A&E patients.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Election Pilot Schemes
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government are looking at many ways, including e-voting, to modernise our electoral system and to increase the opportunities that people have to vote. To test the robustness of the new options and to build public confidence in them, we are promoting an extensive programme of pilot innovations at local elections.

  In September we, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association, published a prospectus inviting applications from English and Welsh local authorities to apply to run electoral pilots at local elections in 2003. The closing date for applications to run pilots in the May 2003 local elections was 29 November 2002.

  I am pleased to announce that we have received 63 applications from authorities wishing to participate in this pilot round. Of these, 19 are proposing to hold e-voting trials, seven other applications include e-counting, and 37 involve all-postal ballots. Seven authorities propose testing other variations to the normal electoral process, including extensions to the voting hours.

  The May 2003 pilot applications cover nearly 6.8 million electors. In comparison, the May 2002 pilots covered 2.5 million electors.

  The level of interest and enthusiasm shown by authorities is very encouraging. The widespread readiness to pilot new and innovative approaches to holding elections will benefit voters by testing ways to make elections more straightforward and accessible. Our electoral pilot programme is an important step towards achieving our aim of an e-enabled general election post—2006.

  Following consultation with the independent Electoral Commission, we expect to announce our decision on which non e-voting pilots have been approved later this month, and the decision on the remainder by mid-January 2003.

  With this high level of interest shown by local authorities, our focus in the early part of 2003 will be on undertaking with the successful applicants the extensive groundwork necessary for them to hold their pilots. As a result, we do not anticipate giving approval to any requests for piloting at local authority by-elections that are to be held between 1 January and 31 March 2003.

  Outside that period, our general approach on local authority by-election pilots is that we would be minded to approve proposals, including e-voting, for pilots only in certain circumstances. These are when the proposals
  8WS
  meet the standard criteria set out in our September 2002 prospectus and contain innovative features or are from authorities that had run pilots before and are seeking to apply the same scheme to another election. We will, of course, consider carefully any application that is made.

  In all cases, it is important for local authorities to make any application as early as possible given the tight timetable for by-elections. Local authorities may wish to submit outline proposals in advance of an application for a specific by-election.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Jobcentre Plus
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown)
  The Government are committed to rolling out the new Jobcentre Plus service between now and 2006. By spring 2003 we expect to have around a quarter of the network of offices providing the new Jobcentre Plus services.

  Despite having record levels of employment, we cannot afford to be complacent about our labour market performance, or about working with our partners to deliver opportunities to a wider group of people than ever before. I am pleased therefore to be able to provide the House with further details of our plans to introduce the Jobcentre Plus service across Great Britain between now and March 2006.

  Early planning for the next three years of the work programme is going well and 1 am now able to provide an indicative list of the remaining districts detailing in which financial year we expect those sites to be transformed.

  There is still much to do to develop the local service delivery plans for each district and to prepare the sites for final delivery of the new services. We must be satisfied that a new office provides an environment in which the remodelled service will work and which is safe for staff and customers.

  For these remaining sites, planning for delivery of the new services will be a locally driven process. As local plans begin to emerge, district managers will be involving local MPs and other local partners. District managers will be writing to local stakeholders to invite comments and seek views. A key priority for district managers is to ensure that the new services are developed and tailored to meet the needs of the community they serve.

  The following tables indicate when Jobcentre Plus plans to introduce the new Jobcentre Plus service into the remaining Jobcentre Plus districts. As detailed planning work is undertaken at district level, changes may be made to this schedule.

  2003–04 (27 districts) District

  Region/Country

  Norfolk*

  East England

  Lothian and Borders*

  Scotland

  Cheshire and Warrington*

  North West

  Halton & St. Helens*

  North West

  North East London*

  London

  Dorset*

  South West

  Northumberland*

  North East

  9WS

  2003–04 (27 districts) District

  Region/Country

  Sussex*

  South East

  Surrey*

  South East

  Wakefield*

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  Bedfordshire

  East of England

  Glasgow

  Scotland

  Tayside

  Scotland

  Lancashire West

  North West

  Liverpool

  North West

  Cumbria

  North West

  Berkshire

  South East

  Central London

  London

  West London

  London

  Cornwall

  South West

  Tees Valley

  North East

  Cardiff & Vale

  Wales

  North West Wales & Powys

  Wales

  South Humber

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  North Yorkshire

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  Birmingham & Solihull

  West Midlands

  Northamptonshire

  East Midlands

  Note:

  Districts marked* are planned to introduce the new service in the first half of 2003–04.

  All other districts are grouped by region/country; within each region/country the districts are listed in the planned order for roll-out.

  For example, looking at the districts in Yorkshire and the Humber in the 2003–04 table above; Wakefield is planned to introduce the new service in the first half of the year followed by South Humber and finally North Yorkshire.

  In districts marked some work may begin in 2002–03.

  Roll-out in North East London District is split between 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  2004–05 (24 districts) District

  Region/Country

  Hertfordshire

  East England

  Cambridgeshire

  East England

  Edinburgh

  Scotland

  Fife

  Scotland

  Lanarkshire

  Scotland

  Oldham and Rochdale

  North West

  Salford and Trafford

  North West

  Bolton & Bury

  North West

  Stockport and Tameside

  North West

  Wigan

  North West

  Kent

  South East

  South London

  London

  South East London

  London

  West of England

  South West

  City of Sunderland

  North East

  Eastern Valleys

  Wales

  Swansea Bay

  Wales

  Leeds

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  Hull and East Riding

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  Doncaster

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  Hereford & Worcester

  West Midlands

  Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  East Midlands

  North Nottinghamshire

  East Midlands

  10WS

  2005–06 (15 districts) District

  Region/Country

  Forth Valley & Dumbarton

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries & Galloway

  Scotland

  Highlands & Western Isles

  Scotland

  North London

  London

  City & East London

  London

  Gloucestershire

  South West

  Wiltshire

  South West

  County Durham

  North East

  Wrexham & North Wales Coast

  Wales

  West Wales

  Wales

  Barnsley & Rotherham

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  Bradford

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  Dudley and Sandwell

  West Midlands

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  West Midlands

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  East Midlands

FORREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Sovereign Base Areas
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  There has been very substantial progress on agreeing the relationship between the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) and the EU after Cyprus' accession. Our hope is that the final agreement will be in line with the policy set out in Baroness Symons' answer of 5 December 2001, that the SBAs should remain outside the EU but with some technical adjustments to ensure the continued smooth functioning of the relationship between Cyprus and the SBAs. To that end, a clearly defined and limited part of the acquis would apply to the SBAs. These arrangements would be compatible with the 1960 treaty of establishment and with the undertakings which we made at that time in relation to the SBAs. In order to give effect to these arrangements we intend to sign two memoranda of understanding, on implementation and on co-operation on asylum seekers.

  The final agreement should take the form of a protocol which will be part of the terms of Cyprus' accession. A Bill will be introduced to enable ratification of the enlargement accession treaty.

  Biological Weapons Convention
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  There was a successful outcome to the recent 5th review conference of the biological weapons convention in Geneva. The agreement that was reached there on a set of practical measures will now be the focus for active consideration by the international community. It was of crucial importance that there should be unanimous agreement on the way ahead in meeting the pervasive threat from biological warfare, particularly in light of the growing menace of international terrorism.

  The Green Paper on the threat from biological weapons, which I laid before the House in April this year, set out a range of practical measures that could be adopted for dealing with this issue. I was particularly glad to see that a number of the proposals in that Paper

  11WS
  have been incorporated into the international programme of work that has been agreed for the next three years.

  The first round of meetings in 2003 will see discussion of penal legislation to bolster the prohibitions of the convention and also of stricter regulations on the handling of dangerous pathogens. In 2004 states parties will study ways of better responding to and investigating cases of alleged use of biological weapons, and suspicious outbreaks of disease. There will also be an examination of ways to strengthen the worldwide surveillance of disease as it affects humans, animals and plants. Finally, in 2005 there will be discussion, and I hope adoption, of a code of conduct for scientists working in this area.

  I believe it was vital that agreement on this programme should be reached by consensus among all states parties to the biological weapons convention. It was for this reason that we conducted extensive consultations throughout 2002 to try and establish a basis for compromise. Those efforts clearly bore fruit.

  The seriousness and immediacy with which all countries view the BW threat is evident from this outcome. The programme of work won unanimous approval from the United States, our EU Partners and other western countries as well as Russia, China and members of the non-aligned movement. This broad support is vital and will help ensure that the international community brings its full authority to promoting and taking effective action on the potential dangers posed by the proliferation of biological weapons.

  The United Kingdom has played a leading role in the search for ways of reinforcing the biological weapons convention. So this positive outcome to the review conference is all the more welcome. We will remain fully committed to seeing practical results emerge from this process which will help address an ever present threat both to international stability and the well being of humankind.

  EU Enlargement (Free Movement of Persons)
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  The Government have decided to extend to citizens of the new EU member states, from their accession on 1 May 2004, the full rights to work in the UK as enjoyed by existing EU citizens.

  Under the terms of the accession treaty, the new EU citizens will automatically have full free movement rights for all purposes other than work. But it is up to each member state to decide whether to extend working rights from accession. Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Greece have already stated their intention to do this.

  We have made this decision because it is in the UK's interest. It will attract workers we need in key sectors. It will ensure they can work without restrictions and not be a burden on the public purse. It forms part of our managed migration agenda. It makes sense financially, as we can focus resources on the real immigration problems, rather than trying to stop EU citizens enjoying normal EU rights. And it makes sense for UK
  12WS
  citizens. Already thousands work in the future member states under work permit systems. They and others will have full rights to work in the new member states, free of controls.

  The decision has been taken after careful analysis of successive independent studies which show that there is unlikely to be a large influx of workers to the UK after accession. Forthcoming research commissioned by the Home Office also suggests that the numbers that will migrate to the UK after accession will not be significant. This confirms the experience of Spanish and Portuguese accession when there were no major influxes. Indeed, the evidence is that emigrant workers return to their countries after they have joined the EU, thanks to the increased stability and prosperity which EU membership brings.

  We will provide safeguards. These will allow us to reintroduce restrictions in the event of an unexpected threat to a region or sector in our labour markets. This is the right thing to do. The citizens of the new member states should enjoy the same rights as British, French, German and other citizens within the EU. Enlargement will ensure stability on our continent: the EU was founded to anchor peace and stability in Europe and enlargement is spreading that stability across our continent. It will provide a boost to our prosperity, as have all previous enlargements. And enlargement will improve our environment and security as we will be able to work together to tackle such problems as pollution, drug trafficking and international crime within the enlarged Union.

  The UK has been a champion of enlargement from the start. We look forward to the conclusion of negotiations with 10 candidate countries this week in Copenhagen, and to welcoming them as equal citizens in the EU in 2004.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 requires the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of the Act. The reporting requirement applies to the whole Act but, following the repeal of the terrorism provisions (sections 1–4) consequent on the coming into force of the Terrorism Act 2000, the conspiracy provisions (sections 5–7) are now the only extant provisions. They are unrelated to the antiterrorism sections and their review is a free-standing exercise.

  Section 5 of the 1998 Act—which, by sections 6 and 7, is applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively—provides that agreements in England and Wales to commit acts that would amount to criminal offences triable in a foreign jurisdiction can be tried as criminal conspiracies in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, though ordinarily there would not be jurisdiction to try them in the United Kingdom (UK). The purpose of the review of the conspiracy provisions is not so much to determine the extent to

  13WS
  which the provisions remain necessary (which is the purpose of reviewing the terrorism provisions) as to assess how, and in what circumstances, they have been used.

  Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, who acts as reviewer of the conspiracy provisions of the 1998 Act, has made enquiries into the operation of those provisions and reported his findings to me on 22 August 2002. He found that there has to date been only one use of the provisions, in April 2001, in the case of Pravin Patel and others in the Leicester Crown court. The conspiracy in that case was to supply false UK passports in Gujarat, to facilitate illegal immigration into the UK and illegal tourist entry into the USA. Two of the eight defendants—who received sentences of 15 months' imprisonment suspended for two years and five years' imprisonment—were prosecuted under the provisions of the 1998 Act without which these offences would not have been triable in the UK. This case indicates a proper use of the Act on sound evidence and in the public interest; and that the legislation worked well for the purpose for which it was intended.

  On Lord Carlile's recommendation, I intend to abolish the requirement for annual review of the extant procedures of the 1998 Act when a legislative opportunity occurs. The terrorism provisions of the Act having been subsumed in the Terrorism Act 2000; there is little point in continuing to have a separate review of the remaining provisions, particularly when they are so rarely used, are not confined to terrorism and no other conspiracy or extra-territorial jurisdiction provisions are subject to such review.
  14WS
  Lord Carlile's report has today been laid before Parliament and copies have been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Baton Rounds Review
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  Today I have received a report on the military use of baton rounds in Northern Ireland from Jim McDonald, the independent assessor of military complaints procedures in Northern Ireland.

  I am grateful for this work, which has been carried out in addition to the assessor's statutory tasks, and look forward to considering his report in detail.

  I have placed a copy of the report in the Libraries of the House.

  Oversight Commissioner's Report
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  In his written statement in this House on 25 November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) reported on progress on the review of policing arrangements in Northern Ireland and looked forward to the Oversight Commissioner's forthcoming report.

  As it is being published today, in accordance with Section 68(4)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, 1 have today laid a copy of the Oversight Commissioner's third statutory report for the year 2002 before this House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Free Personal Care for the Elderly
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are monitoring developments in the Scottish Executive's policy of free personal care for the elderly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, it is for the Scottish Executive to monitor the implementation of free personal care in Scotland.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, indeed, but would my noble friend agree that the disquieting but completely predictable reports that demand far exceeds the predictions of the Executive bear lessons also for England?
Is he aware of increasing anecdotal reports that councils in Scotland are slashing services to the poor in order to pay for this uncovenanted hand-out to the better-off? Will he accept my congratulations on resisting the blandishments—with the stout support, I may say, of Her Majesty's Opposition—of those who want free care for all to bankrupt the Exchequer in Britain, just as it is fast bankrupting the Executive in Scotland?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is much better that politicians in Scotland deal with the issues arising in Scotland. I am of course aware of the various media reports. I am also aware of the comments made by the Scottish Executive. However, I believe that ultimately it is better for Scotland to decide on such matters.
As regards England, the Government took the view, and were supported by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that spending extra resources on personal care would not be wise. It is better to spend the resources on a range of services designed to keep people out of hospital and in their own homes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has there been any noticeable migration of elderly people northwards across the Border?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, an urban myth suggests that there have been instances of English people fetching up in Scotland in order to take advantage. However, I do not believe that I have seen any figures which will prove that one way or the other.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many people mistakenly believe that the
100
terms "free personal care" and "free nursing care" mean free long-term care? For those in long-term care who are self-funding, average care-home fees of around £400 to £500 a week mean that people in Scotland may still have to find £10,000 or more and people in England and Wales possibly more than £15,000. What proposals does the Minister have to help fill that funding gap across the UK?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that on top of the costs of personal care and nursing care many other costs accrue to residents paying their own fees in care homes. It has always been the position that self-funders should pay towards the cost of their care in such homes. The policy of the Government is to put resources into services such as intermediate care and into supporting social services departments in order to try to minimise the number of people who need to go into care homes. I believe that that must be a key priority.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the press reports referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, relate to the situation in only one local authority, which has now been satisfactorily resolved? Given that he cannot monitor but only compare the different systems running in Scotland and England, will his department undertake to provide such a comparison? Will it include the number of older people in Scotland who have been unable to stay in their own homes and the number of older people in England with Alzheimer's disease who are being forced to pay for their "free nursing care" through the increased cost of care homes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that that would be a fruitful exercise. The Government have made a policy decision and this House has voted on it. It is that we prefer to put extra resources into wider services such as intermediate care.
The noble Baroness asked about care-home residents who are not benefiting from free nursing care. Early in the year, my honourable friend Jacqui Smith announced a series of measures to deal with that problem, including the development of a core contract that NHS bodies should use as a basis for spelling out how any NHS nursing contribution received by care homes is accounted for. That was done in order to ensure that there is indeed transparency in the system.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, have we learnt any lessons from the experience in Scotland?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the new system in Scotland was introduced only on 1st July this year. It would be better for all concerned to allow the systems in both England and Scotland to settle down before any hard conclusions are drawn. The development of intermediate care is proving very

101
successful. In England, our priority must be to ensure that as many people as possible have alternatives to going into such homes in the first place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that people grow old at different ages? A few are finished at 50 and others go on looking after themselves for as long as they possibly can and may not be finished until they are, say, 95. Public money would be saved if there was not a fixed age for the arrangements which are being discussed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is a shining advertisements for everything he says. Speaking for myself, the more questions I answer in your Lordships' House the older I feel.

Osteoporosis
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the National Service Framework for Older People covers falls services, which includes osteoporosis. The national service framework provides a clear basis for delivering improvements in prevention, care, treatment and rehabilitation.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive and informative reply. Does he agree that it is important to take a life-course approach towards tackling conditions such as osteoporosis? Despite preconceptions, osteoporosis is neither a condition that is caused by old age nor does it affect only women. As regards the national service framework, is the Minister aware that the National Osteoporosis Society estimates that, despite the NSF, 90 per cent of sufferers receive little or no advice or therapy to help them avoid repeat fractures? Does not this mean that many unnecessary further fracture repairs have to be carried out, at great cost to the NHS and causing great distress to those concerned and to their families?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that prevention is very important. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is producing guidelines on osteoporosis which I hope will deal with many of the points raised by the noble Baroness. Prevention of osteoporosis is dependent on establishing a maximum bone mass and density in early adulthood and on minimising bone loss later in life. Avoiding risk factors where possible is important, and our recommendations to the public include our old friends of not smoking, avoiding excess alcohol intake and taking regular exercise throughout one's life.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many young people—ballet
102
dancers, athletes and people we would think of as being amazingly fit—can suffer from severe osteoporosis because of a very restricted diet?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. Although osteoporosis in children is very rare, the noble Baroness is right to point out that it is not confined to older people. That reinforces the point of having good prevention programmes.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the key problems suffered by those with osteoporosis is the failure to diagnose their fractures at fracture clinics? Would it not be a good scheme to use nurses with appropriate skills so that fractures are diagnosed good and early and further patient suffering is reduced?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am always keen to see the role of nurses extended, particularly the role of specialist nurses. The review of clinical guidelines by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will pick up on those points and on the role of GPs and primary care in this area.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, further to the point about prevention rather than cure, is it correct that regular exercise for all age groups is very important? Are the initiatives being monitored and displayed by the Government and Sport England helpful in this area?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. I would encourage local initiatives between the National Health Service, local authorities and sports authorities to ensure that more people take up healthy lifestyles. More importantly, young people should be encouraged to take more active roles by walking and cycling to school, and schools should be encouraged to provide more opportunities for physical education.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in declaring an interest, how long should people taking HRT to combat osteoporosis stay on it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give a definitive view of the length of time. We know that there are potential risks as well as benefits in the use of hormone replacement therapy. We know that some women cannot tolerate the therapy but, equally, it is an important way of countering and reversing osteoporosis. This is a matter on which clinicians should advise women on an individual basis. We need to recognise that there is a balance between its benefits and the risks involved.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Millbank we are now able to get advice on and an investigation into our health. I was told that one of the most important things is that we should take good exercise to avoid any of these problems in the future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad to hear that. I do not know whether my noble friend the

103
Chief Whip will agree, but certainly the more Divisions that are called in your Lordships' House the more we need to run and walk to get here quickly.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, given the Minister's response in regard to the risks of long-term HRT and the risks that are recognised in hysterectomised women on oestrogen-only replacement, with in excess of three ovarian cancers per 1,000 women over 10 years, what are the Government's plans to instigate ovarian cancer screening in this sub-group of the population who are particularly at risk?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government have made clear in relation to screening that we shall be advised by the national screening committee. When the committee reaches a view that screening is appropriate in relation to particular conditions, the Government will consider the matter carefully.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, screening for bone density is extremely important in preventing the risk of fractures and osteoporosis. I understand that the average wait for screening is about nine weeks and that screening is mainly concerned with patient monitoring rather than with diagnosis. What will be the situation as regards screening in the future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lord, clearly, where screening is considered to be effective, we would wish to see programmes put in place to ensure that people have access to screening as soon as is practical. In fact, the expert advice that we have received is that bone scanning is not appropriate for the general population. The UK National Screening Committee considered this matter in June 1999. Its recommendation was that population-based screening should not be offered in general, although bone scanning can be helpful in monitoring treatment in individual cases.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many diseases—including osteoporosis, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes and many cancers—that are treatable successfully if diagnosed early enough? Does the Minister foresee a time when any government will have the sense to invest in preventive treatment that does not necessarily show success within a given five-year period?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a number of actions that the Government have taken have indicated that we do indeed take the view that investment in prevention pays dividends over many years ahead. Indeed, our intention to give resources to the NHS over a longer period of time will help in that process. The work by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce guidelines will give emphasis to the preventive approach in the way the noble Lord has suggested.

Zimbabwe
2.52 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultation they have had with the leaders of the member countries of the New Economic Programme for Africa's Development and the African Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries regarding the situation in Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, Ministers and officials are in regular dialogue with African and ACP leaders about the situation in Zimbabwe. During the EU/SADC meeting in Maputo on 7th and 8th November, I discussed Zimbabwe with, among others, President Chissano of Mozambique, South Africa's Foreign Minister Zuma and Mauritian Foreign Minister Gayan, More recently, during the Africa/EU ministerial meeting in Ouagadougou on 28th and 29th November, I discussed Zimbabwe with a number of other EU and African colleagues.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness has had those discussions. Will she confirm that all three organisations mentioned in the Question have stated that they will ensure the observance of human rights, the rule of law and good governance in the member countries? Have the G8 countries made it clear to the southern African members of these organisations that, if they do not go ahead and do their best to improve the catastrophic situation in Zimbabwe which is now infecting neighbouring countries—which is within their power, if they have the will—the G8 countries will be reluctant to provide the aid and investment that is so sorely needed? If the G8 have not yet made such an approach to those countries, will Her Majesty's Government suggest that they do?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cart confirm that human rights and good economic and political governance in a range of (Efferent ways is reflected in the principles that underpin the work done by the African Union, the ACP, SADC and the European Union.
I have just returned from a G8/NePAD meeting in Accra in Ghana. We had substantial discussions on a range of issues, including the political and economic aspects of NePAD—in particular, the peer review process. We had substantial discussions on Zimbabwe and the concern felt not only by the G8 but by African countries about the impact that the situation in Zimbabwe is having on their economies and on the perception that people have of African countries more generally.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the EU/SADC meeting was a great disappointment, in that no clear statement was made

105
about the appalling human rights violations in Zimbabwe? Where the meeting made oblique reference to the use of food as a political weapon, it did so without mentioning Zimbabwe by name. Does the Minister accept that the failure of Zimbabwe's neighbours to do anything concrete about the human rights violations in Zimbabwe raises fears in the minds of many people outside, including in the G8 countries, about the effectiveness of the proposed African peer review mechanism? In that context, will the Minister comment on the correspondence in which M. Jean Chrétien, chairman of the G8, has tried to clear up ambiguities in statements made by President Thabo Mbeki about the application of the peer review mechanism to political matters?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, at the EU/SADC meeting we worked very hard to get an agreed statement on Zimbabwe. This was blocked by Zimbabwe within SADC. So the EU made a very strong statement that we could not agree a statement which we could make together. It is important that noble Lords understand that the EU and some southern African countries share an analysis of what is going on in Zimbabwe, particularly with respect to the humanitarian situation. But we differ on what action we believe needs to be taken. With respect to the peer review process, some 12 countries have now volunteered for peer review. The matter of political and economic governance—the issue that concerned Prime Minister Chrétien when he wrote to President Mbeki in a personal capacity—has now been resolved.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, what consultation are the Government having with the three groups referred to in the Question that will lead to the ending of Zimbabwe's continuing and huge-scale pillage of mineral and other resources from the DRC?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the House will be aware that the report of the UN panel on the exploitation of mineral resources in the DRC was recently published. A number of individuals and organisations are mentioned in that report, including Zimbabwean individuals. We have requested further information from the UN panel, as have other members of the Security Council. We await that information. We shall talk to our Security Council partners in deciding what further action should be taken.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is as keen as anyone to put pressure on Mugabe and his henchmen to prevent them poisoning and undermining development in southern Africa and the whole NePAD project. In that context, is it correct that a visa has been granted to the vice-chairman of the ZANU-PF Harare executive, Chris Pasipamire, who is a well-known and brutal activist in farm evictions in Zimbabwe and who has apparently come here to study land reform? If that is correct, will the Minister re-examine the whole matter?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of this case having been raised. Allegations were made in The
106
Sunday Times about this individual and his activities in Zimbabwe. I understand that the allegations against him were dropped. He was granted a visitor's visa to come to the UK, not a student visa. Were he to want to study in the United Kingdom, he would need a different kind of visa.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it possible to check, among some of the most lurid reporting on Zimbabwe, whether the statement attributed to Didimas Matasa that he would be content to see 6 million Zimbabweans die from starvation because it would make the handling of Zimbabwe's economy easier? Can that possibly be true?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is sometimes very difficult to verify some of the statements that come out of Zimbabwe. However, I think that everyone in this House recognises that Robert Mugabe and his regime bear the brunt of the responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. Seven million people will need supplementary feeding by March next year. That is extremely serious. The economy of Zimbabwe is imploding, and this is a matter for which it has to take responsibility. We will do all that we can with our international partners, and working with African colleagues, to ensure that this is recognised in Zimbabwe.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, who dropped the allegations against the gentleman concerned? Was it the original complainant or the authorities?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I will look into that further and write to the noble Baroness. The allegations were made in the newspapers on Sunday. I have had what information I can from our High Commission in Harare, which will look into the case in more detail. I will be happy to report further.

Patients Forums
3 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What budget will be allocated to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health in order to ensure that the arrangements for replacing community health councils are adequately resourced.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, funding decisions for the next three years will be announced shortly. I will write to the noble Earl when final decisions have been made.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share my view that the success of the changes laid out in the recent legislation will be of the utmost importance for patients and the NHS? Given that the responsibilities of patients forums will be a good deal wider and more complex than those of

107
community health councils, can the Minister confirm that substantially more staff are envisaged for patients forums than are currently employed by CHCs, and that 600 to 700 staff for some 600 patients forums will simply not be enough?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot be committed as to the numbers of staff and resources. That matter is tied into decisions on resources. I agree that the changes, including the establishment of the commission and patients forums, and the role of local authority oversight and scrutiny committees, will together result in much more powerful involvement of local people in the running of the NHS. We want to ensure that those arrangements are completed as satisfactorily as possible.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be highly cynical for a Minister in the other place to promise 300 offices for patients forums and then to deliver only 28?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the question is not how many offices should be provided but whether there will be access to patients forum services in every part of the National Health Service. That is surely where we should focus our energies.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the budgetary requirements must ensure that adequate training is provided for patients and their representatives to ensure maximum participation in the development of strategies and patient representation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, I do. That will be one of the responsibilities of the newly formed Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. We want to encourage many local people to come forward for potential membership of patients forums. I accept that we need to give them all the support we can to do their job properly.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister referred to "patients forum services". Are patients forums really a service, or fora, for patients?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, patients forums exist to ensure that every NHS trust and primary care trust is fully focused on meeting the needs of patients and the public. They will be composed entirely of local people with an interest in healthcare.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, given that there are so many new health bodies with complicated names, when one is dedicated to helping patients, will the Minister ensure that it will be advertised so that people know where to go and that it will be well funded?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that, for patients forums to be successful, we must ensure that patients and the
108
public have ready access. The new Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will look closely at what can be done to ensure that the public have ready access to the services of patients forums. In addition, the new patient liaison service, which many trusts are establishing in their facilities, is proving to be of great benefit to patients whose concerns, if raised immediately, can be dealt with very quickly. The new PALS service has made a very good start.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that, while the CHCs continue to exist, they will not be starved of funds?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no intention to starve current CHCs of funds. We do not yet have a precise timetable for the establishment of patients forums and the winding-up of community health councils. We stand ready to be advised by the new commission on that matter.

A400M Aircraft
3.5 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their decision to equip only nine out of 25 of the Royal Air Force's new transport aircraft with defensive aids suites will compromise the safety of the Armed Forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, we decided in 2001 to equip nine of the 25 A400M aircraft with defensive aids suites, based on the different operational roles and the various threat environments in which the aircraft will operate. All A400Ms not currently planned to have defensive aids suites can easily be fitted with such systems if required, either before or after delivery. Between now and 2010, we will of course continuously review our operational roles and threat assessments.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does the recent missile attack on an Israeli plane not show just how vulnerable the A400M will be to terrorist attacks? Can the Minister give the House a firm assurance that RAF pilots' lives will not be put at risk by flying unprotected aircraft in hostile areas?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord and the House that assurance. The attack in Kenya highlights what is an evolving threat to aircraft in general. We keep that threat under constant review, as the noble Lord would expect us to do. Such incidents are taken into consideration when assessing the need for future DAS capabilities. The decision taken in 2001 was based on planning assumptions valid at the time. We are now looking into that as a matter of priority.

109
As the A400M has an in-service date of 2010, there will be sufficient time to adapt its capability to the evolving threat.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, how long will it take to transfer defensive aids suites from one aircraft to another? More importantly, how much will that cost? The operation could be quite expensive.
Lord Bach: My Lords, there is no intention to move defensive aids suites from one aeroplane to another. One must realise that defensive aids suites are a package that can contain various units—they do not all contain the same ones. The average cost of a defensive aids suite is roughly £15 million per plane.
Lord Jones: My Lords, when will the first aircraft fly? Does my noble friend believe that the Germans will buy it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I believe that the Germans will buy it. We believe that they will buy 60 rather than 73, which is why it has taken time to conclude the matter. We hope that the first flight will take place in December 2010. One of the great advantages of the A400M is that it will bring many jobs to the United Kingdom.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Minister said that there was "time to adapt" the other aircraft. Does that expression apply to all 16 remaining aircraft?
Lord Bach: My Lords, our order is for 25 aircraft. We will adapt them with defensive aids suites if we feel that it is necessary for the safety of their crew—that is our primary responsibility—or if the role of the A400M changes so that it is used in a much more tactical role than at present.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, was the point of the supplementary question by my noble friend Lord Astor not to illustrate the fact that the Al'Qaeda attack on the Israeli plane in Mombasa failed because it was fitted with heat deflectors? Does that not suggest that not only should all Royal Air Force aircraft have that equipment, but there is probably a case for fitting many civilian airliners with heat deflectors against such missiles, given the present threat from Al'Qaeda and similar terrorist groups?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is certainly right in that there is clearly an increased threat worldwide as a consequence of Al'Qaeda's activities. It will be a matter for other government departments and the Government as a whole to decide what should happen to commercial aircraft generally. It would be a huge expense, but perhaps one that has to be thought
110
about with great care. Meanwhile, in the MoD, we are thinking carefully about the consequences of this terrible act.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, at what design stage is the A400M at the moment?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot answer that question exactly. I can say that Airbus, which will be responsible for the manufacture of the A400M, is a distinguished company with a proud record of aircraft design and manufacture. We want to get the contract signed and under way and start manufacturing the aircraft, which is vital for the increased airlift that we very much need in this country.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the question asked by my noble friend Lord Marlesford went wide of the Ministry of Defence, but not of the Question on the Order Paper. Will the Minister, who answers for the whole of the Government, ensure that the issue is drawn to the attention of his colleagues and that if anything necessary comes out of that, it will be placed in the Library?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly ensure that.

Greater London Authority Act 1999 (Repeal) Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to repeal the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ampthill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
London Development Agency Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House: Debates, 11th December
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Peyton of Yeovil and the Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes set down for tomorrow shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Budget Report
3.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That this House takes note with approval of Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2002 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, each year the Government report information to the European Commission on our main economic policy measures. The procedure is set out in Articles 99 and 104 of the EC treaty, which relate to the broad economic policy guidelines, convergence and stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure. The objective is to ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty, as set out in Article 2: non-inflationary economic growth; respect for the environment; a high level of employment and social protection; and raising the standard of living and quality of life for citizens across the United Kingdom and the entire European Union.
These goals are consistent with the Government's own approach to economic policy. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, usually known as the Maastricht Act, requires Parliament to approve the information sent by the Government to the Commission for this purpose.
The Government's strategy for economic policy is set out in the 2002 Pre-Budget Report, published on 27th November. This material will form the basis of the information that we send to the European Commission. Sharing the information in the Pre-Budget Report with our European partners allows us to influence the development of the European Union, bringing enhanced employment and growth to Britain and other member states.
In this Pre-Budget Report, we have shown that last year, of the major economies, the British economy was the fastest growing. This year and next year, Britain and North America are now forecast, even in a still uncertain and unstable world, to grow faster than all other major economies.
As the Chancellor set out in his Statement to the House on 27th November, with the lowest inflation for almost 40 years and long-term interest rates also the lowest for almost 40 years, Britain's monetary and
112
fiscal framework is meeting the challenges of each stage of the economic cycle. We have made very dear that we will not let anything put that hard-won stability at risk.
In the Pre-Budget Report, we have also outlined further labour, capital and product market reforms to improve British science, skills and entrepreneurship, and proposals for continuing public service reform and tax and benefit modernisation showing that, both in Britain and abroad, strong economies and fair societies move forward together.
Twenty of the world's biggest economies, accounting for 60 per cent of the world's output—the United States, Japan, much of Europe and Latin America—have been or are in recession alter what has been the sharpest slowdown in global economic activity for almost 30 years and the biggest contraction in industrial output in the world's major economies since 1975.
The challenge for the British economy in this more uncertain and unstable world has been to steer a stable course, combining low and stable inflation with sustained demand growth and with high levels of employment. Our monetary and fiscal foundation, which is based on the independence of the 13an k of England, imposes a symmetrical target for inflation, requires debt at low levels, holds to tough fiscal rules over the economic cycle and is thus designed not just for times of high growth, but for a global contraction with all its attendant difficulties.
Because the Bank of England has established credibility through year after year meeting our 2½ per cent symmetrical inflation target, it has been able, supported by fiscal policy, to sustain growth. So while, against the background of the international slowdown, the euro area is forecast to grow by 0.8 per cent, France by 1 per cent, Germany by just 0.4 per cent and Japan by-0.9 per cent, for the UK, GDP growth is forecast to increase by 1.6 per cent this year, rising to 2½ to 3 per cent next year, rising again to 3 to 3½ per cent in 2004.
I turn to the public finances. As the Chancellor set out in his Statement, with this Government's long-term and deliberately cautious approach, we are, with current surpluses and historically low debt, able at every stage of the economic cycle to meet our fiscal rules, including in the cautious case. We meet our golden rule over the cycle, not just achieving a balance, but with an estimated surplus at £46 billion. And we meet the golden rule on the cautious case. Taking the full economic cycle into account, the current surplus for each year is forecast to be 0.2 per cent of GDP this year, 0.3 per cent next year, then 0.6 per cent, 0.5 per cent, 0.6 per cent and 0.7 per cent.
Our second rule—the sustainable investment rule—is that over the cycle net debt should be kept below 40 per cent of GDP. Net debt this year and in future years will be at 31 per cent, 32.1 per cent, 32.4 per cent, 32.6 per cent, 32.7 per cent and 33 per cent—comfortably meeting our sustainable investment rule, doing so over the cycle and in every year.
Our commitment to meeting our fiscal rules is, moreover, for the long term, so we have also published a report which examines the sustainability of Britain's fiscal position decade by decade and compares our position with other countries. It shows that, taking account of population changes and the cost of ageing on public spending, the British fiscal position in this period is sustainable and in a strong long-term position compared with other countries.
Because we have built sound foundations of low debt and low inflation and are today meeting our fiscal rules in every phase of the economic cycle, we have rejected the view that we should cut back our spending plans. So we have confirmed that we will fund our planned investments: by 2006, £8 billion more a year for local authorities; £15 billion more a year for education; £63 billion more a year for public services as a whole; and by 2008, for health alone £41 billion more a year, paid for by our national insurance rise.
I turn to productivity in the United Kingdom. If stability is the precondition for economic progress, enterprise is the driving force. Britain today is challenged by a long-term global restructuring of industry. In this next wave of globalisation, now upon us, it is the flexibility of our product, capital and labour markets, the strength of Britain's science base, the level of British research and development, and the scale and dynamism of knowledge transfer from our universities to our businesses that will drive our productivity growth and thus future prosperity.
This Pre-Budget Report continues the Government's programme of microeconomic reform, targeting historic weakness in five key drivers of productivity performance: strengthening the competition regime through the Enterprise Act; promoting enterprise by modernising the UK's business tax regime, and promoting an entrepreneurial culture, including for small and medium-sized businesses, local economies and high-unemployment communities; supporting science and innovation through the Government's comprehensive science strategy, and two complementary reviews into business innovation and university-business links; improving UK skills through measures to support the expansion and improvement of the modern apprenticeship scheme, and by continuing to pilot new measures to improve access to training for adults; and promoting investment by reforming the planning system.
Our policy is to combine enterprise with fairness. As the Chancellor announced in his Statement, to continue to make work pay more than benefits, we are, from April, extending the principle of the working families tax credit to single adults and couples aged 25 and over without children. Couples with wages less than £280 a week, or £14,000 a year, and single people with wages less than £200 a week, or £10,500 a year, stand to receive more money, taking forward our belief that an enterprising economy and a fair society advance together.
A flexible, efficient labour market must not only promote employment, but also be fair to parents. Next month, a joint Treasury-DTI report will publish proposals for enabling parents to make real and effective choices on balancing work and family life. Building on our increase, from April, in maternity pay to £100 a week, on the first ever paternity and adoption pay, on the new tax credits, and on the first ever national childcare strategy, we will consider further reforms including new tax and national insurance incentives to expand employer-supported childcare; paying the childcare credit for approved home childcare by carers who are not already childminders; and increased flexibility in parental time off, including giving fathers time off to attend antenatal care.
Our goal, stability and prosperity for all, also means fulfilling our objectives of tackling child and pensioner poverty. The child tax credit based on support for all, and on most support for those who need it most, will become the most powerful weapon in tackling family poverty. The levels of the new pension credit from next October will reward, instead of penalising, modest savings and small work pensions.
In conclusion, we have been tested by world events and have resolved to steer a steady course. That steady strength of purpose will continue, and we will honour our commitments to invest in public services, to advance enterprise and fairness, and to meet and master the global challenges. That is the programme set out in the Pre-Budget Report, and that, with the approval of the House, is the programme that we will send to the European Commission. We are fulfilling our commitment under the Maastricht Act to report on our main economic policy measures, and maintaining our position, developed by this Government, at the heart of the EU policy process. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note with approval of Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2002 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.23 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the usual channels for allowing what is usually a formality to be the occasion for a full debate in your Lordships' House. As the Minister said, the Motion invites noble Lords to note "with approval" the national accounts as set out in the Pre-Budget Report. Looking at the most distinguished list of speakers—which is another tribute to the expertise of your Lordships' House in economic affairs—it is clear that there will be a thorough analysis of the Motion and of the financial situation it describes. Therefore, although the report may contain many figures which are wrong by accident, I shall, if I may, concentrate on the figures which seem to be wrong by design.
Since the report was laid before Parliament, a pall of gloom has descended over the economy and the country. There are, however, some bright spots. The

115
report shows extra effort going into manufacturing—the manufacturing of figures. The Government are also pouring investment into engineering, of the financial kind, and giving a big boost to the creative industries, especially accounting. What is the Government's motive for all this? It is simple: they are running out of money, and they would rather that we did not know it. This year, government spending is up by 7.5 per cent on the most favourable measure, but GDP growth is up by 1.5 per cent. That means that the Government now have five times more money going out each month than they have coming in.
Consequently, last year, the Government told us that they would need to borrow £34 billion over the next four years. Then, in April, they said that they would need £72 billion. Now, in the report, they say that they need more than £100 billion. Sadly, however, that is not the end of it. The £100 billion figure arises before taking into account another £100 billion in two additional forms of borrowing, neither of which is mentioned in the report. This invisible £100 billion of borrowing has increased dramatically from just £10 billion five years ago. Yet not one penny of that huge sum appears on the Government's balance sheet, because the Government have found a way to make £100 billion of public sector capital expenditure vanish. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—who I am delighted to see in his place—asked the Government:
"to say conclusively that the reason they are borrowing in this way is that the Treasury understandably wants to take the percentage of borrowing" [out of the percentage of GDP].—[Official Report, 23/10/02; col. 1330.]
In order to explain, I ask noble Lords to put themselves for a moment in the Government's position. Let us say that we wished to build a road, although this could apply also to a school or a hospital. We would go to a private company and say, "We haven't the money for this road. You build the road for us. When it is finished, we will pay you every year for the next 25 years". That is what they call the PFI. There were 450 such contracts in place in April, and the Government have signed another 300 in the past six months. The value of all these liabilities to pay under PFI has now reached £73 billion.
Lord Radice: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that the PFI policy was invented when his own party, the Conservative Party, was in government. That government accounted for PFI in exactly the same way as the current one.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am aware of both points. My comments are not on the validity of PFI as a method of building roads and schools, but on the validity of the Government's accounting method. In Kenneth Clarke's last Red Book, in 1996, the value of PFI contracts amounted to £10 billion. The
116
Government have expanded that figure from £10 billion to £100 billion in five years. That is precisely the point that I am getting at.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord knows why I cannot be here later to make a fuller reply. He seems to be saying that he would account differently for these expenditure items. How would he do that?
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, that point is the main thrust of my speech, and I shall deal with it in more detail later. In a few words, however, that stream of liabilities and obligations to pay under PFI should be included on the face of the Government's balance sheet as government debt.
PFI is the first form of invisible borrowing. The second form works as follows. Imagining ourselves in the Government's shoes, we tell the company, "You borrow the money to build the road and we will guarantee your loans for you". That is called PPP, on which the Government have at least £27 billion of further liabilities. So, adding together the £73 billion of the present value of PFI liabilities and the £27 billion of PPP liabilities, we arrive at a total of £100 billion of understated liabilities.
So it is that the Government are exploiting accounting technicalities to keep these PFI schemes, the guarantees, letters of comfort, government-backed bonds and underwriting of various PPP schemes off the books. The PFI liabilities are mentioned only in the hiding place of creative accountants through the ages—the notes to the accounts. The PPP obligations, including £21 billion for Network Rail, are not mentioned at all, not even as a note. As the national institute said:
"You can already smell the fudge being cooked up in Great George Street".
As the report does not make clear, for our Government today the total of all such future obligations to pay is a staggering £100 billion. That is 10 per cent of UK GDP. By not including these sums the Government are understating their liabilities and misleading us all.
In his introduction to the Motion the Minister spoke of historically low debt. Now we come to a matter of the greatest economic significance. In introducing the report in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"Countries such as ours with low levels of debt … are in a position to borrow, whereas others are not".
If you or I went to the bank to borrow money, we would present our balance sheet setting out our assets and our liabilities so that the bank manager could determine whether or not, in the Chancellor's phrase, we are "in a position to borrow". The bank manager would ask some pertinent questions, as bank managers do, such as: what obligations do you have? If you revealed that you owed a stream of payments over future years, as the Government do with PFI, would that be considered part of your debts? Of course it would. If you had also guaranteed your mother-in-law's mortgage, the hire purchase payments on your

117
sister's car and your nephew's school fees for life—as the Government do with PPP—would the bank manager say that that affected your borrowing position? Of course he would. This means that the Government have already breached their borrowing limits. Their debt is not 31 per cent of GDP, as stated in the report; it is 41 per cent of GDP. On the Government's own rules they should not undertake the extra borrowing described in the report.
I am hardly an impartial observer so perhaps my figures are wrong too. Normally you would call the auditors and ask them. But who do you call? There are three of them: the Comptroller and Auditor-General; the Office for National Statistics and the Statistics Commission. That is two too many, obviously, for a true and fair view but just right to give the Government a chance to divide and rule.
The relevant accounting standard for dealing with such transactions—I turn now to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in more detail—is Financial Reporting Standard No. 5 entitled, Reporting the Substance of Transactions, which forms part of the generally accepted accounting practice in the UK.
The accounts of central government bodies are prepared under UK GAAP and are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. They are intended to give a true and fair view of the income and expenditure of the relevant government body and of its state of affairs at the balance sheet date. This is similar to the basis on which the accounts of commercial or private sector entities are prepared and audited.
Meantime, a second body, the Office for National Statistics, produces most of the UK's official economic statistics, including the national accounts. That second body is under the supervision of a third, the Statistics Commission.
The Government have woven a tangled web around these three organisations which last week happily began to unravel. I bring your Lordships up to date. In a letter to the Statistics Commission, which, as I said, supervises government accounts, the Department for Transport's chief accountant, Alan Beard, revealed that he,
"could not support the view"
that £21 billion of Network Rail liabilities could be left out of the national accounts. He was responding to Treasury claims that he had advised it that the £21 billion could be left out. Mr Beard denied it and wrote:
"Indeed, had I been asked, I would not have done so".
The Statistics Commission chief executive, Gill Easterbrook, then wrote last week to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, saying her body believed that there was a need for,
"greater transparency over Network Rail".
Her letter said that the Government,
"must provide a clear statement of the position and risk to the taxpayer".
The Statistics Commission chairman, Sir John Kingman, backed her in a separate letter, warning that the Treasury view was "based on a misinterpretation".
118
Three cheers for them and for Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who last week also threw his weight behind calls for the loan guarantees to Network Rail to appear on the Government's balance sheet. Appearing last week before the Commons Treasury Select Committee, he said:
"The Government is providing security to the providers of debt and it is acting as a lender of last resort … If this had been in the private sector and I had been auditing this I would have expected it to be put on the balance sheet".
Sir John said that he hoped that Ministers would accept his advice. I do too but I am not confident that that will be the case.
I remind your Lordships that the Government have already had to climb down once over their attempt to mislay £15 billion of expenditure on tax credits. We should remember that the Government had argued that tax credits were a tax reduction and had accordingly lowered the UK tax burden by around 1 per cent by that accounting method. However, it emerged during the Committee stage of the Tax Credits Bill in your Lordships' House that 90 per cent of all tax credit payments actually exceed the tax liability of the recipient. So the credits were not credits after all. They were not relieving any tax because there was no tax to relieve in the first place.
I conclude by saying that there is an enormous need for much greater clarity of presentation in the public accounts. The mood of the times is for openness, transparency and full disclosure. We need a clear, complete and comprehensible set of public accounts. We need them to be composed under standards of accounting practice so that people have at least a chance of doing the detective work to find out what is really happening. That is democratically proper and a matter of common sense. We do not have it. By its extensive use of misleading statistics, its suppression of negative facts, and its many errors of omission and commission, the report ignores the duty of care owed by the compiler of a set of accounts to its readers and therefore does not merit the approval of your Lordships' House.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I begin by echoing my noble friend's thanks to the Minister for his exposition of the Government's case in words faithful to those of his master in the other place. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Saatchi on his extremely interesting analysis which I have to confess takes me beyond the state of comprehension I achieved as Chancellor of the Exchequer when I struggled to solve this very problem for some time. I was unable at that time to find any suitably acceptable accountancy device to square the circle. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the analysis presented to the House by my noble friend.
I feel that sympathy perhaps with some reluctance because former Chancellors are almost bound to feel a sense of fellow feeling for their successors. Those of us who have grappled with these problems are reluctant to embark on fierce criticism of the holder of the office.

119
I have refrained from doing so on any scale in this House until this time. It is now 20 years since I left the Treasury so I am all the more reluctant to do so.
But a former Chancellor also has an advantage in that he can intuitively begin to recognise some of the danger signs and warning symptoms of Chancellors who arc going astray from economic virtue. One can begin to see the symptoms of self-satisfaction, of over optimism, of hubris, even sometimes, as I shall suggest, of elephantiasis. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reeling off his figures predicting into the indefinite future the precise size of the public sector deficit to one decimal point and other precise figures I began to detect those symptoms.
In my own case, the Treasury did not do well enough during my time there for me to develop those symptoms, although I laid the foundations. By the time I was Foreign Secretary and travelling the world, I was making speeches about economic policy that made it sound as if we had learned to walk upon the water.
I detect similar symptoms when looking at the nature of the self-publicity in some of the documents accompanying the Pre-Budget Report. In my last year at the Treasury, we considered producing something like the neat little leaflet that the Government have provided. We felt that it was necessary to instruct the populace as to the wisdom of our activities in simple terms that they would understand. However, we rejected the idea as an implausible operation. The leaflet is full of the most generalised statements. It never anywhere suggests that any taxes will increase and it gives opinions to the world that are enormously exhilarating.
The title of that modest publication, the Pre-Budget Report, is Steering a steady course: Delivering stability, enterprise and fairness in an uncertain world. There is uncertainty all around us but here is stability, enterprise and fairness in enormous quantities. The contents page is also pretty revealing, because it reads like the chapter headings of a manifesto. The chapters arc called: "Overview", "Maintaining macroeconomic stability", "Meeting the productivity challenge", "Increasing employment opportunity for all", "Building a fairer society", "Delivering high quality public services" and "Protecting the environment". There are two annexes; annex A is titled "'The economy" and annex B "The public finances".
The report is an extraordinary exercise. I have one other comment to make about it: it costs £45 and runs to 225 pages. In 1982, I introduced the first Autumn Statement. The document that I produced was 32 pages long and cost £3.80. This document is only the half of it, because alongside these 225 pages, there are 300 further pages of supplementary documents.
I turn to the particulars of the Pre-Budget Report. For example, pages 8 and 9 are full of declamatory statements with which I shall not trouble the House. However, tucked away among those great achievements is the statement,
"publishing On 17 December a Green Paper on pensions setting out proposals to help those of working age plan more effectively for their retirement".
120
We are still awaiting that marvellous document. The report does not suggest, as most people acknowledge, that the pensions industry is in deep crisis as a result of a £5 billion raid on the industry's funds in the Chancellor's very first Budget.
That is not simply a frivolous point, because it shows the extent to which the Chancellor has been carried away by euphoric insights into his own performance.
Another feature is worth commenting on. Noble Lords will remember that, earlier this year, the Chancellor introduced—or reintroduced—what used to be called the national insurance surcharge. That is a comprehensive and across the board imposition on employers' pay bills. When I looked at the document that I produced in 1982, I noticed a contrasting section: one modest little page headed, "Proposed changes to the national insurance surcharge". It described how the surcharge was introduced in 1977 at the rate of 2 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will know all about that. When we arrived in office in 1979, the surcharge was running at the rate of 3.5 per cent. In my Autumn Statement in 1982, I was able to reduce it by 1.5 per cent and, in 1984, my noble friend Lord Lawson was able to sweep it away altogether. We recognised it for what it was: a tax on jobs. That is the undisclosed item in this Autumn Statement. The Government are going in the old direction again.
I am distressed at the way in which the report is so comprehensive in its coverage of almost every aspect of human activity. If one goes through from beginning to end, there is not a sector of any social service, economic or business activity that is not described enthusiastically, if not in eulogistic terms. One wonders if, when the Chancellor sits there generating hundreds of pages of wisdom, anything is left for other Ministers to decide. I have an impression that, in a remarkable way, the Government are coming to match that which the less than exhilarated people of Iran have to tolerate. The system seems to he that we elect a Prime Minister—or in their case, a president—and it is up to the ayatollah who lives next door to tell the president exactly what he can and cannot do. That is not much of an exaggeration of the way in which the Government seem to operate. Other Ministers hardly get a look in at all.
That is amusing, serious and important. It tell; us something about the quality of the Chancellor's judgment. Can it really be the case that everything in this country is for the best in the worst of all possible worlds? That is the impression that one seems to get. He acknowledges the increase from £11 billion to £20 billion, which almost doubles the public sector net borrowing in the year ahead, as my noble friend Lord Saatchi pointed out with great clarity. That is a rise up to 2.2 per cent of GDP. The Chancellor is confident beyond doubt that he will be able to manage that year after year, well within the limits set by the stability pact and other factors.
If I were in the Chancellor's position and looking out on the world as it is today, I would seriously wonder whether the plans that I had proclaimed. So

121
proudly had really immunised us against all that. It is a world in which, curiously, when one tries to identify a locomotive economy that will take us out of trouble, one can identify only two. They are relatively modest vehicles: Russia and China. They are the only two identifiable locomotive economies in a world in which the Chancellor is so confident of surviving.
When looking at the realism of the Chancellor's prospects, one must consider the factors working against fiscal recovery along the lines for which he hopes. The top half of income tax is paid by the top 10 per cent of earners. Those are the people who face substantial sacrifices, with the impact of austere world conditions on the City of London and financial industries generally. I am doubtful whether income tax revenue levels can be maintained even at their present level, against that background. Stamp duty receipts are also likely to fall substantially and to continue to do so as the housing market almost certainly turns downwards. If one looks at the day-to-day news, one can see that corporation profits are shrinking rather than expanding. All those areas more than justify the warning given by the IMF and reported in The Times today, of the hazard that the Chancellor may fail to come anywhere near fulfilling his expectations.
What one has to remember—and I remember this well—is that when the economic tide starts running against you, it often comes in faster than you might have expected. The Chancellor has had it very lucky so far. I look back to the period in the winter of 1980 and spring of 1981, when we tried to determine the likely size of the public sector borrowing requirement in 1981–82. We knew from the outset of that analysis that it would be far in excess of that for 1980, which was £8.5 billion. We expected it to be £11.5 billion when we started to work it out at the beginning of 1982. By February, one month later, our forecast suggested £13 billion. By the time of the Budget, one month after that, it had risen to £14.5 billion. That is what happened in the three months before the Budget came to be made. My fear is that, if something of the same kind happens now, many of the optimistic expectations will not be fulfilled.
I do not want to take up more of your Lordships' time. I could go on to a number of other topics, but I feel that I must spare my colleagues. My contribution is a serious one. Taking account of the analysis of my noble friend Lord Saatchi, there is a real potential flaw in the foundation of optimism. I am sorry that we shall not be able to hear the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on this occasion. It is a pity that he is unable to take part in the debate, but I understand the reason why. Aside from that, the other foundations of the Chancellor's optimism give cause for great anxiety, which could begin to erode the confidence on which he counts so heavily.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a company pension fund. I am very glad to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. I agree with what he said about the huge
122
mass of documentation—it is probably a record amount—that has descended on us. It exceeds the limit that the Printed Paper Office imposes if one wants to post copies to anyone. It is not all propaganda, as my noble and learned friend said. But a great deal of it is. A number of very important points are made in the documents. I shall comment on one or two.
The Government said early on in their period in office that they had brought an end to boom and bust. That will probably have a rather hollow ring with the many investing in the Stock Exchange or with many pensioners. The economic cycle continues; it is not the case that the Government have in some miraculous way brought it to an end, although its current amplitude is somewhat less than it has been in other periods. The reality is that the Government's forecasts, made only a few months ago, appear now to be substantially wrong.
It is unfair to try to put responsibility for the assumptions that the Chancellor makes on the National Audit Office. The NAO fulfils many useful functions but asking for its imprimatur on these issues is of no great advantage. It has produced some extremely good reports, not least one published recently entitled, Tackling pensioner poverty: Encouraging take-up of entitlements. It states:
"Over 20 per cent of pensioners do not take up all their entitlements".
We are getting to the situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly says that he will spend more on this, that and the other in terms of social security, but the reality is that it is so means tested and so complicated that the shortfall in terms of the amount expended is very great. Will the Minister tell us, taking last year as an example, what the difference was in pounds between the amount the Chancellor said he would spend and the amount actually spent?
Many of the Chancellor's objectives, in particular the golden rules for prudence, are related to the economic cycle. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify exactly where we are in that regard. Page 22 of the Pre-Budget Report gives some indication. It states that,
"the Government's provisional judgment has been that the economy completed a full, albeit short cycle between the first half of 1997 and mid-1999. The current economic cycle therefore began in mid-1999".
I presume that that means the Government regard that as the bottom of the present cycle; perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is so. What measures are there of where we are in the current cycle? If we are to appraise the Government's policy correctly, it is very important, since it is all related to smoothing over the cycle, that we have a clear statement from the Government about exactly where we believe we are with regard to the cycle. There are many references to traditional economic stabilisers and so on. It is appropriate for us to allow them to operate fully.
A fascinating paper in this vast mass of documentation is entitled Long-term public finance report: an analysis of fiscal sustainability. The amount of algebra contained in Technical Annex A of that

123
report must surely be unprecedented. It reminds me of the period when I was teaching economics at Yale. The econometricians went absolutely berserk at times. There appears to be some sort of cross-infection with this document.
Having said that, I welcome very much what is suggested in the document. Traditionally, so far as economic performance is concerned, it is said that we must achieve a low level of inflation, high employment, economic growth and a balance of payments equilibrium. The document introduces what is called "inter-generational balance". That is tremendously important. It is very easy for a government to run up their liabilities or to run down their assets for a considerable period, giving the impression that all is well when in fact they are putting a burden on future generations. I hope—I say this in a co-operative mood that is typical of the House of Lords—that the Government will agree that we should have an additional objective; that is, that there should be inter-generational balance.
The algebra in the document is incredibly complicated. However, at the end of the day, the whole issue turns on the balance sheet. The question is whether or not—from generation to generation and spread over time—there is a deficit on the balance sheet and whether that is going up or down. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I have debated that previously. The Government came close to producing the outline of a balance sheet. They produced a huge document showing the assets but they have been reluctant to conduct a real appraisal of the liabilities, perhaps the largest of which is paying the basic national insurance pension to future generations.
That links, without any degree of co-ordination, with the comments of my noble friend on the Front Bench. The genuine balance sheet, taking into account what are being treated as off balance sheet items as well as those on it, really indicates how things stand. It is tremendously important for us to have, at least so far as economic analysis is concerned—I leave strict accountancy to one side—an idea of where we are 'with regard to the Government's balance sheet and how they project that through time. The so-called inter-generational balance—economists, I am afraid, always fall into jargon—is important and I hope that on an all-party basis we can make some progress in relation to it. We must rely on honesty so far as the figures are concerned and not shuffle off some items into a side track. I agree with my noble friend Lord Saatchi in that regard.
A noticeable point in last weekend's Sunday papers was the extent to which commentators—the more serious commentators, such as Mr Peston, Mr David Smith and others—felt that we should consider the implications of the Pre-Budget Statement in relation to whether we should join the euro. That is not surprising because the Government have said what they propose to do with regard to decision-taking in that regard.
I want to make a number of further points but I do not wish to detain the House for longer than necessary so I shall proceed very much in shorthand. The first
124
point about our joining the euro is that the five tests imposed—or selected—by the Chancellor are a charade. They are far too ambiguous and vague for anyone not to be able to fiddle them one way or the other. I do not believe that they are a helpful way of looking at the matter. Whether they are related to the political ambitions of the Prime Minister or Mr Gordon Brown to go down in history as the person who joined the euro, I know not. In all events, those tests are not what this is really about.
The crucial question is whether we give up for all time the main means of allowing for differential movements and prices within the broader European Community; the question is the same so far as those within euro-land are concerned. That would be an irrevocable move and it is crucial to decide whether the size of the area and the relative importance of different countries is such that it is not wise to give up that major means—that is, changes in the exchange rate—of adjusting in terms of economic changes.
It is important to differentiate interest rate policy from monetary policy. It is interesting that the Government gave control over interest rates to the Bank of England while, at the same time, clawing back the ability to exercise influence on monetary policy—that is, control over the money supply. But, at all events, the euro-land system of one-size-fits-all interest rates clearly imposes considerable strains on those in the Community. Further strains have been imposed by the Stability Pact, which even some of the more enthusiastic individuals in the European Community have described in fairly critical terms.
The fact is that, over the centuries, the whole basis of parliamentary or House of Commons power in this country has depended on the control of money, whether it be taxation or expenditure. While clearly some degree of balance is required in relation to fiscal policy, it would be very unwise to go for a rigid system of the kind that now exists in euro-land. From the Chancellor's own statement before us, I believe it is clear that, from time to time, it is necessary to use fiscal policy in order to manage the economy, not least when control over interest rates, if not the money supply., has been handed to some other independent body.
I shall make two final points. The first concerns convergence. At present, it is absolutely clear that, far from converging with the euro-land economies, we are moving in a different direction. Therefore, that does not suggest that this is an ideal moment for a referendum to be held. That is an important point.
I also want to make a longer-term point. I remember that, years ago, the Canadian dollar was worth more than the United States dollar. Both economies now appear to have converged closely together. However, at that time, had those countries adopted a single currency and had the two economies developed as they have since then, the effect on the Canadian economy would have been traumatic, given, for example, its present exchange rate with the dollar. I believe 'that the idea of convergence over a large area must be given considerable scrutiny.

125
My final point is that, according to the Prime Minister, we are moving into a period in which this issue will soon become live. In the context of the European Union, the statement that we have before us today is most important. I spend much of my time travelling between here and Holland. Generally speaking, the Dutch are enthusiastic about our joining, and I can understand that. Having said that, we must also consider that, if we were to join, even at a sensible, or what appears at the time to be a sensible, exchange rate, then the strains in the current euro-land situation are such that our joining could result in the break-up of the whole system. It is possible that at some point in the future these matters will need to be reconsidered.
For the reasons that I have set out and against the background of the documents we are considering—there is much about Europe in them—I do not believe that it would be appropriate for a referendum to take place in the near future. That view seems to have been held fairly widely in the press in recent days.
4.4 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the government Front Bench for giving us this opportunity to talk about the Pre-Budget Report. I rise to do so with some diffidence, given the expertise in your Lordships' House.
I want to comment briefly on four issues. The first follows on from what my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said in relation to the increase in public sector net borrowing. In all fairness, and in order to give my comments balance, I believe that in his earlier years the Chancellor was a very good and conservative—with a small "c"—steward of the nation's economy and the nation's finances, although, in doing so, he benefited from a very sound economic Conservative—with a large "c"—legacy.
But we are now entering far choppier economic waters—in particular, internationally, but also at home. I believe that the Chancellor made a great mistake in throwing prudence out of the window in his Budget in April this year. Here, I follow very much what my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said.
I can recall as a Chief Secretary, as can my noble and learned friend Lord Howe as Chancellor—other former Chief Secretaries are, and have been, present in the Chamber—exactly the point that he made about how the figures in relation to borrowing changed substantially within a three-month period because of international events. In that case, it was due to a change in oil prices. That is because the fiscal deficit is the residual of two enormously large sums of expenditure and income.
I shall come later to what I consider to be the unrealistic borrowing figure that the Chancellor is giving and which my noble friend Lord Saatchi brought out so brilliantly. However, I fear that, even taking into account the increase that he included, the Chancellor is basing his calculations for borrowing on
126
very optimistic assumptions. Given that this is a small figure in relation to two very large sums, that can change at enormous speed.
There is of course the international situation. At present, many people are pessimistic about the prospects of a recovery in many parts of Europe, in the United States and elsewhere in the world. I am concerned about our own situation here in relation to household debt. It seems fairly clear to me that a large part of current consumption spending, which is keeping the economy at its present growth position, is based on the calculation that people can continue to borrow substantially—in many cases on the equity in their house—because of low interest rates. People believe that that can continue. If it does, then, frankly, there will be a risk that at some point the Bank of England will have to put up interest rates. At that point, there will be a remarkable change in the gearing effect. I believe that that could have a dampening effect on consumer expenditure in the next year or two or beyond. In addition, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, receipts from corporation and incomes taxes may be over-optimistic at present.
Therefore, I simply believe that the Chancellor has taken a great risk in engaging upon the current levels of high public spending. Whereas, at present, most people are talking about the need to increase borrowing or possibly change taxation should the growth figures not be reached, it is possible that public spending will have to be cut. That will have to be another option. A former Chief Secretary, who, until a few moments ago, was in the Chamber, will remember when that happened under his government's stewardship.
My second concern is in relation to large increases in public spending in individual departments over the next three to five years. To many, that has been a clear signal that it is open court for bidding for higher wages in the public sector. I acknowledge readily that in some areas that is desirable. In cases where a clear difficulty exists in recruiting people to key jobs, as is the case with long-term career teachers in London at present, then there is a need to spend more in that area. But there are many other areas where there is no difficulty in recruitment and where it will now be very difficult for the Government to resist higher wage demands.
The signal of higher public expenditure has opened the doors. However much the Chancellor tries to resist it, it will always be present. That is why I believe that it would have been right to put larger sums into the contingency funds in years two, three, four and five, as was done previously, and not to have placed everything into higher departmental expenditure on the assumption that it would not be leaked away in higher wage demands.
My next point concerns PFIs and PPPs. My noble friend Lord Saatchi was absolutely devastating in his criticism of the current situation with regard to the accountancy for public borrowing. Of course, it is not only an arcane accountancy point. In the corporate world, we are learning that what appeared to be arcane

127
accountancy points in the United States very rapidly turned into real issues affecting the corporate economy.
If the Chancellor is underestimating the real extent of future public borrowing, that could have a real impact on the economic situation. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred with some pride to the 32 to 33 per cent proportions of GDP for borrowing, but in my view that depends on an inaccurate assumption as to what the borrowing figure is. I do not just refer to the black hole in the way in which Network Rail's position has been treated, and the figure there of £21 billion. It seems to me that by all previous standards of government accounting—certainly those that applied when I was Chief Secretary—that should have been classified as borrowing. I hope that the current dispute between the three bodies to which my noble friend referred will come to that conclusion.
I am much more concerned about another aspect of PFI, on which I should like to spend a few minutes. I fully understand the management and risk advantages of the PFI concept, provided that risk really does transfer. That is why, as Secretary of State for Transport, I introduced some forms of PFI, which was then called Design, Build, Finance and Operate. I introduced four road projects under DBFO because I recognised that there were considerable management and risk advantages in dealing with them in that way.
However, that was on the assumption that motorway tolling, which I also advocated at the time, would in due course be implemented so that real cash would flow in future years, not from the Government but from the user for that borrowing. Indeed, the Dartford bridge, which was one of the first PFIs, reflected precisely that. It has been a huge success. It was built much faster than if it had been kept in the traditional road programme, but was financed by charges not by future taxation. That is an important point to bear in mind, because real cash flowed.
Now, as we see PFIs grow to the £77 billion to which my noble friend referred, we are in a situation where PFIs arc being used all the time as an alternative means of financing, as well as a better management approach, in order to avoid those figures appearing in the government borrowing statistics. As all those PFIs are being financed by future contributions from Government year by year, that is a form of financial leasing and comes very close to borrowing through gilts or whatever else. As the burden grows, so the future commitment to pay off that borrowing also grows. That is why I believe that these PFIs, the expenditure on them and the future payment flows that will follow should be clearly shown. They are effectively a form of borrowing. That is why I conclude that the Chancellor's figures for borrowing as a proportion of the GDP are a considerable underestimate.
Next, I turn to transport. The record of this Government on transport has been—I fear I must use these words—an unmitigated disaster. It started with integrated transport planning which, in my view, was
128
a slogan and a substitute for action. No road project had been designed in previous years without taking account of the impact on transport, rail, air and everything else. So, there was effectively a form of integrated transport planning in the planning of the road programme. But the result of integrated transport planning is that we have had multi-modal planning schemes as a substitute for action on the ground in the past five years. Many of those have not yet come through. Road schemes which could have been started some years ago are still not even on the running board. That is why in transport we need decisions, action and concrete work on the infrastructure, not paperwork at the desk, which, frankly, is what we have seen.
That stemmed from John Prescott's view that he would reduce the amount of car travel in the United Kingdom and that he would be judged a failure unless he managed to achieve that over five years. Clearly, the figures speak for themselves. I do not think that that was a realistic, practical or wise course of action to take, and I shall give two reasons.
First, 90 per cent of all transport is by road. Therefore, that is inevitably a significant figure. Even if we managed to double the amount of freight and passenger transport by rail, which I was keen to do, it would have only a small impact on the growth in car and road transport generally over the years ahead because of the growth of the economy. Secondly, for a variety of reasons into which I need not go at this stage, with their modern lifestyles and aspirations, people want to use their cars. Such reasons include travel to work, taking children to school, and just-in-time deliveries for many goods which cannot satisfactorily be dealt with by rail. Therefore, it is inevitable that if one is to have a modern transport system one still has to invest heavily in the roads.
We shall not stop people from using their cars by refusing to spend any money on roads, thereby letting them deteriorate and fall into chaos. But that is what has happened in the past five years. There has been a total moratorium on all road projects. It takes dime between the decision to go ahead and the completion of the road; and because of the moratorium in the past five years, over the next five years we shall be in a devastating position. In my last year as Secretary of State for Transport we spent £2.7 billion on the roads; £1.4 billion of which was new construction on national roads; that is, on widening and improving. The new construction projects completed in that year numbered 37, of which 12 were bypasses. We had 65 bypasses in five years. We now hear the Government talk again about bypasses but none has been started in the past five years.
I am delighted and relieved at the complete U-turn, as I understand it, of the Secretary of State for Transport in the Statement he is making today on the road programme. He is right to start to reinstitute some of that programme. However, the cost to the economy and the nation has been substantial in the complete moratorium in the past five wasted years. I hope that that will not happen again.

129
I conclude by turning to pensions. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a pension company, as declared in the Members' Register. I was chairman of the House of Commons pensions fund for five years before I left the House. I am still a trustee of other funds. In other capacities as a non-executive director I am seeing the impact of pensions on company performance. In my view, this will be one of the biggest political issues in the coming years but it has received little attention in the Pre-Budget Report. Incidentally, I could find hardly a reference to the word "road" in the Pre-Budget Report, which indicates the neglect by this Government of that area.
However, this is another area in which the situation has deteriorated substantially over the past five years. We can all recall how five years ago we said that we in the United Kingdom had one of the best positions on pensions in the whole of the European Union; more funds in occupational pension schemes than the whole of the rest of the European Union put together, and so forth.
We still compare fairly well with most, but our position has weakened considerably since then. Not everything can be laid at the Government's door. Clearly, one substantial factor is the current position in the equity market. Another is the new accountancy system, FRS 17, which again is having a real impact on the ground and which is forcing many companies to move from defined benefit schemes to defined contribution schemes.
However, in other areas the Government are at fault. I believe that the withdrawal of tax credits from the pension funds in 1997 was a massive mistake—£5 billion per year cumulatively rising, and therefore substantially reducing the cash flow of the pension funds. But there is another point. The Chancellor at that time—I remember this clearly in our debates in the other place—said, "Well, it doesn't really matter because you can now judge pension funds by the capital value of the equities and they are all doing fairly well". That is not a point which I think I would hear anyone make today. We all knew then that that could change.
I do not believe that the stakeholder pension is working in the way that the Government planned and said that it would. The take-up is still low. I fear that the level of charges allowed means that not enough people are promoting and advocating the stakeholder pension and running it in the way which, with some relaxation of those charges, they would. The cost of mis-selling, which is now substantial, and the cost of compensation, falls on the other policyholders and the shareholders. That, too, is an inhibiting factor at present. One matter on which we probably all agree is the role of the state pension. Clearly, that is now very small in comparison to the encouragement of occupational pensions. That, too, is the Government's position.
Looking several decades ahead at the funding of state pensions, I believe that the time will come when we shall need to raise the state pension age for
130
everyone, as over a period we have equalised the state pension age for women. That will be the only way that we shall be able to fund future pensions.
However, I recognise that a government document will be issued on 17th December. A great deal hangs on that. I hope that we shall have other debates in the House once we have had time to absorb it. Unless there are major changes in this area I believe that pensions will seriously adversely affect lives, just as roads have done in the past five years.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, after the superb opening analysis by my noble friend Lord Saatchi, I am pleased to be following my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord MacGregor. It is really quite like old times. Perhaps some of the problems are all too similar to those from the past and require the same clarity of thought as has been addressed in the previous speeches.
I was propelled into this debate by a single illuminating sentence from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who said that,
"since its inception, the euro-zone has gone very well indeed".—[Official Report, 4/12/02; col. 1134.]
That is a point with which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, concurred or indicated his agreement.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was being, as he often is, very entertaining. I have known him down the years to be extremely witty and indeed sardonic about the ways in which economies work. Incidentally, I told him that I intended to quote his intervention. He explained that the reason he is sadly not here—which I am sure we all understand—is that he has gone to interview the new Governor of the Bank of England, who, incidentally, believes that it could take hundreds of years to prove UK convergence with the euro. We miss the noble Lord in this debate.
This is not a debate, or perhaps we should not make it yet another debate about the contentious issue of the euro. Nevertheless, if the Government believe—as, from the Front Bench's reaction, that exchange seemed to indicate—that things are marvellous in the euro-zone and that everything is going extremely well, then we need to start worrying about the robustness of all the Government's views and forecasts, as my noble friend Lord Saatchi has rightly suggested.
The reality is very different. The euro-zone is doing extremely badly. The very day that we were told that it was doing very well, it was announced that German unemployment had risen to four million and was due to rise further. A leading German industrialist said that the conditions were the,
"worst since the end of the War".
At the same time, the European Commission issued a forecast that the euro-zone economy will contract in the first quarter of next year. Today Portugal faces huge budget cuts, plus a recession and strikes, and is caught inside the euro-zone trap. I am advised that today one-tenth of the entire population is on strike.

131
Meanwhile, the stability pact, which has already been mentioned in the debate, has clearly become—whether or not it is stupid, I do not know—the instability pact for the following very obvious reasons: those countries with high real interest rates and deflation—of which Germany is the prime example—need lower ones; and those with inflation and low real rates—Spain, Ireland and Greece for a start—need higher ones. Of course, within the euro-zone system they do not have that choice; it is the same nominal rate for all. That means that the whole system is working perversely. Those countries that should have higher real rates have been forced to have lower ones and vice-versa.
I do not want to exaggerate the impact of interest rates on growth. Economists and monetarists always tend to do that. The truth is that we have reached a point in euro-economics where "one size fits nobody" and we are dealing with a dangerously unstable system. If we now had to join and cut our rates to that set by the European Central Bank, one trembles to think what that would do to our already deeply unbalanced economy, to the housing boom, which is already out of control, and to the sea of personal debt that my noble friend Lord MacGregor has mentioned, which I understand is now running at the staggering figure of £800 billion.
I do not want to overplay the relevance of a stagnant and struggling euro-zone to the UK. The truth is that less than half our exports, including invisible receipts, go there. Anyway, as we have now learnt, the dollar is much more important to us. According to the Bank of England's website, dollar-denominated trade is 1.6 times that of euro-dominated trade. In fact, some of us are still waiting for a correction of the very puzzling information given to us in February by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he relied on the trade weighted sterling index for a reply—when all are agreed that that index is completely unreliable and out of date. I know that he will apply his mind to that in a fair way as always.
I turn to a separate issue. The reflections on the past of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe prompted me to comment on this. At the moment taxation is rising. In particular that is through national insurance additions, but it is also through the vast increases in borrowing about which we have heard today. Today, as was the case 30 years ago, a widespread belief seems to have crept back that higher taxation is the answer to failing public services. It sounds simple, but it seems to lie at the centre of a great deal of comment from the Government and many other sources.
That contains a double fallacy: first, that higher taxing and spending will deliver improved high-quality public services—that was repeated in the Pre-Budget Statement and again this afternoon; and, secondly, that higher taxes leave the economy somehow undamaged and generate more revenue. If we have learnt one thing over the past 30 years through bitter experience, it is that higher taxes and higher spending lead to wasted resources and, indeed, to inflated pay increases and pay demands—as we see every day in the newspapers—and also, and this is the double
132
whammy, to lost output and slower growth. Serious academic studies are beginning to prove that a tax pound withdrawn from the private sector not only buys far less in the way of services than a pound, but also distorts and weakens economic performance. So there is a double-engine at work, which is making things more and more difficult for both the Chancellor and for the rest of us.
All the evidence shows that the biggest losers from that process are the less well off. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics confirm that, while last year there was a 6 per cent spending increase in the public services, that led only to a 3 per cent volume increase. The other 3 per cent evaporated in a sea of inefficiencies and channels of bureaucracy, as is inevitable in the translating of all tax pounds or tax dollars into the public sector.
The IMF made the same point. In its very interesting warning to the Chancellor, it stated:
"It remains to be proved whether public funds may be spent without incurring significant inefficiencies".
It certainly does remain to be proved. The proof seems to be leaning heavily the other way. That is not entirely a party point because it extends right across the political spectrum. Even in my own party it is sometimes forgotten that a low tax economy results in a richer and much more caring economy—not just through trickle down, which tended to get discredited, but through direct benefits to the poorest households. That has been argued in great detail in report after report from the World Bank, the MF, the United Nations and many others.
Therefore, when I hear everyone say, "It's all right, we must go with high taxation and high spending; that will be the answer to higher quality public services" and everyone is agreed on a line, I am reminded, as many noble Lords must be, of that wonderful book by the late Barbara Tuchman called the March of Folly, when she described those amazing moments in history when everyone was agreed on a certain line and everyone was fundamentally wrong. That situation is developing now, especially among the economics profession.
The insight of 1979, which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon understood with such perception and determination, was that if low taxation could be achieved, that was the key to innovation and enterprise—more key than all the things listed in the Pre-Budget Statement by the Chancellor and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, this afternoon. It was that insight above all that led to the huge turn-around in the United Kingdom economy and changed us from being a passenger in Europe in the 1970s to being the pace-setter in the 1990s.
I hope that all my colleagues have got that message again now, although it is sadly clear that the Chancellor has not. We are beginning to move on a march of folly and there will be much suffering and disappointment unless we change direction soon. Higher taxes are not the way out; lower taxes are.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I thought that he did a good job of defending the report—single-handed, if I may say so.
Last year, we were told by the Chancellor that the UK economy was so strong that it could insulate itself from world events, completely ignoring the fact that 30 cent of gross domestic product is represented by trade and more than 50 per cent of manufacturing industry's profits are export-related. Now we are told that the UK economy cannot insulate itself from world events. The Chancellor has at last revised downwards his forecasts for growth in 2002–03, but he has increased them for 2004 by 0.5 per cent and in 2005 by 0.25 per cent. According to him, the economy will grow somewhat more quickly over the period than before and, more importantly, thanks to increasing his growth estimates for 2004 and 2005, his numbers over the period of the cycle are in accordance with his golden rule.
The Chancellor downgraded his growth forecast for 2003 by 0.5 per cent, blaming everyone but himself. His original economic predictions last April included a deterioration in world trade. He got that right, but now he is using it to explain slower than predicted UK growth. He blames the world economy but ignores the fact that the United States of America—by far the largest world economy and our largest trading partner—expanded by 2.25 per cent this year. Others did as well; only parts of Europe and Japan did less well.
The Chancellor is relying for his growth on an increase in government consumption. That will rise by 4.25 per cent next year, falling to 3.75 per cent and then 3 per cent. So that is where his growth is to come from, although even that growth is slowing down and, in the meantime, he has increased his growth forecasts for 2004 and 2005. Where will the growth come from? Investment and exports. Investment fell by 12 per cent this year—the biggest fall on record—but will rise, or is due to rise, by 7 per cent in 2003. Exports, down by nearly 2 per cent this year, are due to rise by 4 per cent in 2003 and by 8 per cent in 2004. The Chancellor has given up trying to manage the UK economy and has handed it over to the world economy. So consumer spending can slow down and the world economy will pull us up.
However, consumer spending will still rise by 2.5 per cent next year, although that is less than previously. Let us pause there for a moment. The housing price boom has encouraged consumer spending. The gross value of UK residential property is more than twice GDP. Seventy per cent of households are owner occupiers. Of total personal debt, 80 per cent is borrowed against housing and it is increasing rapidly. House prices are not stable. For example, between 1989 and 1995, they fell by almost 40 per cent, leaving them only 10 per cent higher than 14 years before. They are now rising at 30 per cent a year. House buyers and owners are taking out bigger mortgages to finance their current expenditure and the savings rate has fallen to only 4 per cent of income.
134
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told us that although household debt had risen, interest charges accounted for only 7.3 per cent of personal disposable income. They had peaked at 15 per cent in 1990. The statistic is worrying. If interest rates rise to 6 per cent, that 7.3 per cent becomes 11 per cent of personal disposable income and we potentially have a massive decline in consumer spending that cannot be financed by higher mortgages, as house prices will fall, or by savings, because there are none. The stock market has already fallen by 40 per cent. To put it another way, every 1 per cent rise in interest rates is, give or take, 1 per cent of GDP.
Last summer, the Chancellor told us that he would spend billions of pounds—£15 billion—on education, £40 billion more on health over the next three years and more on other public services without increasing public borrowing. In the Pre-Budget Report, he told us that even after the adjustments that I mentioned and the Treasury's optimistic assumptions, he will borrow only an extra £20 billion over the next two years. His borrowing will total £100 billion over the next five years. What is happening to that extra spending? As we all know, public sector inflation is 5.4 per cent, two-and-a-half times the economy's overall inflation rate. So it is going into higher wages and prices, not better services.
Since the Government were elected, we have been told that there will no return to Conservative boom and bust. But the economy has become more unbalanced. We have a booming house economy financed by debt, a fall in net exports and a fall in corporate investment. If house prices fall, consumer expenditure cannot sustain its rate of growth—or, indeed, any growth. There is more to come, as usual, in the fine print. But, fair enough, it is there.
In the Pre-Budget Report, we note that productivity growth is to rise from 2 per cent to 2.25 per cent. On what basis is that assumption made? At present, productivity growth is less than 1 per cent and profitability—or return on capital in industry—has been falling almost continuously since Labour came to power. Although it peaked at 14 per cent at the end of 1998, it is now just below 8 per cent—lower than 10 years ago. The result is lower corporation tax revenues—now running almost £4 billion below the Government's estimate of last April.
Why cannot the Chancellor give us the facts up front rather than putting them in the notes? Robin Hood was a popular figure. He took from the rich and gave to the poor. The Chancellor does the same, but he also takes from the not-so-rich, so why not come clean and admit it? At page 9, the report mentions,
"increased transparency about what is being achieved".
As my noble friend Lord Saatchi said, a start on transparency would be to include the £100 billion of private finance initatives.
Tax revenues have fallen further than expected. That is blamed on the collapse in financial services, but if the recovery in financial services predicted by the Treasury does not occur, the deficit will be even greater. As I mentioned, productivity is falling—we

135
are moving down the league table—but the Chancellor heaps regulation after regulation on British industry. That is quietly crippling productivity growth. I fear that we must face more borrowing and higher taxes. The Chancellor not only taxes and spends but borrows.
I close with three simple examples of what is wrong. First, there is even a health and safety regulation closing golf courses if there is fog. It is too dangerous for the greenkeepers and players. Even if the greenkeepers leave the course, it is still too dangerous, but not too dangerous to drive a 15-tonne lorry down the M4. Secondly, the tax credit system is so complicated that the Government have to advertise on television to ask taxpayers—or non-taxpayers, as the case may be—to claim it. Thirdly, due to a change in licensing requirements in October 2001, the price of gas for some residential users is to rise by 8 per cent in January 2003.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a pleasure immediately to follow my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate, to whom I shall return in a moment. It is also a pleasure to be the most junior infantryman in the platoon of noble friends that my noble friend Lord Saatchi has assembled today.
To a degree, even if the debate, for which I join my noble friends in thanking the Government, fills a necessary constitutional slot in the European Union and parliamentary calendar, it is as much a coda to the Pre-Budget Report as the hybrid debate on the economy, industry, culture, media and sport: on 20th November, which was part of the series of debates held on the gracious Speech, was an overture. In both cases, we had the pleasure of seeing the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, conducting the orchestra—in this case, he is opening and winding up the concert. The one minor discrepancy between the two events is that the earlier debate was graced by a series of germane speeches by noble Lords in the Labour interest. I see the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in his place today; he spoke in the earlier debate.
My noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate has, like myself, supported our noble friend Lord Saatchi and his excellent speeches in both debates. He will recall that, in the earlier debate when, as today, he came in at the end of the batting order, four of the last six speeches before the winding-up speeches were made from the Labour Benches and that those noble Lords were, by no means, the first Labour Peers to speak. Since then, we have had the Pre-Budget Report, and, yet, no Labour Peer chose to speak on it in this debate, even if the words "with approval" are formal, rather than significant. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is anxious to intervene.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way; he did mention my name. I must explain that two Select Committees are sitting this afternoon—the Select Committee on Economic Affairs and the economics sub-committee of the Select Committee on the European Union. Many of the
136
people on the Labour Benches are on ',hose committees, which is why they are not here. Other people have other engagements. As the noble Lord will see, if one cannot be here for the winding-up speech, one is advised not to speak.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am sure that that admirable explanation does not apply to any of my noble friends who have managed to speak, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for giving it.
There are two interpretations of what Mr Holmes identified as the silence of the dog in the night, in the case of' the racehorse Silver Blaze, which was as much a thoroughbred as the present Chancellor. I acknowledge the points that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made, but I must say that the first interpretation might be less charitably—if metaphorically—compared with Churchill's verdict, given in his life of his great ancestor the 1st Duke of Marlborough, on the Margrave of Baden, of whom he said that his military epitaph for all time must he that the two greatest captains of his age thought that his absence from a crucial battlefield was well worth the loss of 15,000 men. The second, more charitable, interpretation is that the Minister's colleagues have such confidence in him, especially when he speaks twice—his winding-up speech in the first debate, embracing culture, media and sport, as well as the economy and industry was a tour de force—that they feel that they can safely leave the entire field to him alone. I spoke in the earlier debate and deliberately avoided second-guessing the Chancellor, in advance of the Pre-Budget Report. Therefore, I shall limit my contribution today to one point most easily made by someone who was present for both debates. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will recall that, in the first debate, the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, who has, characteristically, been in his place today already, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke most generously of the Chancellor's macro-economic management. Both noble Lords were confident that it would continue in any difficult times that lay ahead. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will also recall that he prayed both of them in aid in his winding up speech, especially the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, as he was wholly—if gratefully—entitled to do.
There was, however, one admission from the Minister's winding-up speech on 20th November. I do not hold it against him, for he made it clear at the start of his speech that he was hard put for time to answer even a significant proportion of' what he described as the valuable points that were made. However, I shall remind him of the omission, so that he can rectify it on this occasion. After the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, had praised the Chancellor's macro-economic management, he went on to say that the Chancellor had developed serious symptoms of delusion in micro-policy. He said that the Chancellor was,
"always tweaking this tax or that tax, this target or that target, thinking up this or that clever wheeze".

137
The noble Lord went on to say that it was,
"the reverse of the admirable trend towards simplicity set by the noble Lord"—
my noble friend—
"Lord Lawson, when he was the Chancellor, and the reverse of what British industry requires".—[Official Report, 20/11/02; col. 433.]
In the event, the noble Lord's advice came too late before the Pre-Budget Report, which included another addictive dose of micro-economic meddling.
By chance, I raised the same broad point in the small business debate that we held last summer, to which the admirably ubiquitous noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, also replied. I was nothing like as eloquent as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, but I paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon for the way in which, in the 1980s, they moved us to the point at which businessmen made decisions for their essential worth and for themselves and not because there was a dedicated tax distortion in their favour.
In his winding-up speech in the small business debate, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gently chided me for not applauding the Chancellor's efforts to be the businessman's friend. However, he did not respond to the central point, nor did he respond to the similar argument made on 20th November by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I have acknowledged that the Minister was short of time on 20th November, and I recognise that it would have been churlish of the Minister, after expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for his macro-economic approval, to bite the hand that had fed him by taking issue with the noble Lord's micro-economic criticism. However, I hope that tonight, on this less time-constrained occasion, the Minister will do proper justice to the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and, incidentally and more modestly, to mine.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. I would have put my name on the list to speak, but I did not expect to be here for the beginning of the debate. I am happy to say that the situation changed, and I was able to hear the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I have listened attentively to the debate. It is unfortunate that there have been no speakers from the Labour Benches to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps, I am the next best thing, as a Labour expellee.
The noble Lord needs a little support, as all the speeches so far have been antagonistic. The case that he put was very reasonable. The British economy has had sustained growth, coupled with high employment and low inflation. That is altogether good. Monetary policy, coupled with fiscal policy, has produced a good outcome over the past five or six years. We cannot deny that. As the noble Lord said, Britain's performance has been better than that of the major economies in Europe. That is something we should applaud; I applaud it very much.
138
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the British fiscal position was stable and better than that of other countries. We are able, therefore, to expand expenditure on our public services, which have been run down for a long time. That has been done by a government who have fiscal freedom and a Bank of England that can run monetary policy in accordance with the needs of the country. The Bank has done that well and in public, not in private or in secret. The British people have been able to see how and why the Bank has taken its decisions and have, therefore, supported it.
The outline given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was good and I support it. He said that the Government, pestered by world events, were resolved to pursue a steady course. That is what we want them to do, is it not? That is precisely what governments should be doing. I agree with the Government's borrowing policy. It is when there is a recession in prospect that we should be borrowing to ensure that it does not affect us. That is the good Keynesian economics on which I was raised.
Why put all that at risk by playing around with the proposition of abandoning our currency and, with that currency, the ability to run our own economy? The noble Lord, Lord Howell, instanced what happened in Portugal. Indeed, I believe that this morning the Portuguese Foreign Minister was urging Britain to join while 1 million people in his own country were protesting against the impositions of the single currency. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, noted, the German economy is in deep trouble and its banking services are on the brink of collapse. Why should we want to join a failed system such as that?
If our economy is stable, satisfactory and on the right road, why should we want to join? The message I give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, "Carry on Gordon. Don't let the Prime Minister grind you down".
4.51 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, follow that! Although "European Communities" appears as part of the title of the debate, traditionally, as far as I can recall, it has not been about Europe, and far less about the euro. Today has been an exception in that we have had significant speeches on the issue by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Higgins. Even the Minister felt—I believe, because of the title—that he had to include in his peroration a reference to the fact that all this economic activity was taking place because Britain is in the centre of Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the Portuguese Prime Minister, whose comments, as reported today, pose a challenge to both sides of the House. If I heard him correctly, the Portuguese Prime Minister said that Britain would not, and could not, exercise its full potential in influencing the future of Europe as long as it remained outside the principal project within the European Community at the moment; namely, the single currency. Those who argue—the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, probably does

139
not argue this, but many would, including the Prime Minister—that on the one hand we can exercise a major influence on the direction of Europe and, on the other hand, stand aside from its single biggest project—the euro—fly in the face of political reality. It is a challenge to both of them.
It is not my role—it is that of the Minister—to answer all the points made today. However, I could not let one comment by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pass. He argued that public expenditure was running out of control and that there was no link between the level of public expenditure and the quality of public services. Clearly, there is no linear link if one were to increase public expenditure to infinity. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Howell, argues that the provision of public services at the end of this Government's cuts in 1999–2000 was not leading to poor provision of public services in schools, hospitals and other areas, I do not believe that he could have been in a school or hospital, or talked to a teacher, doctor or nurse at that time.
None of us would argue that opening a tap marked "public expenditure" solves all the problems. Equally, to argue that first-class public services can be provided on a pittance, as the noble Lord seemed to imply, is flying in the face of reality.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but he is slightly parodying what I said. I said that a campaign or philosophy of higher taxes—and, it is to be hoped, higher revenue—and higher spending to produce high quality public services was not the right doctrine. The proposition that one will spend less does not follow from that. Indeed, I should like to see many more resources go into our health, transport and education systems. l am simply questioning whether the best way to do it is to tax people, shove it through the usually rather centralised government service and deliver not very satisfactory results. That is what I am saying, which is different from what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am pleased that we agree that first-class provision of health and education is desirable. I suspect that where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is that he would probably want to see more of those resources come directly from the individual to the provider, through private provision, rather than collective provision. I agree with him that over-centralised direction as to how that money is spent is a major problem now and one that this Government have added to, rather than detracted from.
The purpose of the debate—in normal times, at any rate—is to note and approve the Government's assessment of the economy and public finances as set out in the Pre-Budget Report. Usually, we do not spend much time commenting on specific measures either included or missing from the report. Therefore, I shall avoid the temptation to do so, except in one respect.
My concern is one which a number of noble Lords have raised. The Pre-Budget Report does nothing to acknowledge that Government and their
140
out-posts—the FSA and the Bank of England—can do anything to address the extremely worrying growth in mortgage equity withdrawal. It is now anticipated that total spending on consumer goods funded by mortgage equity withdrawal will exceed 5 per cent of GDP this year, and the levels of withdrawal are continuing to increase at an extraordinary 25 per cent per quarter.
That poses a major dilemma to the Chancellor because his plans require continuing high levels of consumer expenditure. Given what is happening elsewhere in the economy, the only likely source for those continuing high levels of consumer expenditure is if people continue to take out high levels of additional mortgage equity. However, that growth is completely unsustainable. When the bubble bursts there is likely to be a sharp downward correction in consumer spending, which could then remain depressed for a prolonged period.
For a number of years, the Chancellor has aggressively claimed as one of his great policy achievements that he has engineered an end to boom and bust. As regards consumer spending, we now see the boom. At some point, quite possibly during the next financial year, we shall see the bust. The unwillingness of the Government to accept that that is a problem—far less to give active thought to what might be done to mitigate it—shows a degree of complacency which will come back one day to haunt them.
Devotees in your Lordships' House of "Yes Minister" will remember the episode about a Civil Service pay review. One of the main conclusions was that permanent secretaries should receive a disproportionately high pay increase. In order to slip this past the Minister, the relevant figures are hidden in the middle of a submission some hundreds of pages thick, where the permanent secretary hopes that that particular increase will remain unnoticed. In some respects, I fear that the Pre-Budget Report, along with its flotilla of supporting glossy documents, follows the same principle.
In its overview—the part that people with nothing to do on long winter evenings are likely to read first—it conveniently omits to mention the headline figure of public sector net borrowing altogether, even though the increase in that figure to £20 billion this year and £24 billion next year is arguably the most significant single change included in the Pre-Budget Report since the Budget Report itself was published. But in order to find this figure one has to look at page 24, and by that stage all but the most assiduous reader of the document will have turned to the football.
Trying to hide away a figure such as this and other important aspects of the report is one of the Chancellor's least attractive features. He spends a lot of time extolling the virtues of what he is doing with the fiscal rules, but on key matters one has to look at the detailed parts of the Pre-Budget Report, to which the casual reader—or, indeed, anyone except the most assiduous reader—will not get.

141
It is a great demerit for this Government to claim that the Pre-Budget Report has the full support and audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. On page 23, the Comptroller and Auditor General has audited the assumptions in relation to oil prices, anti-tobacco smuggling measures and VAT that underpin the public finances prediction. All three were deemed to be reasonable and to incorporate caution. Everything else has been left unaudited. Therefore, to claim the Comptroller and Auditor General's imprimatur on the whole document, as I fear the Government have, is completely misleading.
But the bigger picture is whether the projections for the economy and the public finances are prudent and realistic. For example, is it realistic to expect business investment to change from a decrease of 10½ per cent this year to a 2¾ to 3¼ per cent increase next year? Is it realistic to expect manufacturing output to rise by up to 2¼ per cent next year from a fall of 4 per cent this year? Is it realistic to expect growth to rise to between 2½ to 3 per cent next year? Is it realistic to expect tax revenues to bounce back from the falls of the current year? Is it prudent to assume that a crackdown on indirect tax avoidance—laudable as it is—could yield an extra £4 billion by 2005–06? Finally—this is an issue which troubles a number of noble Lords—is the exclusion of billions of pounds worth of public sector liabilities, notably on the railways and the Tube, from the Government's borrowing figures either prudent or realistic? I do not believe that it is.
The recent evidence of what is happening in the real economy and the views of independent economists also question these over-optimistic assumptions. For example, the figures for manufacturing and output fell to their lowest levels for eight years, the third successive monthly fall. Trading statements in recent days from companies in sectors as diverse as engineering, hotels, banking and computer software have contained warnings about worsening anticipated trading conditions in 2003. In all these sectors, investment decisions are being delayed, not brought forward as the Pre-Budget Report implies. Until the threat of military action against Iraq recedes, the likelihood is that uncertainty will remain at a very high level for those taking long-term investment decisions.
These downbeat assessments of many companies have been matched by the views of many independent economists. Even leaving aside suggestions in the weekend media that the Treasury misquoted a number of independent forecasters—all in the same direction, incidentally—to enable it to argue that their predictions were in line with the Government's own, the Chancellor's figures have now been deemed imprudent by economists appearing before the Treasury Select Committee last week and the IMF now admits that they contain more uncertainties than in the past.
I should like to be able to both note and approve the projections in the Pre-Budget Report. In a number of previous years under this chancellorship I would have done so with relative equanimity. This Pre-Budget
142
Report, however, reflects the continuing complacency of a Chancellor who has been happy to take credit for good economic times but who is only too keen both to blame others and to ignore warning signs about the imbalance of the economy now that times have become tougher.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Saatchi in thanking the Minister for once again setting out the Government's fiscal strategy and approach to managing the economy and for allowing us this opportunity to debate the subject in your Lordships' House. As always in this House, we have had a fascinating debate and have been privileged to hear the contributions of some very distinguished speakers—all from the Opposition side of the House. I am sorry that that is the case. Although we were told that there were two Select Committees running, I have sat on Select Committees for the past six years and I do not ever remember there being a three-line Whip which prevented Members speaking in a very important debate.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. These committees—the Economic Affairs Select Committee and the economic sub-committee of the European Union Committee—are dealing with these very matters. That is why most of their members are not here.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Saatchi in expressing disapproval at the fact that up to £100 billion has been omitted from the UK economy balance sheet. My noble friend summarised why this is potentially damaging and misleading and how, in the light of recent international accounting issues, now is the time for full disclosure and transparency. Many noble Lords also expressed their concern on this issue.
It is my pleasure and an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, he started by saying that we do not normally debate this report. I thought he was not going to do so, but he then proceeded into great depths of analysis. He agreed with many noble Lords who had spoken of their worries about mortgage equity withdrawals, which he felt was completely unsustainable. He is concerned about the consumer expenditure boom now and fears that we will see a bust all too soon. He is worried that the Chancellor's high degree of complacency will come back to haunt him in the future. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the questions posed by the noble Lord.
We heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, a distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He took us on a tour of the Government's optimistic document and spoke about "steering a steady course in an unsteady world". He informed us that the document cost £45, so we are awfully lucky to have been given a copy. He feared that the Chancellor may have been carried away by his own performance. My noble and learned friend said that

143
the document seemed to cover every area of human activity and spoke about "everything for the best in the worst of all possible worlds". But despite his wonderful quotes and light-hearted tone, he is very worried. Based on his years of experience in the job, he warned us that there was great cause for concern.
My noble friend Lord Higgins spoke about pensions, his area of expertise. My noble friend said that he had taught economics at Yale at one stage, so I shall look at him with a new degree of respect. He asked various questions which I am sure the Minister will wish to answer. For instance, where are we in the cycle? He also spoke about the intergenerational balance in pensions and how he would like to see work carried out cross-party.
My noble friend Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, a former Chief Secretary of the Treasury, congratulated the Chancellor on being prudent in his early days, albeit having inherited a good economy. He agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe in expressing worry about the optimistic assumptions in the document. My noble friend Lord MacGregor was particularly worried about PFI and PPP—as was my noble friend Lord Saatchi—and heartily supported the analysis we have heard of the troubles ahead. My noble friend also referred to transport and pensions—issues with which I am sure the Minister will deal.
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, speaking about the euro, was worried about interest rates and the one-size-fits-all strategy. He felt that it was to be avoided at this time of huge personal debt and staggeringly high housing costs. He reminded us that taxation is rising and said that in his experience higher taxes and higher spending led to lost output and slower growth, the biggest losers of all being the least well off.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate was a tour de force. He spoke about the housing market. I do not feel that I can repeat all he said in a marvellous analysis. His description of failing industrial production must be a great worry for us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, as always, gave a most eloquent speech. He talked about being a "junior infantryman" speaking today among colleagues from another place—but I, of course, am the junior here today among giants. No one speaks more wittily than my noble friend; no one is more experienced. He made a searching point on micro-meddling.
To our surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, decided to speak in support of the Minister, no Labour Peer having done so. He took the opportunity to urge the Government not to throw it all away by joining the euro.
Following those wonderful contributions, perhaps I may be allowed a few words of my own to wind up from this Front Bench. Yet again, in the Pre-Budget Report the Chancellor of the Exchequer has issued a long list of measures, which are intended to deliver changes so that the Government can keep the promises they have made and meet the targets they have set.
144
Going on the Government's performance over the past five years, we have come to expect those promises to be broken and for targets not to be met.
The area of the public services demonstrates the Government's single biggest failure. In their 1997 manifesto, they stated:
"The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government".
Now we hear that they are to increase public spending by a further £20 billion.
How the Chancellor intended to reform public services was set out in his public service agreements. In his first spending review, in July 1998, he stated that these were an "essential change" and would help to ensure that government would do what they did "to the highest standard". Sadly, as we have heard, what has happened instead is that nearly 40 per cent of the targets the Government set in 1998 and 75 per cent of the targets that they set in 2000 have been missed. I also find it concerning that some of those are targets to set targets. For example, in 1998, the Department of Transport was given the following target:
"Establish in 1999 new targets for reducing road casualties from road accidents in the period up to 2010".
So what we really want to hear about is why those targets have not been met and why those promises have not been kept, and the implications for those who should have been helped during that time. When we see no tangible benefits, it is even more troubling that £115 billion more is being taken every year from the taxpayers of this country—nearly £40 a week for every many, woman and child.
The Minister reminded us that the UK economy is the fourth largest in the world. While some headline indicators remain strong, we are increasingly seeing changes that give serious cause for concern. We have argued consistently that public services will not improve if they are just given more money. What is needed is genuine reform. Without reform money alone will not deliver improvements on the scale we all want and expect to see.
In announcing the Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor was forced to admit that his forecasts on growth, revenue and borrowing were wrong. As a result—this was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Stevens—government borrowing will have to increase from £30 billion in last year's Budget to £66 billion in last year's Pre-Budget Report, to £72 billion in this year's Budget, and to over £100 billion for the next five years.
That brings me to the Chancellor's sustainable investment rule. If the Chancellor had not, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Saatchi and other noble Lords, omitted to put £100 billion of his liabilities off the balance sheet, public sector debt would already have reached the 40 per cent limit in his own rule. Can the Minister confirm that the extra borrowing announced in the Pre-Budget Report will take us over that limit? It is this action—spending more without reform—that will be locking the Chancellor on to an unsustainable course, and that will inevitably lead to more tax rises.

145
In conclusion, as my noble friend Lord Saatchi and others on these Benches have stated, I find it very difficult to agree to note "with approval" financial statements that we believe omit liabilities amounting to at least £100 billion. We have concerns about the possible implications for the UK economy and for future Treasury policies.
I am keen to press the Minister on one point. If, as we estimate, the liabilities not appearing on the balance sheet do total in the region of £100 billion, it means that the Chancellor is extremely close to—if not already in excess of—the 40 per cent of GDP limit that he has set himself when it comes to public sector borrowing.
To my mind, the Chancellor has two options: he continues to borrow, and therefore most certainly exceeds this self-imposed limit; or he can stop borrowing and do what we have suspected he would do all along—namely, raise taxes. I ask the Minister: which of those two options is most likely to be followed, and what are the implications for the British economy?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may state that I am an Independent Labour Peer, not a Labour Peer.
5.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, was impressed by the experience and quality of the speeches in the debate—so much so that I did a few sums. I looked at the senior government experience of those who have taken part. The five former senior Ministers—almost all of them Cabinet Ministers—who have spoken have a total of at least 45 years of senior government experience behind them. I find that enormously impressive. In addition, we have heard from two big businessmen, the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Saatchi, from one medium-sized businesswoman, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and from one small businessman—me. So perhaps I am out on the end of the acceptable range of experience. Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed the debate.
Unusually for me, I shall attempt to deal with the points made in turn, speaker by speaker, rather than by subject. There has been so little overlap that it is possibly easier to do it that way.
I begin with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I have heard the argument that he put before, but I have not had an opportunity to reply to it in detail and I am grateful for that. To summarise, the noble Lord is saying, first, that we are using the PFI and the PPP in order to disguise our liabilities and keep figures off a balance sheet, rather than because there is value for money in the PFI/PPP schemes themselves. He went on to say that this disguising of liabilities is damaging to the public accounting, indeed to the economy as a whole. Let me take those points virtually in turn.
146
First, let me reiterate that the decision to use the private finance initiative is entirely on value-for-money grounds and not because of the accounting procedures that are used. The value-for-money assessment includes a qualitative assessment and a quantitative assessment. The quantitative component—the public sector comparator—has been reviewed to increase its transparency. All of these reviews are carried out by independent bodies.
Under PFI, the private sector puts its own money on the line—that is risk transfer. It gets paid only if it delivers the service it promised for the length of the contract. It is particularly important when we move from construction contracts to extended contracts, which, to give him credit, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, sought to start when he was Secretary of State for Transport.
There is a real incentive to deliver on time and to budget. Jeremy Coleman, the Assistant Auditor General of the NAO, who has been quoted as being critical in the past, said:
"The evidence is that, on the whole, PFI deals deliver to time and to budget. You get what you want, you get it when you want it, and it costs you what you thought it was going to cost. Conventional public projects have a very bad record in that respect".
That is the reason why we do it. The reason why we do more of it than the previous government is that they made a mistake. They thought that the right thing was to examine all public contracts under the system of so-called universal testing, even when it was obvious that there was not much choice for private finance. That gummed up the works so thoroughly that, as has been said, there was little effective private finance initiative under the preceding government.
The second allegation is that the obligations are concealed. I shall respond by describing how they are not concealed. First, I shall discuss PFI liabilities. Annual service charge payments—they are called depreciation in the private sector—under PFI contracts are included in departmental budgets and accounts. In the Budget, we publish a table of expected payments under PFI contracts for the next 25 years—I say that in terms of the inter-generational equity referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The payments are counted on our fiscal plans in public expenditure, current expenditure and public sector net borrowing to fund that expenditure for the relevant year. That is done in the public sector and it will be done in the private sector.
Where a PFI deal is found to be on the balance sheet—that is to say, the asset remains in the ownership of the private sector—it is included in the public sector net investment and public sector net borrowing. It is not for the Government to decide whether a deal is on or off the balance sheet. It is for the auditors concerned. When we undertake a deal, we do not know whether or not the auditors will decide that it is on the balance sheet. But it does not matter, because we are not concerned whether it is on balance sheet or off it. We are well within our limits under any circumstances. There has been a tendency—it is not a bad thing—for more to be included on the balance

147
sheet than in the past. That is the case for all PFI prisons in England, for example, and the London Underground PPP.
In addition to PFI liabilities, there are other liabilities. We have introduced resource accounting and budgeting. Departments must now recognise in their accounts, which all add up to the national accounts, future liabilities that are more likely than not to result in payment in their budget as provisions. Payments against these provisions score in the national accounts. They are not concealed. Contingent liabilities are those that are less likely to result in payment because they are dependent on other factors. They do not score in national or departmental accounts but are reported in most accounts.
The supplementary statement to the Consolidated Fund and National Loan Fund Accounts, which is published every year, lists all the statutory liabilities and all non-statutory, reportable liabilities. Some of those are unquantifiable. B14 of the supplementary statement shows why so many of them would be unquantifiable. The point is that many are unquantifiable because they are based on remote possibilities. For example, in the past seven days, the Secretary of State for Transport stated that he would indemnify the contractors for the London Underground contracts not against all their liabilities but against a specific one: a contingent liability that the Mayor of London might appeal against the decision of the European Commission that state aid was not involved. First, there is the judgment of whether he will go to appeal. If he does, contrary to his wishes, he will not get control of London transport for a long time. Secondly, there must be the assumption that he will win. He has lost twice, and there is no new evidence to suggest that he is doing anything other than delay.
The chance of that £1.9 million contingent liability being called in is very minimal. I give an example. A children's charity goes to the scene of an earthquake and brings home 10 orphans, planning to place them for adoption. It knows that the cost of bringing those orphans up to adulthood would be £100,000 each. Are we saying seriously that the children's charity should have £1 million in its reserves to provide for that contingent liability? Of course not. You cannot just add together in one lump liabilities that we know about and can time, those that we know about but cannot time, and contingent liabilities. But that is what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has been doing. It is the entirely false basis on which he claims that there is £100 billion black hole in the accounts of the Government.
Since we introduced government accounting in this country—I do not claim credit for this Government; it was started by the previous one—we have the most transparent accounts of any developed country in the world. All our obligations and liabilities that should be declared in those accounts and taken on the balance sheet are done so. Only yesterday, the IMF confirmed that, as in the past, the Pre-Budget Report provides a transparent and comprehensive account of the Government's economic policy. I believe that to be the case. The charges of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, are wholly unfounded.
148
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, made a very interesting speech. Psychologically, I am enormously sympathetic to what he says. Of course the danger is that if you have pursued what are perceived and acknowledged as successful microeconomic policies for more than five years, there is a great risk of "hubris", as he put it. But our forecasts and those of independent forecasts have been extraordinarily close. Our forecasting period is not what he calls the indefinite future. It is the specific forecasting period required for the assessment of any economic cycle. We can, and do, defend it in detail. I shall do so in response to later speakers.
Incidentally, the chapter headings that the noble and learned Lord so objects to are those laid down in Article 2 of the European Treaty. Therefore it is right that we should respond to them. The risk that we should be claiming that all is for the best in the worst of all possible worlds is one of which we are profoundly aware and profoundly wary. We know, and he knows very well, that such overconfidence is the worst crime that a Chancellor could commit.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, then asserted that our forecasts are wrong and that we are blaming it on the National Audit Office. Both those points are untrue. We do not blame it on the National Audit Office. Since 1997, on the whole, outturn has been under prediction—in other words, we have been under-forecasting. Our average error in forecasting growth has been of the order of 0.6 percentage points, compared with I percentage point between 1979 and 1996, under the previous government. Even the revision down since the Budget figures earlier this year is of only 0.4 percentage points, compared with a revision of a full 2 percentage points—from plus 1 per cent to minus I per cent—following the 1992 Budget. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was not available to join in the chorus today.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about spending on tax credits and the uptake compared with the forecast. It is not easy to get statistical data on that, but we have survey data that indicate that the uptake for working families' tax credit was 62 per cent of people but 76 per cent of money. In other words, there was a shortfall in uptake, but on the whole the money was going to those most in need. Working families' tax credit is benefiting 1.3 million people, which is more than half a million more than family credit at its peak.
As to what the cycle is, the information is all in the PBR. It does not very much matter whether we take the beginning of the cycle as 1999–2000, as we do, or 1997, as some argue. Taking from either 1997 or 1999–2000 to the end of any conceivable cycle period, all the statements that we make about the golden rule and sustainable investment are still true.
Of course, the noble Lord was right to raise the point about inter-generational equity. He says that it should be an additional objective, which is an interesting thought. These implications are certainly shown on the

149
balance sheet. That is clear from what I have said about the Budget showing obligations for the next 25 years.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if one is going to get a reasonable estimate of whether the generations are in balance, one must include the liability of the national insurance pension? If he is treating that as a contingent liability, perhaps he ought to tell pensioners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unfortunately that is a theoretical point in a sense. I do not deny that it is important—of course it is important—but doing the calculation is a challenge for the public sector and for the economics profession. I do not think that challenge has been resolved.
I do not think the House would welcome me spending a great deal of time talking about the euro. I know it was raised, but it does not arise from the Pre-Budget Report. I shall say only that, although some speakers have claimed that our membership of the European Union or our entry to the euro would take over our control of taxation and expenditure, that claim cannot be sustained.
On our policy on the euro, I shall do no more than refer noble Lords to the interview with the Prime Minister in today's Financial Times, which shows that he is clear that he has nothing more to say at this time. Therefore, I have nothing more to say at this time.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a point about pensioner poverty. We can see from the Pre-Budget Report and from the figures that I have given that even with any shortfall in take-up, following the introduction of pension credit on average pensioner households will be over £1,150 a year better off. That is a response to the requirement that we should be fair as well as successful.
The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, made some valuable points about household debt, which require a response. The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Newby, made similar points. Our forecasts provide for a moderation in the increase in house prices—in other words, a return to trend. We have therefore provided for a change in what is generally accepted to be an unacceptable rate of increase in house prices. Household consumption growth is forecast to slow this year and to decelerate further in 2003. That is all taken into account in the forecasts. We look to a rebound in growth of real household disposable income in 2003. With that, we look to an increase in the savings ratio.
The fundamental point, which I have already made in this House, is that household finances are strong, as are net household assets. That backs up the forecast. In addition, we have policies to encourage personal saving, including individual savings accounts, which are much more successful than TESSAs and PEPs.
150
We recognise the need for caution in projections on public sector borrowing. We are still vigilant in the face of potential risks. Our projections are based on cautious assumptions, which have been audited by the National Audit Office, including the figures for trend growth and equity prices. They have all passed the stress tests.
I can only agree with what the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, says about public sector pay. This is an issue for public services as a whole. I say this to the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Newby, as well. First, of course it is true that more resources for the public sector do not in themselves provide better public services, but they are a necessary, if not a sufficient, condition for improvements in public services. As has been clear from our reaction to the fire-fighters' strike, we are very conscious that unless public sector pay is kept to reasonable proportions—our long-term settlement with the National Health Service is a good example of that—we will fail to meet our targets for the public sector. The idea that we can do it without the scale of resources that we are putting in is wholly fallacious. That is my response to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who said that higher taxation is not the answer to failing public services. Of course it is not the answer, but it is an essential part of the answer.
I have already talked about forecasts, which was the focus of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. I agree with him that there has been a risk of an unbalanced economy. I also agree that it is by no means self-evident that there will be increases in productivity. However, we are making very modest forecasts. We are assuming that productivity will grow at the same trend rate as over the recent past. We are not assuming any outstanding changes or improvements in the forecasts that we make.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has again questioned me on microeconomic management. If there were gaps in the answers that I gave this summer to the debate on small business, then I apologise, and we can find an opportunity to correct that. However, this is a debate on macroeconomic management. On that basis, I hope that he will forgive me for not going into more detail.
I think that I have already dealt with many of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I hope that he will find that in the responses that I have given to other noble Lords.
I was going to sum up by giving the Government's view, but I have decided not to. Instead, I have decided to look at the concluding statements from the IMF Article 4 report that was issued yesterday and made available today. On the macroeconomic framework, including transparency, the report states:
"These economic achievements are due, in no small measure, to the government's sound macroeconomic policies, in the context of a policy framework that has emphasised division of responsibilities, accountability, and transparency".
It goes on to state:
"In the past few years, fiscal policy has been managed prudently within the context of the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule.

151
On borrowing, the report states:
"As to macroeconomic management, the short-term widening of the overall deficit is not a source of concern: fiscal policy can play a useful supportive role in a cyclically-weak economy when the underlying fiscal position is sustainable.
On long-term sustainability, the report states:
"Over the long-term, the UK public finances appear to be in a better position than those of many other advanced economies".
Beat that, my Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [H.L.]
5.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The minimum wage is now firmly established as a permanent feature of the labour market and widely recognised as an outstanding success. More than 1 million people have benefited from increased pay since the minimum wage was introduced in 1999, and we have tackled the poverty wages of £2 and £2.50 per hour that were so widespread five years ago. There has been no significant adverse impact on business, and the LOW Pay Commission reported last year that the vast majority of employers were complying with the minimum wage and that the enforcement system was working well. Since April 1999, Inland Revenue enforcement teams have completed more than 21,000 case investigations and identified more than £12 million of wage arrears.
When the Government introduced the National Minimum Wage Act in 1998 we wanted to establish an enforcement regime that was fair and effective, without being an unnecessary burden on business. In particular, we did not want workers—whether they still worked for the employer in question or had left their employment—to have to take action on their own behalf against the employer, although this remains an option for them if they wish. Low-paid workers are a vulnerable group and are often not capable or are unwilling to take action on their own behalf, and of course intimidation and fear can often act as a deterrent to making a complaint.
Since 1999, therefore, minimum wage officers from the Revenue and DEFRA have been issuing enforcement notices—which can require employers either to pay the minimum wage in future or make good arrears of the minimum wage arising in the past—on behalf of both current and former workers. I should add at this point that the minimum wage legislation, and this Bill, covers both the national minimum wage and the agricultural minimum wage as well.
In August 2002, an Employment Appeals Tribunal ruled on Section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act in the case of Inland Revenue v Bebb Travel plc. The appeals tribunal held that enforcement officers could
152
only issue enforcement notices requiring the employer to pay the minimum wage in respect of current and future pay periods or in respect of current, future and past pay periods. The ruling means that enforcement officers cannot now issue notices for past periods alone. This therefore means that we cannot now issue notices to recover arrears due to former workers. The Revenue believes that about half of all complaints come from former workers. It has currently placed about 250 cases involving former workers on hold, and of course that figure is growing by the day.
The Government are determined to restore the position to what we believed it to be before the Bebb decision, for two reasons. First, former workers are entitled to the minimum wage in just the same way as current ones. If someone was not paid the minimum wage for, say, some work they did in the summer, then we believe that the employer should be required to make good the shortfall, whether the person is still in their employment or not. While it would still be possible for former workers to take action independently against their employer, this is really not as satisfactory as action by the enforcement officers. As I mentioned a moment ago, low-paid people are often unwilling or not capable of taking action against their former employer. They may perhaps need a reference from him or they may feel that their chances of success are small against the employer. That is why we believe that former workers should enjoy the protection of Revenue or DEFRA enforcement officers, in the same way as current workers. If this change were not made, we would also be creating an incentive for employers to dismiss workers as soon as they knew they were being investigated. That is clearly not desirable.
The second reason why it is important to restore the position is that former workers tend to be much more ready to make complaints to the minimum wage helplines, which then prompts action by enforcement officers. Current workers tend not to complain, for obvious reasons. When officers follow up complaints made by former workers, they often then find that the minimum wage is not being paid to current workers as well as the former ones. We do not want to accept a position in which former workers may think there is nothing we can do on their behalf, and therefore stop making complaints that benefit everyone.
I hope that I have explained clearly why the Government believe that the Bill is needed. I should perhaps add that both the CBI and the TUC support the Bill.
The Bill inserts a new subsection (2A) after Section 19(2) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. According to the decision in the appeals tribunal which I referred, the existing sections 19(1) and (2) of the Act allow an enforcement officer to issue a notice only in respect of current and future pay periods or in respect of current, future and past pay periods. The new subsection (2A) therefore allows an enforcement officer to issue a single notice on an employer requiring him to pay minimum wage arrears to a worker or workers who have at any time qualified for the minimum wage. It will not matter whether the notice

153
also covers future pay periods; so, if he wishes, the officer will now be able to issue notices that cover minimum wage arrears for former workers alone. This provision restores the position that the Government believe existed before the recent tribunal ruling.
I should also make it clear that subsection (2A) has also been deliberately drafted to allow enforcement officers to issue notices in respect of pay reference periods ending before or after the Bill comes into force. I should like to explain why the Bill has been drafted in this way.
As matters stand, enforcement officers have not been able to issue any notices on behalf of former workers since August 2002. Some of these workers may of course have taken action against their employers independently but, although we do not have figures, I suspect that many will not. Unless we allow officers to issue notices covering pay periods before the Bill came into force, we will not be able to recover minimum wage arrears that might have arisen in the past on behalf of former workers. The key point to stress here is that this subsection does not change anyone's entitlement to the minimum wage; that is unchanged. All this subsection would do is create a new means of enforcing existing rights, to help these former workers recover their proper entitlement.
We therefore believe that this subsection is not in fact retrospective. We have approached the Attorney-General on this specific point, and he has advised us that he is content for the subsection to apply in this way.
Clause 2 provides that the Bill shall extend to Northern Ireland in addition to the remainder of the United Kingdom; this is the same arrangement as that for the 1998 Act.
In closing, I should like to stress that this Bill will not affect the vast majority of employers who are already paying the minimum wage. The only people who will be adversely affected by the Bill are the minority of employers who are not paying the minimum wage. I believe that it is entirely right that all workers, whether they are current or former workers, should enjoy the protection of our minimum wage enforcement officers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
5.50 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister that we on these Benches entirely support this short Bill. However, in the course of the Second Reading we should touch on how we have arrived at the position in which we are today.
I was one of the spokesmen from our Front Bench who participated in the passage of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and, indeed, congratulated the Government on introducing it. We considered that it was a much needed provision. We also congratulated the Government on the way in which they consulted on the ensuing regulations. Like the Minister, at the time of the Bill's passage never in my wildest nightmares did
154
I believe that the actions of enforcement officers would be constrained in the way that an employment tribunal appears to suggest in the case of Bebb Travel; namely, that if someone leaves a particular employment no order can be made by an enforcement officer to protect the minimum wage backlog that that individual has accrued.
We should bear in mind the amount of legislation that has passed through this House after having been almost unscrutinised by another place, and the extent to which officials have often presented the Minister with amendments to legislation that have to be produced in this House, often at the last minute, and often in a form that has been completely unscrutinised by another place. The Minister is in the unfortunate position of having to bring the Bill before us to rectify a lacuna in the law. Does he believe that this situation has arisen because the tribunal has acted wrongly and therefore the law has been misapplied, or does he believe that he has been the victim of misdrafting of either the original Bill or the regulations under it? If it is the latter, does he draw any conclusions as regards the way in which we, and often he, are forced to bring legislation before your Lordships?
It has undoubtedly been the case—no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, will endorse what I say—that the long and complicated Bills that emanate from the Minister's department often comprise legislation that has not been scrutinised by another place and amendments to that legislation are then proposed by the Minister. That is not his fault as his officials alert him to parts of legislation that are missing, need to be amended or have not been covered properly. Does he believe that this is one of those occasions? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point when he replies to the debate. However, as I say, we totally support the Bill and hope that it will proceed through the House without any difficulty.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this is an uncontroversial Bill to correct an anomaly in the interpretation of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, to restore the position to what Parliament clearly intended and common sense demands, and, indeed, to the position that we all thought prevailed until the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal last August in Inland Revenue v Bebb Travel plc, as the Minister pointed out.
It would be wrong to blame the parliamentary draftsmen for what appears to be a drafting error. But like the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I believe that we should discuss how this situation came about. It is possible that had the matter been pursued further through the courts a differing interpretation might have prevailed. That is because of an extension to Duggan's Law; namely, that to every lawyer there is an equal and opposite opinion.
However, the Government are to be congratulated on not wasting legal costs and time by pursuing the appeal procedure, especially as they have seemingly been advised that the chance of success in the courts i

155
problematical. Instead they have taken the sensible course of having Parliament correct its own error, or rather, not Parliament's error but the Government's error.
I do not pretend for one moment that the Opposition in the form of either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats spotted the error. I do not think that anyone did. Certainly my advisers did not and nor did our colleagues in the other place. But I am sure that the Minister would agree with me that, even if I had spotted the error, he would have tried to oppose me. That is what my experience tells me.
I fear that there may be other time bombs ticking away waiting for some astute lawyer to upset the Government, and scarce parliamentary time may be needed to make further corrections. We certainly hope that that will not be the case. However, I shall at a later stage introduce a very minor and, I believe, totally constructive amendment to head off future problems. Although any underpayment of the national minimum wage is to be deplored, whether it is deliberate or inadvertent or, as often may be the case when a small employer is involved, due to ignorance, I shall simply propose that the degree of retrospection that may be imposed should be restricted to the limitation period for any other civil debt. I trust that with that advance notice the Minister will have time to reflect on what I shall propose.
If I have any general criticism of the present Bill, it is that, bearing in mind that the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was intended to give employees—or rather "workers" as the Act calls them—a clear indication of their rights, and employers a clear indication of their obligations without the need to have recourse to professional advice, the wording of the new subsection (2A) (which the Minister explained to us) seems very convoluted. I am not a lawyer but I should have thought that it might be enough simply to have said:
"An officer may make an order under subsection (2) retrospectively notwithstanding that the employment of the worker with the employer has already ended".
Those words are taken from the excellent explanatory note provided by the Government to accompany the Bill. When I was involved in business and spent a great deal of time approving advertising campaigns, I was taught what was definitely lesson number one; that is, keep it simple.
With that very small criticism, and subject to my intended amendment, I assure the Government that, like the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, we on these Benches support the Bill. Although I am not part of the usual channels, I am sure that we shall do whatever we can to facilitate its progress so that employees may not be deprived of their rights.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for their helpful comments. We launched an appeal as we considered that the appeal tribunal's decision was wrong. Bearing in mind the terms of the
156
original Act, it is difficult to see how that rather strange interpretation was arrived at. It is not for me to criticise the draftsmen at this point. As I say, we have appealed against the decision.
I am sure that, had the noble Baroness spotted an error when we discussed the original Bill, we would have opposed her remarks as we still consider that the Bill covers the position. But perhaps the milk of human kindness and charity would have prevailed and we would have recognised the rightness of her argument and taken it on board. That would have saved a great deal of subsequent trouble.
As regards the retrospective nature of the measure we are discussing, it can only be retrospective for three years as companies are required only to keep records for three years. Although I believe that civil debt can go back six years, the measure we are discussing could be retrospective for only three years.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the main point. In drafting the Bill, our intention has been to restore what we thought to be the position, which is the ability of enforcement officers to take action on behalf of former workers following the tribunal ruling last August. It must be right that we do all we can to help to recover the arrears due to those low-paid workers. We have gone back to all the people involved in the drafting of the Bill. It is clear that that was their intention, so we intend to restore what we all felt was the purpose of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

High Hedges Bill [H.L.]
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
For some years I have brought the subject of high hedges before the House. I introduced my first Bill to alleviate the hardship and suffering of "hedge victims" in 2000. At the time, I hoped that a small simple Bill, dealing with the problem as a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, would provide a quick and easy answer. The Bill received all-party support in your Lordships' House but fell in the Commons. In 2001, I worked with John Taylor, who brought his Bill to the Commons. It passed all stages in this House and we hoped that it would also pass in. the Commons on the last day before the general election. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for her help and support in the matter. Rather sadly, it was talked out. I say "rather sadly", as the one good thing about that is that it enables us to improve on the Bill.
As presented today, the Bill is almost identical to John Taylor's Bill. I find that it fails to provide wide enough grounds on which a complaint can be made and considered. The Bill is presently tied in to a specific light issue, and the difficulties and disadvantages of those on the shady side of such hedges are much more

157
than just loss of light. Reduction in property value, damage to buildings and loss of proper use of gardens for plant growing and recreation are some of the other losses of amenity. I hope that your Lordships will share this view and support my intention to bring forward the necessary amendments in Committee to cover these other aspects.
On the front page of The Sunday Times of 8th December 2002, I saw the news that Stephen Pound, who drew a place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills, is to bring forward a Bill on this same subject and,
"ministers have agreed to allow time for a private member's Bill to go through. With backing from the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, led by John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Bill is certain to become law, according to government business managers".
Stephen Pound has drawn 14th place in the ballot, which would not normally be a very hopeful position, but it seems that he will be getting special treatment to ensure that the Bill becomes law. That is good news as far as I am concerned. I am not interested in getting glory for the result, but I want to see the reality of a new law that helps those affected so adversely by high hedges. If the Government are making special time available, as seems to be the case, I am slightly puzzled as to why they do not make it a government Bill.
If, as I understand is the case, my Bill is almost the same as the proposed Commons one, I am pleased that your Lordships' House is able to consider the matter early and, in our usual way, in detail. In that way, we may make improvements by adding to the Bill, by altering parts in Committee. The timing of publication of the Commons Bill is such that it should be possible for Stephen Pound to include in his Bill any widening of grounds of complaint or other amendments that have been fully supported in this House. That would mean that the work we are doing here would be of great benefit to him.
My Bill is clear and self-explanatory. As we have debated the subject so many times in this House, I do not intend to go through it in detail. The aim of the legislation is to provide a formal complaint procedure for those suffering a hedge problem and to empower the local authorities to assess the situation. They will decide whether the complaint is justified and, if so, make an order for appropriate action to be taken. As a last resort, local authorities will be able to act to reduce the hedge and bill the owner for the work done.
As a first step, and prior to making a complaint, the affected party will have to mediate—that is, contact the offender and try to resolve the matter by agreement. Past debates have made clear that this has proved unsuccessful in most cases, as there were no sanctions if the offender simply refused to consider action. I remember the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on that point. I am convinced that with legislation as a back up there will be a great incentive to reach agreement with one's neighbours and mediation will be more successful, saving further action in most cases.
The press has given some readers the impression that nothing over two metres will be allowed as a hedge height. It is important to clarify that point. Anyone can erect a
158
fence or wall to a height of two metres without planning permission. It is to match that planning law that two metres is, in the Bill, the height that is permitted without query. That is enough to provide ground floor to ground floor privacy between houses.
Members of your Lordships' House have spoken to me in the past few days about their concern that they will not be allowed a hedge that is higher than two metres, but that is not the case. A hedge of massive height could be unobjectionable if it was sited in a position where it had no effect on an adjoining property.
One noble Lord explained to me that he has a hedge of trees that is 25 feet high, which he has repeatedly trimmed over the years to suit his neighbour. He has always had this done at his own expense. In such a case, when there is already a satisfactory relationship between neighbours, there will be no change. It is important that the Bill should not cause unnecessary anxiety, which is why I mention that. The fact that local authorities have a discretion means that all existing circumstances will be taken into account. Under Clause 4(2)(b), they could decide that a complaint should not be proceeded with.
When the consultation document entitled High Hedges: Possible Solutions was published in November 1999, more than 3,000 replies were received by the end of the consultation period on 31st January 2000. It was an exceptionally high response, and it took months to analyse the replies. On 10th August 2002, Michael Meacher stated that 94 per cent of the replies were in favour of legislation.
A new difficulty that has been brought to my attention is that home owners are being asked to carry an excess of £2,500 on their household insurance for any problem related to a hedge problem. That may be a result of the Delaware Mansions and Westminster City Council case, in which the council was held liable for its refusal to deal with the tree root problem at a cost of £14,000 for repairs, and had to meet the full restoration cost of £570,000 and legal fees of £500,000. The cost came to a total of more than £1 million for just one tree. The case established the liability for damage by invasive roots to a neighbouring property, and for that reason would apply equally to root damage by a hedge. It may be for that reason that insurers are targeting people with hedges, or people with hedges adjoining their property.
As I drive around the countryside, I notice that public awareness of nuisance hedges has grown remarkably. Many tall conifer hedges are now being trimmed, to the benefit of neighbours on the shady side. No one on the sunny side ever complains, and they are often not even aware of the difficulty on the other side. A few hedges have been planted deliberately and maliciously to damage an adjoining property, but that is rare. In most cases, people who planted hedges—commonly known as leylandii, although the Bill covers any species—were quite unaware of the speed and height of the growth. I received an excellent note of response from the Royal Horticultural Society today, which makes it clear that the easiest and best solution is to plant the right hedge and never face a problem.

159
Many plant nurseries and individuals are taking note of those recommendations. The RHS supports legislation. Apart from listing more than 20 varieties of possible hedges, it makes the point that,
"hedges are often not a suitable solution for garden boundaries under modern conditions",
and it,
"urges gardeners to consider fences where there is no commitment to long term hedge care and size restriction".
Many concerned people have asked me what is defined as a hedge—they may have a ragged group of hedging or just four or six trees that are causing them trouble. Clause 2 defines a hedge as,
"two or more adjacent evergreens",
and adds that,
"despite the existence of any gaps",
it may still qualify as a hedge.
Under Clause 4(2) the local authority will have the right to decide that the complaint should not be proceeded with if there has been no attempt to mediate or if the complaint is "frivolous or vexatious". There are long histories of hedge battles continuing for 20 years or more, and I believe that some of the parties have shown that they can spin the time out for an undue length. There should be some sanction against those deliberately trying to obstruct the process by the unreasonable use of appeal procedures.
In the debate on this subject reported at column 1094 of Hansard of 24th November 2000, I drew attention to an unreasonable case in which the offending party was ordered to pay costs of £20,000. As that person was legally aided the costs were entirely met by the taxpayer. In such a case, which will cost nothing to the offending person, the offending party has no disincentive to carry on with the case, whatever the cost.
I therefore consider that there should be a "frivolous or vexatious" condition attached to the appeal procedure. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he believes that that should be dealt with in the Bill or in regulations.
In moving this debate, I put this Bill not only before this House but before the public for full consideration. If the Bill is given a Second Reading today, the Committee stage would probably take place on 9th January 2003, just two days after the House returns from the Christmas Recess. Amendments can be tabled on 7th and even on 8th January and I would welcome suggestions for those, at an early date, from interested parties. I suggest that they write to me or the department or both to make their views known, so that those points can be given full and careful consideration. Obviously, I cannot guarantee to act on each and every comment but if a body of opinion makes it clear that there is concern about something in the Bill, or some omission, I would seek to move the appropriate amendment. Of course, amendments from other Members of the House would be welcome.
The Bill will be of great help to hedge victims and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
160
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
6.13 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin with an apology. I had to leave in the middle of a very important meeting upstairs—it was not as important as these proceedings, of course—but I will have to get back to it, for which I apologise.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on her persistence. This is one of those infuriating things: the Bill should be known as the "number 11 omnibus" Bill because one waits for a long time and then two turn up at the same time. That is not an inappropriate comment in view of the previous profession of Mr Stephen Pound. Wherever he is—he can hear me now—he must be laughing.
We are in a marvellous situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has persisted in this regard. I also thank my noble friend Lady Farrington. For a long time there has been sympathy, understanding and a willingness to act, although there have been problems. If anyone thinks that when this Bill—or any Bill—has completed its passage through both Houses, it will solve the problem, they have another think coming. We are dealing with people, property and a community. I assure noble Lords that the Bill is most welcome.
Mr Tony McNulty, the junior Minister at the department, was kind enough to receive a small deputation from a hedge abuse organisation led by Clare Hinchliffe, who played a leading role; previous responsibilities were carried out by Mr Michael Jones. We have much assistance in terms of services and facilities—telephones, typewriters and many other things—but out there many people (I shall not exaggerate by referring to thousands) spend all their spare time being a post box for complaints. They are on the telephone and providing help. In an ideal world, these problems would not arise; when they do we are seeking to provide legislative back-up in this parliamentary Session.
When I bought my house about 12 years ago in Loughton, in the middle of Epping Forest, I wondered whether I should get the hedges cut down. Next to my house there was a big fence. When I made inquiries of my neighbours, they said, "It is no good going round to the other people. We have been round before and they simply told us to get lost". However, I did go round but the owners had changed and the new man had a different attitude. Within a month, he had a man there lopping the tops down substantially.
We should speak to our neighbours, be patient and have a spirit of compromise. Mr McNulty, speaking guardedly—as he has to do—said that if an opportunity occurred via the Private Member's Bill route, we should use it. That has happened. We are in the wonderful situation that with collaboration between both Houses—in particular, between the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and Mr Stephen Pound—I am sure that eventually a Bill will reach the statute book that will do what is required.

161
Many of us have experience of serving on local authorities and know that the bane of one's life is to be told that nothing can be done. Ultimately, something can be done. I was interested in the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was keen to squash; that is, that no fence over two metres would be tolerated. That is not true. A hedge of more than two metres will be the subject of scrutiny by arboriculturalists on the council and in other ways only if there is a complaint that is upheld after an inquiry.
It will be some time before we realise the effects of this approach. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has, for the past three or four years, been determined to reach the position that we have realised tonight. That has occurred against the background that the ministry was satisfied by the inquiry. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was at the centre of the need to consult. That shows her local government experience. We are keen to ensure that of the options available, the legislative back-up route should be preferred.
I welcome my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting to his new ministerial role. I am sure that he will acquit himself very well. Otherwise, the twig will snap or we will not see the wood for the trees. What else can I say that Mr Stephen Pound would appreciate? He appreciates an attempt—even a poor attempt such as mine—to bring levity to these proceedings.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I recently attended a meeting where the agenda included the fire-fighters' strike, the local government settlement, corporate performance assessments and other weighty matters. I added to the list the High Hedges Bill. That provoked some laughter, but I suspect that, in some people's eyes, the subject matter is at least as controversial as the bigger issues. I believe that that is confirmed by the fact that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister felt it necessary to publish leaflets on the subject. I see that that office's emblem has been used on a number of publications about high hedges.
As we heard, this is the latest—or, I now understand, almost the latest—in a series of attempts to address the problem. I hope that it will be the end of the beginning in putting in place the necessary mechanisms and possibly even the beginning of the end in finding real solutions on the ground for what we all seem to call hedge "victims".
I, too, thank the noble Baroness for the part that she is playing now and for the significant part that she played in the lead-up to the presentation of the Bill. I also thank her for her explanation. I suspect that the Bill may be less contentious than individual complaints about hedges. For the sake of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I hope that it is because I believe that this is the first Bill with which he has become involved in his capacity on the Front Bench. From
162
these Benches we support the Bill. I hope that the fact that I have some concerns and questions will not be read as a reduction in our support for it.
As the noble Baroness explained, as drafted, the grounds for complaint are limited to the obstruction of light. Those of us with experience on planning committees in local government will be accustomed to hearing members of the public complain that a proposed development will block their light and then hearing the officer's explanation, accompanied by graphs and charts, which demonstrates that the light will not be blocked. No one is terribly satisfied by that.
In addition, the Bill talks of "unreasonable" obstruction of light. I believe that that is possibly even a higher test than one meets when dealing with a development for planning purposes. Another test to be overcome—a matter that we may be able to explore in Committee—is that light can be blocked even if there is no "barrier". That is the term used and, as it were, is the hurdle to be overcome in Clause 2 of the Bill.
The leaflet from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to which I referred, lists examples of the problems which go wider than obstruction of light. It refers to depriving a person of winter sunshine, encroaching on a garden and affecting the growth of plants, a hedge pushing over a fence, and roots damaging one's path, garage or home. I believe that that probably provides us with some material to work on at a later stage. It also seems to me that the Bill is not evenly balanced in that a complainant has to meet a tough test but, under Clause 4(4), the occupier can rely, for example, on his own privacy.
It is probably a considerable breach of etiquette to say this of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but I was a little surprised that it took the view that the Henry VIII power contained in Clause 16(1) is acceptable or appropriate. The committee says that the power is limited to extending complaints to non-domestic property or altering the definition of a high hedge. Those appear to me to be fundamental alterations, and it would be better if we dealt with them in the course of the primary legislation rather than by affirmative resolution at a later stage.
It will not be easy for local authorities to be seen as objective and consistent. The ODPM briefing pack talks of tests being worked on by the building research establishment and of the need for those tests to be simple. I believe that, so far as possible, they also need to be objective. I understand that the Local Government Association has indicated that it would welcome government guidance. I believe that that is anticipated by the ODPM and that must be right. Local authorities need to be able to point to something that has general application. They do not want to be in a position where they could be accused of not being objective or fair.
This point will come as no surprise, but I am concerned that the Bill should not put an unreasonable burden on to local authorities. There is always the issue of resources. As I understand it, the fee will be limited by central prescription and is unlikely to be sufficient to fund the service because such fees never

163
are. The ODPM tells us that it estimates that costs of about £2 million will be involved simply in dealing with the backlog of cases. This is not only a question of straight cash. I believe that we are all aware of the shortage of planning officers in local authorities. Indeed, not so long ago in your Lordships' House, a debate on planning threw up the issue of the lack of training available for planning staff.
The fine at level 3, which I believe will be the maximum of £1,000—perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that at the end of the debate—will, I imagine, as with all fines, be kept by central government and will not be directly available for funding the service. My concern over resources is not limited only to local authorities; it is suggested by the Government that people seek advice from CABs and community legal services. They, too, have their resource problems.
I know that concerns have been expressed that the Bill does not apply to single trees. I assume that that is because many instances of damage caused by individual trees can be dealt with by other remedies. However, again, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say a word about that when replying to the debate.
There appears to be no opportunity for appeal within the local authority unless, of course, both neighbours agree to seek a variation or withdrawal or unless there is a material change in circumstances. I was not able to think what a "material change in circumstances" might be in the context of the Bill. I would welcome any comments on that point as that might help us in our deliberations during the next stage of the Bill. I also wonder whether it would be considered helpful to have something at an intermediate stage before the planning inspectorate becomes involved. I should also welcome hearing what discussion has taken place with local authorities and perhaps with other bodies, such as the Law Society, which might wish to comment.
Trees, both singly and in groups and whether or not they comprise hedges for this purpose, play a significant part in our urban and suburban landscape. The relations between neighbours are also fundamental to urban and suburban life. I hope that the Bill is able to progress in order to support both.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Walker of Doncaster: My Lords, I fully support the noble Baroness's Bill and wish only to ask her a question. First, I should perhaps say that I am the chairman of the Parliamentary All-Party Gardening and Horticulture Group. I do not know whether that is of interest but I am sure that my members will share my welcome for the noble Baroness's Bill.
In the noble Baroness's explanation of the Bill, I did not hear her refer to the difficult problem that arises in conservation areas. I live in a conservation area and I have an overgrown leylandii hedge. My neighbour objects. I cannot cut it because, at 20-odd feet, it is too high. I have to get a tree surgeon to do the work, but I can do so only when he has applied for planning permission from the local authority. The authority inspects the tree and the relevant notice is posted.
164
Then, eventually, the tree surgeon can come along and trim back the hedge to the height indicated by the local tree preservation officer and no lower. However, that is still far too high for me to reach.
I do not know whether the Bill will also have an effect where a hedge is made up of mature trees. In summer the entrance to my house is permanently in darkness because of the line of lime trees along my driveway. When I moved in, about 20 years ago, I had to pay a tree surgeon to cut them back or pollard them. The local authority immediately threatened me with legal action and said that if there was any repetition of that I would find myself in court. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could comment on the position regarding the application of the Bill in conservation areas.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am in the happy position of noble Lords having said practically everything that I might have said. Therefore, I shall probably cut down on the time I would otherwise have taken. I was able to welcome the Minister to the Front Bench yesterday. However, in case we should do that with every Bill, I take the opportunity of doing so again. I look forward to working with the Minister.
If he were still in his place I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and indeed, because she is still in her place, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the gracious and justified comments they made about my noble friend Lady Gardner. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, she has been truly persistent over this matter—it is now two years since she first started—and it is a pity that she has not yet been able to achieve the results she sought. I am sure that if Mr Stephen Pound, who I see is at the Bar, manages to achieve legislation on this issue, he will acknowledge the great part played by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I, too, was slightly irked by the comments in the Sunday Telegraph. I thought my noble friend should at least have figured somewhere in that.
High hedges always conjure up the image of neighbours from hell. They seem to have played an enormous part in bad neighbour relationships. This problem largely started with a number of public fallings out over some very large trees. It is not only the fact that there are neighbours from hell. There are also those who are simply too belligerent to take action or to see that high hedges affect other people.
To put this problem into the hands of the local authority does not seem unreasonable. Local authorities are accustomed to taking enforcement action and to intervening in disputes. Certainly, planning laws are littered with those opportunities. It would be a good solution for local authorities to be given the powers and resources to take proper action and to ensure by means of a fine or otherwise that they have an impact on the situation.

165
The noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster, raised an interesting point about tree preservation orders in conservation areas. I am sure that my noble friend will respond—
Lord Walker of Doncaster: My Lords, I did not refer to hedges or trees which are the subject of a preservation order, but to the universal application of the Bill within a conservation area.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that correction, which I am sure my noble friend has noted. I do not have anything else to add, other than that I support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Gardner. I congratulate her again on carrying it through. Many people other than me will think that this has been a job well done once the Bill is on the statute book, which I very much hope it will be at the whim—no, the will, of the House of Commons, in due course.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have kindly welcomed me to this new position. In particular I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for introducing her Bill and for stimulating such an interesting discussion. I join with my noble friend Lord Graham in acknowledging her persistence, perseverance and energy in getting the Bill renewed and to this stage. My noble friend Lord Graham rather bizarrely wondered whether I would be a firm twig. I can say to him that this twig is not for snapping.
I should like to start by celebrating trees and hedges. Hedges and trees have been an inspiration for many people and for many great poets including Robert Frost and Seamus Heaney. My favourite poem—a short one—about hedges is called, The Hedge, by E.J. Scovell, which I shall read:

"Hedge of my holding, faithful and benign,
Rounding this garden like the wedding ring
That names as mine the woman who is mine

Hedge, keeping out with your intricacies
The daytime-drowsy thief, welcoming all
Nest-building birds and grazing swarms of bees;

"Hedge I repaired and strengthened like a wall
As still the household grew—re-planted part,
Every day happier, richer not at all;

Of hawthorn, tamarisk and pomegranate
With honeysuckle scent flowing between:
Through you I am rich and lord of my estate,

Hedge of my holding, city-wall of green".

We have heard a lot today about the problems of high hedges, and we recognise that those problems loom large for the people affected. But, as has been said, we should not lose sight of the fact that the right hedge in the right place can make a significant difference to the quality of the local environment. For instance, a hedge is a useful weather and dust filter; it is inexpensive to create and long lasting. It can encourage wildlife and can be a feature of beauty and interest in its own right. It also offers privacy and security.
166
I would not want people who are following our debate to think that a hedge is nothing but trouble. Our towns, cities and villages would be a poor sight if they comprised nothing but a sea of panel fencing. Many of us will remember the despoliation of the East Anglia countryside in the 1970s when hedges were grubbed out to make for larger fields.
For anyone thinking of planting a new hedge I commend our leaflet, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, entitled, The Right Hedge for You. It has practical advice for gardeners on how to choose the right hedge for their circumstances, taking account of how much time they are prepared to put into its upkeep.
I want there to be no doubt that we as a government are pro-hedge, pro-tree and even pro-leylandii, provided they are in the right place and properly cared for. However, people encounter huge problems with overgrown hedges. We all know the cliché that an Englishman's home is his castle, but across the country vast fortifications of fast-growing and dense evergreen hedges have appeared. Unchecked and poorly-maintained hedges can cause misery to some people and a breakdown in relations with neighbours. Light is reduced in homes and gardens, and once-cherished views, perhaps of countryside or coast, are blocked. There are huge difficulties in growing many plants near hedges. All those things lead to a sense of oppression and of being hemmed in. People feel they are unable to enjoy their own garden.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is always best if those matters can be settled by negotiation amicably. A quiet word with the hedge owner may be all that is needed. I am pleased that the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness recognises that and requires people to try to negotiate a solution before involving the local authority.
To help neighbours settle high hedge disputes amicably, we published last month another leaflet, aptly entitled, Over the Garden Hedge. It takes people through all stages of the process from making the first move and talking to their neighbour to finding the right answer and putting it into practice.
As the leaflet acknowledges, negotiations do not always work. If the first approach is rebuffed, then trouble may start, resulting in serious and sometimes costly neighbour disputes. That is why in August 2000, the Government committed themselves to legislate in order to help solve these problems. We were supported by the results of our consultation, which showed overwhelmingly that new laws were needed to tackle the issue. That came not just from people affected by hedges, but from local authorities that were powerless to help. A standalone complaints system, such as that proposed in the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, was favoured by most of the consultation respondents.
Problems caused by high hedges will not go away until there is a statutory solution. The Government remain keen, therefore, that legislation on high hedges should reach the statute book.

167
There is no difference between the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, in bringing forward the Bill and the Government's objectives. We both want to see fair and workable legislation that will provide relief to thousands of people who suffer from these problems.
We supported the Private Member's Bill that was introduced by John Taylor in another place in 2001. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, acknowledged, her Bill owes a good deal to the work that John Taylor did previously.
In all those circumstances, the Government are pleased to support the principle of the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness today. I do not know whether the matters that she wants on the face of the Bill are covered in regulations. I shall write to her as soon as I have been advised on our proposals.
Like the noble Baroness, we shall note carefully the views expressed during this debate and take them into account as the matter progresses. I am very pleased that the first Bill that I am involved with will make a direct and significant difference to the lives of many people in our country.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I had not appreciated that this is the first Bill the noble Lord Lord Evans, has dealt with from the Front Bench. I join other noble Lords in welcoming him to that role. I am delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has come into the Chamber. In the middle of this year I had a very helpful and constructive meeting with the noble and learned Lord and his staff from the department at that time. The helpful leaflet that has been mentioned was in the process of being written at that time. We were very pleased that various points that were raised were taken into account in that publication.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was first to raise a number of points. I am glad that she thinks that the grounds of complaint need to be wider. It would be very desirable to have consultation or meetings with the Minister and perhaps with the noble Baroness and anyone else who is interested, and for this House to try to get the correct wording for the widening of that complaint procedure. I am convinced that anything that we can decide on in this House must be of benefit to Stephen Pound in the other place when he brings forward his Bill. As it will be published so much later, he will be able to incorporate into its text anything that we had already thought was a great improvement. I would put that point to the department, in order for it to be thought about before we go much further on the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that local authorities need to be objective. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Bill will enable them to be objective. For that reason, I do not go along with her suggestion that local authorities should be a first port for appeal. That might reduce their objective position. If local authorities make only the original decision and then the appeal goes elsewhere, that is more of a
168
parallel to planning procedures. There is merit in that because local authorities should have had ample time to consider every aspect of the case at an earlier stage. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press that point.
The noble Baroness is quite right that single trees are not covered in this legislation. There have been interesting court cases. I have mentioned the case of Delaware Mansions v Westminster City Council, which involved a single tree that cost the council over £1 million. Single trees are fairly well covered now in terms of damage to property. I suppose that it is considered that it would be an exceptionally large single tree that would really take away all one's light and local amenity.
As to material changes, I am not able to give the noble Baroness exact examples. One might be where there had been a storm and the hedge had been half-blown down. That might be quite a material change.
The noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster, raised some interesting points. He asked about a conservation area. That is a disadvantage. It is a worry as to exactly how that would be dealt with. At my meeting with Michael Meacher in September 2000, we discussed that issue. I asked him about the position in a conservation area and how we could ensure fiat people would get permission. One has certainly to apply for permission in a conservation area. But in the instance that the noble Lord, Lord Walker, referred to, where if the hedge was cut, it might not be cut enough or cut to a point where it was within control. I think that once permission was given to reduce the height, it could be that the local authority would be willing to agree a height at which it would be possible for it to be controlled and maintained afterwards. I would hope that that would be the case. But certainly there is a degree of conflict between conservation areas and the legislation.
The noble Lord mentioned mature trees. The Westminster City Council case has made quite a difference to councils' attitudes. If the person owning the mature tree applies to the council either to lop it or to remove it and the council refuses, the council is then entirely liable for the bill, due to the damage the tree has done. That has changed local authorities' attitudes very much on the issue of mature trees.
I was delighted that the Minister started off with a poem. Of course that was very appropriate with his literary background. I am glad that it will be printed in Hansard, so we shall all have the benefit of enjoying it again. The noble Lord referred to hedges being a lovely place to encourage birds and so on. In a way that is true about garden hedges, but more so about a hedgerow. The ones in East Anglia that he referred to which were taken out to make fields bigger were hedgerows.
That draws my attention to the fact that possibly that matter may not be clear enough in my Bill I should like those commenting on the Bill to decide whether they think that the term "domestic property" is the right phrase or whether the Bill should refer to residential property. We are talking about houses in occupancy. We are not talking about whether a hedge affects one's barn, which is used to house hay or

169
whatever. We must be clear on that point. My previous Bill referred to residential areas whereas the Bill before us today does not specify only residential areas. That may be a significant difference that we should perhaps consider.
There is no need to say more, other than that we should have the opportunity now for more consultation with the department. I found the officers in the department most helpful. I am sure that they will continue to be so. I do believe that any proceedings in this House must add to the effect of Stephen Pound's Bill in the other place.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure
6.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I hope that this Measure and the subsequent Church of England (Pensions) Measure will not delay the House too long.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Church of England has a system of synodical government, which gives representatives of clergy and lay people a role with bishops in the government of the Church at all levels. Although those principles are long-standing, the actual system of synodical government came into being with the passage of the Synodical Government Measure in 1969 and was established in 1970.
About 20 years later, it was decided that the time was right to review the position and a review was conducted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, between 1993 and 1997. The report of that group concluded that there was overwhelming acceptance within the Church of the principles of synodical government and attachment to the general form that it took. In particular, the co-operation of representative clergy and laity with bishops in the Church was widely valued. The report affirmed the principles of openness, accountability and subsidiarity and sought to strengthen confidence in the operation of synodical government. Where the structures were working well, the report recommended that they should be left alone; but in other cases, there was evidence of over-bureaucracy and the stifling of individual responsibility or initiative. In those cases, the report made recommendations for change.
Consultation on the Bridge report revealed a number of divisions about its recommendations. It was therefore decided to give priority to a first-phase package of proposals that had extensive support among those consulted. It is essentially those uncontroversial proposals that form the basis of the Measure. They relate mainly to synodical government
170
at parish level, where the Bridge report concluded that all was working well and that only minor changes were needed. Larger, more controversial, issues arising in relation to the General Synod will be dealt with subsequently.
The main proposals in the Measure—to be found in the schedule—provide for amendments to the church representation rules, made under the 1969 Measure, that make detailed provision for a number of matters relating to synodical structures. A number of those changes are intended to confer more flexibility or lighten Church structures. Examples include the reduction in the minimum size of diocesan synods from 150 to 120, new arrangements for calculating the number of lay representatives on parochial church councils and a power for another cleric to chair a PCC in the absence of the minister—if the minister, the PCC and the bishop give their consent.
Other changes affecting the position of PCCs include a new requirement that lay people aged 18 or over should have had their name on the electoral roll of a parish for at least six months before being eligible for election to its PCC or the deanery synod. That requirement—which is less onerous than the qualifying period of 12 months recommended by the Bridge report—is considered to be desirable protection against a sudden influx of new members with little previous involvement in parish life.
In addition to making changes to the church representation rules, the Measure also makes a number of other miscellaneous changes to legislation relating to Church life at diocesan level. Those include the lightening of certain committee structures—always welcome in the life of the Church—and an amendment to the functions of diocesan synods to enable them to approve the annual budget and accounts of the diocesan board of finance. The latter change reflects an increasing desire to enhance strategic management by bringing policy and finance together.
The changes to synodical government effected by the Measure may at first sight seem somewhat amorphous and modest in themselves. But taken together, they nevertheless represent a valuable and uncontentious first stage in the process of synodical reform and development, to which the Church stands committed. They have been passed by the General Synod and found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Guildford.)
Lord Newby: My Lords, I declare an interest as a clergy spouse. We on these Benches support the measures. I have only two points to make. First, they once again represent the extreme deliberation—if not slowness—with which the Church of England deals with change. They are extremely modest and have taken a long time to reach this point. Secondly, the

171
right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford mentioned the possibility of incomers flooding a PCC. The thought of entryism in the Church of England is a new concept to me. I suspect that for many clergymen and women, the thought of a lot of new people wanting to be on the PCC would be only too welcome a novelty. But I am sure that a period of six months will not deter people too much, so, as with the other proposals in the Measure, we will support it.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I welcome that contribution. We are discussing not membership of PCCs but attendance at annual meetings. There are occasions when contentious issues are around and a little campaigning goes on. The provision provides a little discipline.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Church of England (Pensions) Measure
6.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure makes provision in essentially two main areas: the first relating to various powers of the Church of England Pensions Board and the second relating to a particular power of the Church Commissioners.
As regards the position of the pensions board, the Measure, first, amends its powers in relation to certain charitable funds that it has previously held on statutory trust for the benefit of its pensioners and their dependants. It does so by winding up those funds and transferring them to the general purposes fund established by the board in 1975. The Measure then gives that fund charitable purposes, which embrace all the former purposes of the funds added to it. The result of that will be to enhance the flexibility that the board enjoys to make discretionary charitable provision for its pensioners and others, as well as reducing administrative costs.
The Measure also widens the board's powers in relation to the provision of retirement housing for those who have served in the stipendiary ministry. Previously, where a couple housed by the board divorced after retirement, the board has been able to continue to house only its pensioner, not the pensioner's former spouse. The Measure gives it power to do so, enabling the board to be even-handed between them.
Those changes in relation to the powers of the Church of England Pensions Board—and another technical change clarifying responsibility for the costs of accruing pension rights in certain circumstances—are addressed in Clauses 1 to 4 of the Measure. The remaining clause, Clause 5, extends the lifespan of one of the powers of the Church Commissioners which was granted to them in 1997.
If your Lordships dig deep into your memories, you may recall that the pensions Measure 1997 significantly altered the arrangements for the funding of clergy pensions. In particular, it limited the commissioners' pension liabilities to those arising from service before the end of 1997 and created a new and separate funded scheme into which dioceses—through funds raised from parishes—could pay clergy pension contributions in respect of service from the beginning of 1998. In support of those arrangements, it gave the commissioners power—but only until the end of 2004—both to give financial assistance to diocesan boards of finance and others in taking on the cost of paying those pension contributions and to spend capital in meeting their own pre-1998 pension liabilities.
It is the last of those powers that the Measure will alter by extending for a further period of seven years—from 1st January 2005—the commissioners' power to spend capital to pay their pre-1998 clergy pension liabilities. The reason for seeking that extension is that, because of the need to fund these liabilities, the commissioners' expenditure is likely to exceed their income by at least £30 million per annum for the foreseeable future. Without the continuation of the power to resort to capital to meet those liabilities, the commissioners would need to make substantial cuts in their discretionary expenditure or re-align their investment portfolio to generate higher income. Either course of action would damage the Church's long-term interests.
Your Lordships will be aware that there was one aspect of the Measure that initially gave cause for concern to the Ecclesiastical Committee. The difficulty that the committee identified in the form that the Measure originally took was that, in addition to providing for an initial extension of the power for seven years up to 2011, it provided for an indefinite number of further extensions after 2011, to be secured by a statutory instrument made by the General Synod and subject to annulment in Parliament. The Ecclesiastical Committee considered that to be inappropriate, taking the view that any further extension ought to be achieved not by statutory instrument but by means of a Measure.
I am glad to be able to reassure your Lordships that that point of concern has now, of course, been resolved. In the light of the views expressed by the Ecclesiastical Committee, the Measure was re-introduced to General Synod and amended by omitting the power to obtain further such extensions. As a result, further extensions of the commissioners' power will have to be achieved by Measure, as the Ecclesiastical Committee thought that they should be. The Church was willing to amend the Measure in that way because it did not consider any question of principle to be involved. Had the Church known the views of parliamentarians in that respect—which it did not—at the time when the Measure was being drafted, proper account would have been taken of them.
The Measure, in the form in which it is before your Lordships' House, has accordingly been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope that your Lordships will now feel able to approve the Measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Guildford.)
Lord Newby: My Lords, unlike the previous Measure, this Measure has significant implications for the Church of England. The cost of fulfilling its obligations to clergy pensioners is such that half the capital assets of the commissioners are likely to be spent over the next 60 years in settlement of those obligations. It will have a major impact on the funding of the Church and on the scope of the commissioners.
The Church has an obligation to provide for its pensioners. I should add that my wife is not covered by the Measure, so I have no personal interest in it. It is an example of the Church leading, in the sense that it is accepting and living up to its obligation, even though that may be painful. Many companies might benefit from considering that example. We support the Measure.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those remarks.
I shall add one thing. As the Church Commissioners' capital is used for past pension service, so a new fund is being built up, so the total impact on the Church's total resources is not quite as it might appear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Statutory Powers of Stop and Search) Order 2002
7.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the order has been seen by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. With the approval of this House and of another place, it will bring into effect from 1st April 2003 the revised code of practice for the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to stop and search a person, without first arresting him, and to stop and search a vehicle, without first making an arrest. The order has been made under Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I shall call "PACE" from now on. It cannot have effect until it is approved by resolution of each House.
Under Section 66 of PACE, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has a duty to issue codes of practice to regulate the police in the exercise of their powers. There are six codes of practice, entitled A to F. The current version of PACE Code of Practice A for the exercise by police officers of statutory powers of stop and search came into force on 1st March, 1999. Since then, a variety of legislative changes have amended the powers of stop and search available to police officers. It is time to update the code.
Since 1999, there has been a wide-ranging public debate about the use of the powers and, in particular, the question of whether the powers have been exercised by officers in a way that discriminates against members of minority ethnic communities. The debate was brought into focus by the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, published in 1999, which highlighted the importance of the use of stop-and-search powers in the context of relations between the police and the community and made a number of recommendations in that area.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the PACE, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary prepared and published in March, 2002 a draft of the code of practice, considered representations made to him about that draft and modified it accordingly. The consultation draft was prepared in collaboration with the Association of Chief Police Officers, as well as the other staff associations, police authorities and independent advisers drawn from diverse organisations and communities. Many were drawn by the Lawrence steering group, which oversees the implementation of my right honourable friend's action plan in response to the Lawrence inquiry report.
The revised draft code covers the exercise by police officers of the statutory powers of stop and search. There is a separate issue relating to the recording of stops or non-statutory encounters. That will be the subject of phased implementation and is not part of what we are debating today.
I hope that the proposed revisions to Code A are not contentious. The objective in revising Code A has been to ensure that the powers of stop and search are exercised in a way that would be as effective as possible in reducing crime but would also promote trust and confidence in policing in all communities. It is clear that, in order to achieve those objectives, stop and search powers must be used in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory way. Furthermore, research evidence shows a clear link between fairness and effectiveness. In other words, when the powers are used in a way that is likely to increase trust and confidence, their use is more likely to reduce crime. The revised code, therefore, includes important new provisions for searches and ethnic monitoring which will significantly increase the confidence of the public and of officers using the powers.
I shall highlight some of the main changes. The revised code sets out the principles that govern stop and search. It places an obligation on forces, in consultation with police authorities, to make

175
arrangements for search records to be scrutinised by representatives of the community. An officer carrying out a search must now record the person's self-defined ethnicity, as per the 2001 census classifications. There is a clearer definition of what constitutes reasonable suspicion in the exercise of the powers. The revised code says that there should be an objective basis for that suspicion, based on facts, information and/or intelligence relevant to the subject of the search. Reasonable suspicion must never be supported by generalisations or stereotyped images of certain groups.
The revised code also states that an officer carrying out a search must explain the grounds for reasonable suspicion. In the revised code, an officer who has carried out a search must make a written record at the time unless that would be wholly impracticable, such as in situations of public disorder or when the officer's presence is required urgently elsewhere. A copy of the record must be given immediately to the person who has been searched. Generally, the revised code is clearer throughout and simpler for officers and the public to understand, something that was commended in the public consultation.
Statistics published on 7th November, 2002, show that 714,000 stops and searches were recorded in England and Wales in 2001–02. Of those, 12 per cent were of black people, 6 per cent of Asian people and 1 per cent of other minority ethnic groups. Black people were eight times and Asians three times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people in 2001–02. Although more work must be done to understand fully what the statistics mean, they are still deeply concerning. The new provisions for searches and for ethnic monitoring should help us better to understand and address any disproportionality in the use of the powers.
The revision of Code A has long been awaited by the police service. There is an eagerness for this important step in the reform of the overall process. As far back as 26th May 2001, the Association of Chief Police Officers council agreed to introduce the 2001 census ethnicity, classifications for, among other things, stops and searches, and issued detailed guidance on 12th March 2002. The Association of Chief Police Officers also issued a good practice guide on stop and search in August 2001. The revised Code A essentially follows the principles and provisions of stop and search which were laid out in this guide and at the 14th meeting of the Lawrence steering group in January 2002. ACPO was keen that the revised draft should be put out to consultation without delay. The police service wants this revision and I urge its acceptance. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, first, I apologise for not being in my place at the start of the debate. From this side of the House we support the order as a sincere attempt to address this sensitive subject and to adjust
176
secondary legislation in the light of experience. As the Minister said, the whole subject is dominated by the findings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
I commend a letter by the Minister, Mr John Denham, to the Independent on 11th November, which I believe set the scene well. He made the point that any figures released on this subject produce a predictable but sterile debate. However, he suggested one or two reasons for that; namely, the possibility that some types of crime have a greater prevalence in some communities than others, and that some types of crime are associated with areas of poverty, deprivation and weak, fragmented communities which reflect ethnic mix, as opposed to ethnicity, which is an important distinction.
I suggest that that sets in context the figures recently released by the Home Office showing that blacks are eight times more likely to be stopped than whites, which gives an indication of the problems that that type of code of practice faces. On the other side, another consideration is that following publication of the Macpherson report there was evidence that police officers were reluctant to stop and search blacks or Asians in view of the sensitive climate that prevailed.
On this side of the House, we feel that the draft code attempts to address those problems. It cites three important considerations: first, respect for the individual and no unlawful discrimination; secondly, the intrusion must be brief and as near as possible to the location of the stop; and, thirdly, no search is to he made where there is no authority under legislation to do so.
The draft code makes clear the positive intentions, and that should not be forgotten. Stop and search, with all its potential hazards and pitfalls, is a means to enable officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without exercising their powers of arrest. As such, that can play an important role in the prevention and detection of crime. I have just one question for the Minister. The whole problem of race relations and crime is a constantly moving one. Will the Minister reassure me that the problem is being kept under continual review and that the Government will not hesitate, should the situation arise, to issue a further revised code in the light of experience?
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, we on these Benches offer our support for this statutory instrument. We do so because we are satisfied that the draft code has been prepared in consultation with key police and community organisations. It has, as we have heard, the backing of the Lawrence steering group which monitors the Home Secretary's action plan in relation to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report. Here, I must declare my interest as a former chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority and deputy chairman of the National Association of Police Authorities.
The new code of practice on how police officers use their stop-and-search powers is welcome in many ways. The code is now much clearer and easier to read

177
and understand. That is important because the code needs to be understood, not just by police officers but by the public as well.
Stop-and-search powers are an important police tactic. The effective and targeted use of stop and search can contribute to preventing and detecting crime. And that is why the public are generally supportive of the police having extensive powers—extensive and, in many ways, intrusive powers. A police officer can stop one in the street while about one's normal business. He or she can search one's person and ask for pockets or bags to be turned out, and even remove outer clothing. That is why it is so important that people are stopped only with good reason and that police use of those powers is rigorously scrutinised by police authorities and local people.
However, recent figures published by the Government give cause for concern. As the noble and learned Lord reminded us, black people are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, Asians three times more likely. We need to exercise great caution in the claims that the drop in stop and searches has produced a rise in street crime. It is hard to see how that could be so because only about 12 per cent of stops produced an arrest. In reality, even if there were a clear-cut link between the use of stop and search and crime rates, there could be no argument of returning to the old days of racially biased use of the powers.
The figures are disturbing. It is not surprising that stop and search is—as we know—one of the main causes of mistrust and conflict between the police and minority ethnic communities. That has to be a major cause of concern because policing by consent works only if we all have confidence and trust in the police service. We all need to work hard to build greater trust in policing among minority ethnic groups. I know that it is a priority for all police authorities, as it is for the Government. The new unit set up by the Government to look at the issue will be helpful.
Part of the difficulty is the way that officers handle those encounters: people want to be treated fairly and with respect. Clearly, there is a key issue here for police training. The new code could help, but pilot studies have proved the need for better use of such powers.
It is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity to implement the recommendation in the Stephen Lawrence report that the police should make a record of stops as well as searches. The record is important because it enables a person to understand why he has been stopped and on what grounds. The draft code which the Government issued for consultation earlier this year included proposals to implement that recommendation. The version of the code we are discussing today does not include it.
In spring 2001, the first ever nation-wide consultation was carried out by all police authorities on this issue. Generally, the response from communities was that they wanted the police to record stops. They saw it as a way of making the police more
178
immediately accountable for their use of the powers. In particular, minority ethnic communities and young people wanted to be given a record.
However, the Government have now chosen to implement Recommendation 61 on a phased basis in seven police areas. I believe that that could mean a further two years' delay before it is implemented fully across the country. I know that we are not discussing it today, but I know the noble and learned Lord will take note of my concern.
I know that police authorities across the country will work closely with forces and the Home Office to find practical and effective ways of implementing the recommendation. None of us wants to add unnecessarily to police paperwork. I suggest that mobile terminals will almost certainly provide a way forward. We must also draw on good practices.
Therefore, in welcoming the new code, I urge the Government to press on with full implementation of Recommendation 61 and give a commitment to its introduction across the country as quickly as possible. We shall certainly ask for a proper system of monitoring the use of the code to ensure that it delivers what it set out to do without reverting to stereotyping people.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for adding a small footnote to what my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond said, with which I fully concur. Like her, I welcome the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord introduced the order.
My small footnote concerns what was, when it left this House, Section 7 of the Asylum Act 1996. That authorised the police to stop and search anyone on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. The potential for that to be used in a discriminatory manner is considerable. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to the need to avoid legislation discriminatory in its impact. Will the noble and learned Lord consider whether this may perhaps be a case in point?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their support, both for the terms of the code of practice and the way in which it was introduced.
I can readily give the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the assurance that he seeks. He asked that the order should be kept under review and for an undertaking that it would be changed if appropriate. As to keeping it under review, I draw the noble Viscount's attention to the unit referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Richmond, which was set up in the light of the recently published Section 95 statistics showing the "eight times more likely to be stopped and searched" statistic to which we have all referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Richmond, referred to Recommendation 61. She will be aware—but it is worth putting it on the record—that we intend to carry out several trials and pilots from spring of next year. They are not yet up and running. They will be carried

179
out at the behest of the chief constables in the relevant forces. It will be a matter of administrative practice, therefore it will not require PACE code amendments. However, when they have been evaluated in due course and we have identified the best way in which to introduce the power nationally, we anticipate a further revision of the code. So, as has been said, we are going about it in a phased way.
Finally, I take note of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I shall reflect upon it and write to the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2002
7.20 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should inform the House that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments approved the draft order last Tuesday, 3rd December and that a Standing Committee in the other place approved it this afternoon.
I hope that your Lordships have had the opportunity to study the explanatory memorandum and the draft code of practice which provide background on the need for and content of the draft order.
Your Lordships will recall that the Proceeds of Crime Act contains a comprehensive package of measures focusing on the recovery of criminals' proceeds and wealth. Included in the provisions is a scheme for the recovery of cash in summary proceedings. These can be found in Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Act. The draft order before the House brings into operation a code of practice connected to that scheme.
Provisions relating to the recovery of cash are not new. The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 introduced a power for police and Customs officers to seize cash discovered on import or export which was reasonably suspected of being derived from or intended for use in drug trafficking. An application could then be made subsequently in a magistrates' court for the forfeiture of the cash. No conviction was required for the forfeiture of the cash to be ordered. Cash forfeiture proceedings are civil proceedings and the civil standard of proof applies. These provisions were later consolidated into the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, which applied on a UK-wide basis.
The Proceeds of Crime Act replaces and extends this scheme to cash related to all unlawful conduct and also provides for the seizure of such cash inland. Like the previous legislation, the Act provides for a minimum amount of cash in respect of which the search and seizure powers may be exercised. My honourable friend
180
the Under-Secretary has made and laid before Parliament the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Cash in Summary Proceedings: Minimum Amount) Order 2002, which sets the minimum amount at £10,000.
Significantly, police and Customs officers have no existing specific power to search for cash inland. Under previous legislation, Customs officers could rely upon their general powers of search at the borders under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows police to search for evidence. Cash may be evidence, but not in every case. A specific search power is therefore necessary to support the ability to find and seize cash inland.
In recognition of the sensitivity of search powers, this new search power is subject to a number of safeguards, including a statutory code of practice. The code is required before the search powers can come into operation. Section 292 of the Act requires that the code be made in connection with the exercise of the search powers by a constable or Customs officer. The code has been drafted and the draft order before the House will bring that code into operation.
An initial draft of the code was published for public consultation on 23rd August. That consultation period ended on 15th November. Revisions have been made to the draft code in the light of the comments received, and a summary of the responses to the draft code and the Government's comments are in the Library.
The draft code has a short introduction. It places an obligation on the police and Customs to ensure that the code is publicly available for consultation. The Government believe that the availability of the code will ensure that the operation of the power will be open to public scrutiny and accountability.
The draft code draws particular attention to the officer's obligations under the Human Rights Act and the Race Relations Act. I am satisfied that this order and the code are compatible with both of these Acts. It is vital that the rights and protections conferred by these Acts are uppermost in an officer's mind when he is considering and exercising the search power. The draft code defines the limitations of the search power and gives guidance on the objective tests required for forming "reasonable ground for suspicion" before a search can be undertaken.
The draft code also provides guidance on the procedure required when an officer is seeking judicial prior approval, as provided in Section 290 of the Act. Rules have been made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor under which a justice of the peace can hold an application hearing in private away from the court. This will allow flexibility in arranging applications quickly and will encourage officers to use this route rather than their own administrative powers of search.
"Reports to the 'Appointed Person" gives guidance on the requirement in Section 290 of the Act to report to an appointed person and sets out the related procedure. A report will be required to be sent to the appointed person where searches were not approved by a justice of the peace and cash was either not seized

181
or not detained for more than 48 hours. The appointed person is an independent person overseeing the operation of the new search power.
The remaining sections of the code deal with the steps prior to a search, the actual search of both persons and premises and the officer recording his actions. They ensure that officers conduct searches in a reasonable manner and provide several limitations and safeguards on that power. For example, paragraph 32 sets out the limitations of a search, disallowing the forcible removal of objects next to the skin, and paragraph 36 requires that searches should be performed at a reasonable hour where practicable.
The draft code is intended to be self-explanatory and easily understood and any further detail I give would merely be repetition of the document.
In summary, I am satisfied that the draft code sets out clearly the processes and safeguards required for the operation of the new search power. I hope that having more than 4,500 words shows the detail of best practice that we are imposing on officers and satisfies noble Lords that searches will have the required safeguards as checks on the power.
Because of the nature of the draft order I have spoken more to the draft code rather than to the order. The only further point specifically on the order is that it brings the code of practice into operation on 30th December. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary has signed a commencement order bringing the cash scheme into force on that date.
I commend the order and the draft code of practice to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committed.]—(Lord Goldsmith.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we on this side of the House support the order which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, made clear, effectively gives teeth to the power to seize cash conferred under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
We note that the language and structure of the order are based on similar codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where these procedures for search are largely proven. I certainly welcome the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that the code complies with the Human Rights Act and with the Race Relations Act.
We are pleased to note the requirement for prior judicial authorisation wherever possible; the requirement for a report giving reasons for any action where such approval has proved impracticable—one presumes that that will be largely on grounds of time considerations; and, indeed, for the requirement that any search operations must be fully reported.
We also note that any searches, whether of persons or of premises, must be proportionate. That leads me to the question that I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, earlier. The whole issue of proportionality is subjective. I should welcome an
182
assurance that this is being kept under review. There are constant changes, not only in the technology but also in the increasing sophistication and resourcefulness of criminals in making use of it; and also in terms of the increasing globalisation of crime. With that request for an assurance, we on these Benches welcome the order.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the order is to a large extent dictated by the terms of the Proceeds of Crime Act. It is very much in line with what one would have expected under that Act. Certainly, we on these Benches have no quarrel in principle with the proposals in the order. But I am afraid that, having looked through the code of practice, I am going to make a few rather tedious points on the drafting—which is less than perfect and not as good as one would have hoped.
First, paragraph 9 reads:
"Where the power to search a person is exercised the Act requires that the officer or constable"—
the words "or constable" are unnecessary, since the word "officer" has already been defined as including a constable—
"may require the suspect—so far as he thinks necessary or expedient—to permit (a) a search of any article he has with him; or (b) a search of his person".
It is provided that an officer may detain the person for so long as is necessary to carry out the search.
This implies that detention is possible where the search is carried out under either (a), the search of an article, or (b), the search of the person. In fact, the authorising provision of the Act—namely, subsections (3) and (4) of Section 289—makes it clear that detention is only possible under (b), that is, for the purpose of the search of the person, and that there can be no detention for the purpose of searching an article that the person has with him. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General would comment on that.
The third sentence in paragraph 10 is ungrammatical and reads extremely awkwardly.
Paragraph 22 states:
"The report must be submitted to the independent person appointed by the Secretary of State"—
Simply by way of comment, I think it slightly unfortunate that one is left with the statutory phrase "the appointed person", which I assume is due to the fact that the "appointed person" has not yet been appointed. It might have been easier for people reading the code to understand it if someone had been appointed already and could be referred to by name in the code—subject, of course, to it being made clear, as with the minimum figure of £10,000, that the information is subject to change.
Perhaps more importantly, the second sentence of paragraph 22 says that,
"Reports in respect of searches undertaken by customs officers in Scotland, must be submitted to the independent person appointed by Scottish Ministers".

183
It is clear from Sections 290 and 291 of the Act that reports not only by Customs officers but by police officers in Scotland must be submitted to the independent person appointed by Scottish Ministers. So, in so far as the reference is specifically and exclusively to Customs officers, the statement in paragraph 22 is incorrect.
Moving on to paragraph 35, I am afraid that once again the sentence is ungrammatical.
I ask the noble and learned to comment on a point in the fourth sentence of paragraph 36, referring to rights of entry. It states:
"It would also include a search carried out when an officer has exercised a power of entry conferred by a search warrant granted in some other connection or power of entry conferred under some other legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and circumstances subsequently lead him to believe that there is cash on the premises".
I should have thought that where a right of entry was conferred under some other statute it would be legitimate to carry out a search even if the officer conducting the search believed before entering the premises that cash might be there; whereas paragraph 36 suggests that it must be circumstances subsequent to the lawful entry which lead him to believe that there is cash on the premises.
On a further grammatical point, in paragraph 40 the expression,
"the object of the search",
is given quite different meanings in two successive sentences. The first sentence states:
"Premises may be searched only to the extent necessary to achieve the object of the search".
The paragraph then goes on to say:
"A search may not continue once the object of the search has been found"—
where, equally plainly, the term means the thing that you are looking for. I also wonder whether in the second sentence "the object of the search" has any obvious meaning when you are talking about cash, because cash is not normally a single object but a whole series of objects and it may be difficult to be certain that you have found all the cash that you are looking for.
Those points are, as I said, rather tedious. In making them I do not intend to suggest that we do not fully support the purposes behind the order. I await the noble and learned Lord's reply with interest.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's last sentence. I was beginning to wonder in the light of what he had said previously.
I am grateful for the general support for the code that came from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
I turn first to the comments of the noble Viscount. He is absolutely right in saying that this follows a precedent set by other codes, particularly PACE codes. There is, of course, an important difference. The PACE codes relate to criminal matters, whereas the provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act are civil.
184
But in terms of following the precedent that they have established, in terms of setting up clearly, in order, the way in which these powers should be exercised, we have drawn on that and the noble Viscount is right to draw that comparison.
He asked whether it was intended to keep under review the operation of the code. Again, he is absolutely right in saying that we have to take account of the fact that there are constant changes in the ways in which criminal conduct is committed, and we have to keep up to date with those. I can assure him that the operation of the code will be kept under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will forgive me if I do not pick up on his grammatical points. I am sure that they are all good—although I took exception to one or two and was not sure that I agreed with them. But never mind. It is not possible to amend the code at this stage. Plainly, the noble Lord's points will be taken into account when there is a revision of the code. Dare I say that there was an opportunity to comment previously? Had those points been made at an earlier stage, they would no doubt have been looked at and either accepted or not as the draftsmen thought right.
I shall deal with the noble Lord's specific points. The first question, related to paragraph 9, was on the power to detain so that a search can take place. The noble Lord is right in saying that under Section 289(3) of the Act, the power to detain applies only where there is a search of a person, not where there is a search of an article. The code says that the person may be detained,
"so far as he thinks necessary or expedient"
to carry out the search. If the item to be searched is a bag, it is not necessary to detain the person. Strictly speaking, the code is right, because of that important qualification on the power. I assure your Lordships that that point will be made explicit in a Home Office circular that will be circulated to police and Customs before the recovery of cash scheme begins so that there is no misunderstanding about the power to detain.
The second point, related to paragraph 22, was on reports to be made by Customs officers in Scotland. It states that they must be submitted to a "person appointed", who will be appointed by Scottish Ministers. The noble Lord is not right on this point. It is a devolution issue. The draft code covers Customs officers throughout the United Kingdom. In respect of police officers, a separate code is issued by Scottish Ministers. The difference between the two is that Customs matters are reserved under the Scotland Act 1998 whereas policing matters are not. That accounts for the difference in treatment between them.
The noble Lord also questioned whether the appointed person had yet been appointed. He has. A panel under Home Office chairmanship, which included a circuit judge and an independent assessor, met on two days in November to consider candidates from a wide field. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary has invited Mr Andrew Clarke to take up the post on 30th December.
The noble Lord referred to paragraph 36 of the draft code. The intention is to prevent a situation in which anyone would misuse the powers of entry given in

185
other legislation to find cash. In the majority of cases, police or Customs officers will come across cash when they are lawfully on the premises for a different purpose. It therefore seemed right to emphasise in the code that those other powers were not to be used for the purposes of searching for cash. The Act does not provide any power of entry to premises to search for cash itself. The powers can be exercised only when someone is on the premises.
I hope that those answers will satisfy the noble Lord. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord and the noble Viscount.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these draft regulations are entirely benign. I hope, therefore, not only that they will be welcomed, but welcomed uneventfully. They have two purposes. First, they will remove a barrier to volunteering among the unemployed. As your Lordships will be aware, those claiming jobseeker's allowance must generally be available to take up an offer of paid work immediately. Jobseekers who undertake voluntary activities are, however, allowed 48 hours' notice before they must start a job. That short period of notice leaves it difficult for voluntary organisations to manage the activities of unemployed volunteers. The amending regulations should make it easier. Claimant volunteers will in future have a week's grace before they must start employment. That will give voluntary organisations a week to arrange for others to do the work that the unemployed volunteers have been doing. They will thus have as much notice as many employers, whose employees must give a week's notice before quitting.
The relaxation in the rules should also make it easier for jobseekers to make a greater commitment to volunteering. At present, around one in 10 jobseekers participates in voluntary activities. We hope that this amendment may, in a modest way, enable that proportion to rise. By undertaking voluntary activity, unemployed people can both make a difference to their own community and improve their own lives. It does not always lead to a paid job; but it can help people to acquire more experience, skills and confidence, which may in turn help them to succeed in the labour market.
We do, however, need to retain the work focus of jobseeker's allowance if it is to be effective in getting jobless people into employment. So we propose that claimant volunteers should still be available at 48 hours' notice for an interview in connection with a job. That should prevent them from missing employment
186
opportunities because of their volunteering. As a further safeguard, we shall evaluate the effects of this rule change during the first year. However, we are not deliberately building an expiry date or mechanism into the amending regulations. So, if we consider it necessary, we can revisit the subject.
The second purpose of these amending regulations is to take account of the introduction of statutory paternity and adoption leave. As your Lordships will know, this year's Employment Act introduced important new rights to help parents to balance their work and family lives. Those include, for the first time, rights to paid time off work for fathers and adoptive parents. Draft Regulation 5 deals with the need to provide that, while they are on paternity leave or the paid period of adoption leave, parents are not to be treated as available for employment. That is essentially a back-up measure, as we do not expect that, in practice, parents who are on leave from their jobs to look after their children will try to claim JSA. But, if they do, it is clearly reasonable to treat them as not being available for employment. It is also important to prevent double provision between JSA and statutory paternity pay or statutory adoption pay. Currently, women are ineligible for JSA while receiving statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance because they are not regarded as available for employment. We are simply extending this approach to cover the new situations created by the Employment Act.
In conclusion, these draft regulations have two aims. First, they indicate—albeit modestly—the Government's commitment to supporting an expansion of voluntary activity among unemployed people. Secondly, they deal with the need to provide that people on adoption or paternity leave are not to be treated as available for employment, should they try to claim jobseeker's allowance. I am satisfied that these draft regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].— (Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I agree that the draft regulations are benign and can be welcomed. The noble Baroness hopes that they will be welcomed "uneventfully", but I am not sure what she means by that. I have only two "events" to raise. First, the regulations do not appear to define voluntary work. I understand from what she has said that it means voluntary work for an organisation. That still leaves unanswered the question of what is an organisation in this context. She may be able to enlighten us.
Secondly, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, the regulations also cover statutory paternity leave or ordinary adoption leave. I am clear on what statutory paternity leave is, but I am unclear on what ordinary adoption leave is, as against extraordinary adoption leave, if there is such a thing. Perhaps she might clarify these points. Otherwise, I agree entirely that these are sensible regulations, which should be approved.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister was in the House just now, listening to my noble friend Lord Goodhart. When I say that he gave a brilliant demonstration of why it is a pity that regulations are not amendable, I do not mean to criticise the drafting of these regulations, which has been done with great care. I make purely a general point. I join the general and—as far as I can see—universal welcome of the main principle of these regulations. The encouragement of volunteering, which has been pressed for consistently since the introduction of JSA under the previous government, is warmly to be welcomed, both on the ground of the need to encourage civic spirit and on the need to give people training that may help them to get into future employment—and for the public good that much of it does. In that way, this is entirely welcome.
I very much welcome the inclusion of paternity leave. I have believed for a long time that the supposed female monopoly on childcare needs to go the same way as the past male monopoly on work. These two changes have come together. That is welcome, as is the recognition of adoption leave, which is coming in, worded as it is, in the light of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which has just completed its passage through this House.
I have just one reservation, which concerns not what is in the regulations, but a missed opportunity in the amendment of Regulation 5 of the original Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations, which provides that people with carring responsibilities should be available for work within 48 hours. The extension of that 48 hours to volunteering is to be warmly welcomed, but in general it could have been extended for people with caring responsibilities. Very often, it is impossible to know exactly what caring responsibility you need to find help with until you know the hours of your employment, the physical geographical direction of your employment and what transport is available. If, for example, there is a bus that runs once an hour, it does not help if your nursery or place of childcare is on the same bus route. You have to stop to drop your child off and then you have to wait an hour for the next bus and you arrive late at work. You probably will not last long that way.
The same applies if the hours or directions are incompatible. When you actively seek work, you do not know whether you will need to travel north, south, east or west to find it until you get it.
In the light of that, a lot of parents will need to arrange their childcare all over again once they know what work they are being offered. For that, 48 hours is a very short time.
I am sure there will be future regulations dealing with jobseeker's allowance. If and when there are, I hope that point will be considered. That is the only note of reservation I wish to sound on these regulations, which I warmly welcome.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their warm welcome. I am sure that had the noble Lord,
188
Lord Goodhart, been here he would have scolded me for the use of the word "uneventful" I meant it as an alternative to saying that the regulations were not controversial and did not give rise to an issue of concern. Fortunately, I may be able to help the noble Lords with their eventful issues.
The definition of voluntary work is work for a not-for-profit organisation or work for anyone other than a member of a claimant's family, provided the claimant receives no payment, or only the payment of reasonable expenses. The proposals do not affect the existing small disregards for retained firemen and so on. Whether somebody is a volunteer is a question of fact for the Jobcentre Plus decision-maker. Clearly, someone is not a volunteer just because they do not accept a wage for a job for which somebody alongside them is accepting a wage. Then they are forgoing a wage that they would otherwise be entitled to have.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about paternity and adoption leave. This is primarily a DTI matter, which is why he would not normally be familiar with it, but it has kickbacks into eligibility for jobseeker's allowance. Fathers will normally have a new right to two weeks' paid paternity leave, which can usually be taken within two months of a child's birth. Statutory paternity pay will be at the same standard rate as statutory maternity pay—£100 per week or 90 per cent of average earnings if that is less than £100 in April 2003. Of the 400,000 new fathers every year, we expect perhaps 70 per cent to take it up. It is a welcome two-week break for them to be able to give their partners the support that they probably need at that time.
Adoptive parents—I am thinking now of the primary carer, not necessarily the father—will have a new right to 26 weeks' adoption pay and up to one year's adoption leave in total. Again, that is to be paid at the same rate as statutory maternity pay. We expect this to affect perhaps 4,000 adoptive parents. It is interesting that about 82 per cent of adoptive parents—both parents—are in full-time or part-time work. There is a need for that support, particularly, from my experience, if the parents are trying to settle into the home not necessarily a baby, but an older child who may have had a troubled background. We know that about 20 per cent of such placements can easily break down, with the child being recycled back into the care system as a result. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I understand all that, but it was not my question. What is "ordinary" adoption leave as against, perhaps, extraordinary adoption leave or not ordinary adoption leave, or whatever? The term is used precisely.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Employment Rights Act provides for 26 weeks'

189
ordinary leave and 26 weeks' additional leave. The right to pay applies only during the 26 weeks' ordinary leave period. The rest is unpaid.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the second category not covered by this?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, that is an optional addition. In other words, it is unpaid. The point is that employment law protects your right to return to your job during that period, even if you are not paid. That is what we are talking about. The noble Lord looks baffled. Is that all right? Good.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the situation of carers. He presented the situation of somebody who had a job and was seeking to fit their caring around it. The regulations do it the other way around, allowing people to fit their job around their caring responsibilities. In other words, a carer needs to be available only at those times when they do not have any caring responsibilities, provided it is not for less than 16 hours a week. Carers claiming JSA will therefore record their specific limited hours of availability for employment in their jobseeker's agreement. These will normally be the hours when the carer has no caring responsibilities, so 48 hours' notice to take up employment should be sufficient, because it is to take up employment in the hours in which they are not caring.
We are not expecting carers to give up their caring in order to take up employment, unlike volunteers, whom we expect to give up volunteering to take up employment. That is why the apparent discrepancy continues. It is worth saying that any primary carer such as a lone parent would normally be on income support and therefore not claiming JSA and not falling within this regime. However, some lone parents who may be widowers may be seeking JSA. They will be entitled to limit their eligibility for work to fit around their caring responsibilities, provided they are significant—more than 16 hours.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, but the point remains that one cannot be certain of one's hours of availability for work until one knows the amount of travelling time that has to be fitted in as well as the hours of caring.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take that point. The point here is that if somebody has caring responsibilities and is also on JSA, we have no evidence not to expect that Jobcentre Plus staff and those associated with them have not been using their discretion appropriately. If the noble Earl has any cases to suggest that someone has fallen foul of these rules, I shall be very happy to look at them, but I have not come across any. Given that most lone parents in that situation would be on income support rather than JSA, it would be unusual. We are more likely to be talking about someone who is caring for somebody other than a child in these circumstances. Therefore, some of the issues that the noble Earl posited about
190
taking a child to school or to nursery might not arise. If he ever comes across any such troubles, I ask him to let me know and I shall make sure that they are responded to in a civilised way.
With those responses, I hope the House will accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Tax Credits Appeals) Regulations 2002
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall also speak to the Tax Credits (Appeals) (No. 2) Regulations 2002.
It may help to put these regulations into context if I remind the House of their background. The child tax credit and working tax credit will be introduced in April next year. Your Lordships may recall that provision was made during passage of the Tax Credits Act 2002 for appeals against most decisions made by the Inland Revenue on tax credits to be heard on a temporary basis by appeal tribunals within the Appeals Service. That provision was warmly welcomed in the House, particularly from the Liberal Democrat Benches. There will be an onward right of appeal to the social security commissioners. These arrangements will remain in place until the tax appeal system has been reformed. Appeals made by employers will not be subject to the same temporary arrangements as they will be heard by the tax commissioners. We discussed that issue at length during our consideration of the legislation.
The first of the draft statutory instruments before the House today makes regulations for procedures at the appeal tribunal—for Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. The second of the draft statutory instruments made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor provides for procedures at the social security commissioners. The two sets of regulations are made under powers in the Social Security Act 1998, as applied and modified by the Tax Credits (Appeals) Regulations 2002, made on 26th November. The Tax Credits (Appeals) Regulations 2002 are made under the powers in Section 63(8) of the Tax Credits Act 2002 and their purpose is to provide the same appeal route as that which applies for social security benefits. Briefly, Section 63 of the Act provides the legal framework for conferring on appeal tribunals the functions which will ultimately go to the general commissioners or special commissioners.
The appeal tribunals and the social security commissioners are already familiar with existing tax credits. However, your Lordships may wish to note that the Tax Credits Act 2002 provides for enquiry powers which are more like those generally used by the

191
Inland Revenue. Consequently, two new types of case will be heard by appeal tribunals and commissioners. First, under Section 19 of that Act, the Inland Revenue may enquire into the entitlement of a person to a tax credit for a tax year and into the amount of tax credit due. The person who is under enquiry can apply in writing to the Board of Inland Revenue for the tribunal to direct the Inland Revenue to finalise the enquiry and to issue their decision of the proper award. Applications will be subject to similar processes and procedures as for tax credit appeals. The appeal tribunal will be obliged to give the direction applied for unless it is satisfied that the board has reasonable grounds for continuing with the enquiry.
The second new power concerns penalty proceedings. There are two types of penalty proceedings which carry rights of appeal and which will be heard and determined by appeal tribunals. In the first type of case, the Inland Revenue may impose a penalty on a person for providing an incorrect statement or information. Penalties imposed by the board carry appeal rights under Section 38 of the 2002 Act. In hearing an appeal against a penalty imposed by the board, an appeal tribunal may set aside, confirm, reduce or increase the penalty up to the maximum of £3,000 allowed under the 2002 Act. There is a further right of appeal from the tribunal's decision to the social security commissioners.
In the second type of penalty proceedings, it will be for an appeal tribunal to decide whether or not a penalty should be imposed on a person who does not comply with a notice from the Inland Revenue to provide information. While the Inland Revenue may apply to an appeal tribunal to determine a penalty, the tribunal cannot impose a penalty if the failure has been remedied beforehand. Penalty proceedings are started by the Inland Revenue laying information in writing before the appeal tribunal about the failure. The tribunal summonses the defendant to appear at a hearing and answer the information and, if the failure is still continuing, the tribunal may declare the failure and impose a penalty of up to £300. There is then a right of appeal against the tribunal decision to the social security commissioners.
I turn first to the Tax Credits (Appeals) (No. 2) Regulations, which make provision for administering and deciding tax credits appeals, applications for a direction to close down and enquiry and penalty proceedings. Your Lordships will be pleased to note that I do not intend to discuss each individual regulation. I should, however, like to draw your attention to the broad areas they cover and regulations of particular interest.
Draft Regulation 2 covers the service of notices or documents. Regulations 3 to 5 deal with persons with a right of appeal and time limits. Regulations 6 and 7 set out how an application for an extension of time in which to appeal and an application for a direction to close down a tax credit enquiry are to be made. Regulation 8 prescribes those persons who may proceed with an appeal or with an application for a direction where a party to the proceedings has died. Regulation 9 sets out the composition of an appeal
192
tribunal hearing different types of tax credits cases, a matter on which I can enlarge. Regulations 10 to 27 deal with procedures and broadly mirror the provisions of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999.
I turn now to the second set of regulations, the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Tax Credits Appeals) Regulations 2002. Again, I shall be brief. These regulations, like the preceding ones, largely mirror the existing Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999, which detail the procedure. Changes are made where necessary to reflect the new tax credits system under the Tax Credits Act 2002.
Noble Lords may wish to know two things about these regulations. First, certain provisions in the 1999 regulations which are not applicable to tax credits have been omitted from these regulations, such as those provisions under the Forfeiture Act.
Secondly, noble Lords may wish to know that both types of penalty proceedings which I have already described as coming before the appeal tribunal are appealable to the social security commissioners. They attract an automatic right of appeal to the commissioners on matters of both fact and law, where the penalty is initially determined by the board. Where the penalty is initially determined by the appeal tribunal, they attract an automatic right of appeal by all parties on a question of law and, by the defendant, on the amount of the penalty. This is in contrast to all other matters appealable to the social security commissioners, which are purely on points of law and appealable only with leave. The special situation applies because it is a sanction.
I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].— (Baroness Hollis of Heighant.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Although it is helpful to take the two sets of regulations together, I am not entirely clear about the relationship between the two. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Tax Credits Appeals) Regulations 2002 states:
"The Regulations have been drafted as a freestanding set. It is felt that this will make the regulations more user-friendly and avoid the need for cross-reference with the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999".
I understand that. However, would it not also have been sensible to bring the two sets of regulations together? I assume that that has not been done because the vires of the two are not the same. Nevertheless, the two have been presented together. Given that the arrangements are transitional and may eventually be overtaken by events, I think it particularly important that people should be able to read and consider them together.

193
When we were discussing the Tax Credits Bill, I had reason to complain—I might almost say bitterly—about the failure of another place to scrutinise affairs as well as they should have done because of the way in which the procedures there had been programmed or "modernised". However, I cannot say that about the procedures in another place yesterday. My honourable friend Mr Mark Prisk, the Member for Hertford and Stortford, raised a number of issues relevant to these orders to which the Minister largely replied. I do not propose to go over that same ground again as the noble Baroness, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and myself went over it in the course of discussing the primary legislation and I do not think that we need to go over every single aspect of it.
However, there is a basic difference between these Benches and the Benches opposite as regards the right approach for the appeals we are discussing. We continue to maintain that tax credits to a large extent constitute public expenditure and that only a small element—perhaps only 10 per cent of the total—can reasonably be regarded as having something to do with tax in the sense that a deduction is made from the tax that has been payable as opposed to benefit simply being paid out. The argument about the tax treatment in public expenditure terms of tax credits has a parallel in the debate about which tribunal should consider appeals against decisions—and whether it should be the usual social security tribunal or the Inland Revenue in the form of the tax commissioners.
I note that the President of the Office of the Appeals Service and Chief Social Security and Child Support Commissioner, Judge Michael Harris, states:
"The removal of Tax Credits from the Appeals Service is simply a barmy idea. Tribunals have Tax Credit experience and there is no reason why they cannot continue to cope with them. The Appeals Service will probably be asked to deal with Tax Credits for a short period of time initially, however if it is then transferred to the Inland Revenue this is a waste of public money. It is a political issue. Whatever their title Tax Credits are benefits not tax"
That coincides very much with the views that we on this side of the House have expressed.
At all events it appears that appeals will continue to be overseen by the social security appeals process until such time as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sorts out the reform—I suppose that that is what it should be called—of the appeals procedure more generally. Can the Minister give us any indication of when that change is likely to take place? I say that without prejudice to the fact that we still think that it is more appropriate for such matters to be subjected to what one might consider the less inquisitorial approach adopted by the social security tribunal as opposed to that typically adopted by the Inland Revenue when people appeal against its decisions.
In the course of debating the Tax Credits Bill on 23rd May 2002—that appears at col. 157 of Hansard—I was not clear whether we were referring to general or specialist tax commissioners. The noble Baroness kindly said that she would write to me on that matter.
194
I do not doubt that she did but, alas, given the cupboard that serves as my office here, I cannot remember what the answer was. If she can think of it off the top of her head, or if her officials in the Box can scribble it out frantically, as they appear to be doing, I may receive clarification on that point.
Incidentally, as regards appeals and whether people are entitled to tax credits, I heard in passing this morning a statement—I believe that it was on the "Today" programme or on one of the other news programmes—revealing the amount that is now not claimed by people entitled to social security benefits. That is certainly a large amount for, as the NAO pointed out in a recent report, about 20 per cent of pensioners do not claim all the benefits to which they are entitled. However, it was also asserted that the total sum claimed by people who receive benefits to which they are not entitled constitutes an even higher figure. That would be a large amount indeed.
I have one final point to make. The tax credits explanatory notes run to some 44 pages plus a form at the back. I have complained previously that the form has been shortened at the expense of lengthening the explanatory notes. It would therefore be slightly inappropriate for me to suggest that the explanatory notes should be lengthened even more. I refer to the TC600 notes on tax credits.
However, so far as I can see, despite all the information that is given in the notes, which run, as I say, to some 44 pages, there does not seem to be anything that might be helpful to claimants both with regard to what the appeals procedure is—however, that information would be rather complicated given that the procedure is in a transitional phase of unknown length—or what the penalties are for wrongly claiming in either of the two respects to which the Minister referred in her opening remarks. I should have thought that for the sake of half a page or a page extra on top of the other 44 or 45, there might be a case for covering those two points when the explanatory notes are reprinted.
There continues to be a difference between the two sides of the House. We still believe that it would be better to leave arrangements with the social security side rather than the Inland Revenue. Despite those important issues, as long as the situation does not change we remain content. However, I hope that the Minister will give us some idea when the transitional period is likely to end.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will forgive me for saying that although we share this side of the House, we do not always share all the opinions expressed on it. Hearing the noble Lord on the question of whether tax credits constitute public expenditure takes me back to many memories of committees upstairs. It also reminds me of an incident in 1649 and the Bill that made England a republic and restored the country to its ancient state of a commonwealth. One Member asked how England could be restored to its ancient state of a republic when

195
it had never been one. Henry Marten, who was probably the nearest thing the Long Parliament knew to an atheist, replied that he was deeply troubled in his conscience by the interpretation of a text of scripture which said that a man who had been blind from birth had had his sight restored.
The question of whether a reduction in taxation amounts to public expenditure is in the same sort of theological realm as Henry Marten's question. It makes a good story, but it does not lead to any particularly easy resolutions. However, I shall not pursue that point further.
The regulations, as the Minister made clear, are transitional. We on these Benches are generally satisfied with the transitional regulations, although we retain some of the anxieties expressed on 24th January by my honourable friend Professor Webb in the other place in respect of the final form when the transfer to the Inland Revenue is complete. There is a question of change in this regard about which thoughts must be had and to which I am sure that we will return in due course.
I have a few specific points arising from the regulations. In Regulation 19 of the Tax Credits (Appeals) (No. 2) Regulations 2002, the Minister has found a most elegant way in which to deal with the conflict between the desire to reduce the size of the tribunal and the need for expert advice. I only wish that, between us, we had thought of that in 1998 when we spent ages arguing around a question to which that seems to be the answer.
On the other hand, there is a potential conflict between Regulation 19(3) and Regulation 14(1), and I should be glad to know how it could be resolved. Regulation 14(1) deals with cases in which medical advice may need to be withheld from the person who is the subject of it for fear that it may cause distress. It says,
"Where … there is medical advice or medical evidence relating to a person which has not been disclosed to him and in the opinion of a legally qualified panel member, the disclosure to that person of that advice or evidence would be harmful to his health, such advice or evidence shall not be required to be disclosed to that person".
This is presumably a mental health provision, which I understand perfectly well, but I would be glad to know how it is reconciled with Regulation 19(3), which says,
"A copy of any written report received from an expert in accordance with paragraph (2) shall be supplied to every party to the proceedings".
There is at least the appearance of a conflict, and if there is a resolution I should be glad to hear it.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am also concerned about Regulation(2)(b), which relates to postal times. The Minister knows that that is a longstanding concern of mine in which I should declare an interest that I have not previously had to declare. Last week, I received a penalty notice of £60 for parking my car without displaying my residents' parking permit. The records show that the permit had been issued three days before the date of the alleged offence. I received it four clays afterwards and I could not have displayed
196
what I did not then possess because it was still in the post. I considered appealing but was given a 50 per cent discount on the fine if I paid within 14 days. However, I could not appeal until those 14 days had elapsed so I had to pay the full penalty. The Government's assumptions about the regularity of the post are grossly out of date and need rethinking.
There is in Regulation 2 of the Tax Credits (Appeals) (No. 2) Regulations a lack of a level playing field. It states that any notice that is,
"required to be given or sent to the clerk … or to the Board … shall be treated as having been so given or sent on the day that it is received".
However, a document that is sent to anyone else should be taken as being received on the day on which it is sent. That appears to involve the lack of a level playing field. That point should be added to the unreliability of the post. We cannot continue combining the commercial enterprise with the universal service obligation. If we put one thing on top of another we shall have a situation that will produce much resentment and about which I fear we may hear rather more.
Subject to those few points, and with the further addition that I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the few but interesting criticisms made by the Child Poverty Action Group, with which I shall not detain the House now, I welcome the regulations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am again glad that noble Lords have welcomed the regulations. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving me advance notice of the discrepancy between Regulations 14 and 19. I hope that I shall be able to give him a satisfactory answer.
I turn first to the queries raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He asked about the two sets of regulations; his surmise that different vires were involved was correct. He will not be surprised if I duck commenting on the comments of Judge Harris, for whom I have the highest regard although I do not agree with his views on every issue.
The noble Lord pressed me on the timetable. We expect the arrangements to last for some time—perhaps a year or more—but appeals in the longer term will go to a reformed tax appeals system. We hope to announce our propositions for the way forward in the next few months. I cannot be more precise than that; that is the timetable to which we are working.
The noble Lord asked about tax commissioners general and special. Neither of us has a bad memory but the precise detail of that also escaped me. I am assured in a note from the Box that we wrote to say—this is clearly in the folk memory—that appeals can go to either special or general commissioners, and an appellant has a right to elect to have his appeal heard by either general or special commissioners under Section 39(3) of the Tax Credits Act, which established this system. It is a matter of election.
The noble Lord asked about the memorandum and said that it was not particularly helpful. That may be right, but it should be added that that is not the first

197
and last word on the subject. Full information on appeals and other processes and penalties will be made available to claimants. The substance of the point is that that must be in plain English and helpful and constructive; that must be achieved. We will discuss the necessary process with the appeals service and work with interested groups, such as CPAG, to ensure that claimants and tribunals get the facts that they need for hearings. The key facts involve issues such as the greater success rate that a company's oral hearings have over paper hearings. I shall ensure so far as I am able that the literature that goes to prospective appellants is of the sort that noble Lords and I would wish. I believe that that covers the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the inconsistency between Regulations 14 and 19. Regulation 14, as he surmised, is about mental health issues. It involves the sort of evidence that would come from a person's GP or medical consultant. It might involve, for example, the information that someone has a terminal illness about which they may not know. It involves that and similar distressing circumstances. That would be assessed by someone on the appeal tribunal.
But Regulation 19 prescribes the manner in which expert assistance is to be provided to an appeal tribunal. Such expert assistance can be given only by a panel member. Therefore, on the one hand, outside information, which may be highly sensitive, is coming in, and, on the other, information is given by the panel member which must be shared with the appellant. To the best of my understanding, that appears to reconcile the concerns expressed by the noble Earl.
The final point raised by the noble Earl—a point raised also by the CPAG—concerned the apparent discrepancy between literature coming in and literature going out. I am sure that, from his own experience, the noble Earl will agree that a problem arises in relation to the department and the appeal service keeping track of dates. What we are doing—and our reason for doing it—is to ensure that the department and the appeal service know when a document is sent or received. They cannot ascertain when a claimant receives a document that they have sent; nor are they able accurately to ascertain when a document has been sent by a claimant. Those in the department can be clear when a document has arrived at the department and when it is sent out. As the noble Earl said, anything else is dependent on the vagaries of the post or on whether someone is away on holiday or away for a weekend and so on. Therefore, in this case, we must work with information which is solid and robust and which can stand up to further inspection.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thought that that would be the Minister's answer. Will she square the circle between us by making the presumption rebuttable?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall have to take advice on that and write to the noble Earl. However, we have discussed the matter with the Child
198
Poverty Action Group. I am certainly willing to consider what the noble Earl said and I shall write to him to see whether there is any way that we can meet his queries. But, having for many years chaired a local authority housing committee where, before we had a formalised appeal system, a number of appeals related to housing benefit, ultimately I had to say that we had to go by the date of arrival and by the date when forms were sent out by the department simply because of the unexpected vagaries of people's existences. In order to be fair to claimants, we could not handle the system in any other way.
The important point is to ensure that the appeal times, and so on, are of a decent period and that late appeals can be accepted with good cause. As the noble Earl will understand, both those issues are embedded in the system. Therefore, I hope that the matter of posting dates, and so on, will not come between us. However, I shall write to the noble Earl on the issue of rebuttal.
I have done my best to answer the questions raised and I hope that, as a result, noble Lords will feel able to accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits (Appeals) (No. 2) Regulations 2002
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].— (Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gibraltar
8.28 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton Lord Thomas of Swynnerton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to resolve the problem of Gibraltar.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spent much of my life studying the history of Spain and, in consequence, have become very fond of its people, its country and its customs. Therefore, I feel a certain obligation to inspire a discussion as to what might be done to resolve a question which, as a Spanish Minister put it to me last year, is like a grain of irritating sand in the shoe of British/Spanish relations. Today, I would add that any mention of Spain should include a recognition of our horror at the ecological catastrophe which is currently engulfing Galicia, one of the most delightful parts of Spain—indeed, of Europe.
In a debate of this brevity, I have, perhaps fortunately, no time to recall much history or to dwell, for example, on how Gibraltar was conquered by us in 1704 in the war of the Spanish succession and retained

199
by us at the Treaty of Utrecht; nor how, in the course of the Second World War, we built an airport on what, until then, many people thought had been considered neutral ground. Nor do I have time to recall how the Rock played a determining part in our old strategy guarding the route to India; nor, indeed, how, when that role disappeared in the 1960s, Spain brought pressure on us, hoping that we would surrender this last of European colonies as we had surrendered so many others, and how that very pressure led to the Gibraltar constitution of 1969 and to the growth of a new Gibraltarian self-assertiveness. Instead of history, let us talk of positive possibilities and positive ways ahead.
I think that all noble Lords, however they may judge the policy proposed, would allow that the Government, earlier this year—positively, as I saw it—came to look on Gibraltar as a problem to be resolved, not a redoubt to be defended.
I suggest that the first question we should ask is whether we could, perhaps, maintain the status quo. I do not believe that that is a long-term possibility if only because Gibraltar wants to participate fully in the European Union. To secure that, it would need Spanish goodwill. It would have to accept the modifications of the generous fiscal arrangements which years ago Britain made possible for its large number of companies which the Commission in Brussels, very properly, is now demanding. Gibraltar also wants to use Spanish airspace and Spanish territorial waters to deposit waste in Spain. Many Gibraltarians want to drive easily to their week-end homes in Sotogrande and elsewhere in southern Spain.
I repeat that Spanish goodwill which, to be realistic, will not be forthcoming without change, is necessary for Gibraltarians in the present circumstances. The old days, before the civil war perhaps, of friendships between the civil governors, or the Captain-General of Andalusia and the Governor or Gibraltar, joint master as he was at that time of the Calpe Hunt, would be very difficult to revive in modern Europe.
Gibraltar now also constitutes this irritant in the friendship between two great nations, which have many things in common in the European Union in particular, but also in the wider world: the close relations we have with our ex-colonies, now independent; our two unsinkable world languages; and a personal friendship which has been fostered very creatively by the Prime Minister and his Spanish opposite number.
What are the alternatives to the status quo? Independence? That does not seem to me a possibility. The Treaty of Utrecht, however tattered it sometimes seems to us, gave Spain a residual legal right of repossession if Britain were to abandon her interests, and Spain will not forget that.
Noble Lords should remember that Spain has a defence interest in Gibraltar because of its position and because of its proximity to Africa whence, as it is, thousands of would-be Moroccan immigrants to Spain arrive daily on rafts in the summer at beaches close to the Rock. Comparable entities, Liechtenstein
200
or Monaco, for example, have a close relation with their larger neighbours. Surely that sort of relationship would not be very likely in the incidence of an independent Gibraltar achieved against the wishes of Spain.
There is then the idea of cession to Spain, either directly or through a lease of, say, 100 years. It may seem scandalous even to mention such an idea in this House, but I remind noble Lords that tens of thousands of British citizens live in Spain within an hour or so of the Rock of Gibraltar by road, and that at least 12 million citizens go to Spain for their holidays every year. None seems the worse for it. I have contemplated living in Spain myself.
In the 1960s I recall that a creative-minded subcommittee of the Labour party international department looked forward once to surrendering Gibraltar to a democratic Spain. Spain has now become a constitutional democratic state. Its king is admired wherever he goes. Spain is a member of the European Union and part of NATO. Actually, Spain would be obliged to defend Dover if it was attacked and Britain would be obliged to defend San Roque or Algeciras if they were to be attacked.
Affection, and, so far as I can see, admiration for Britain is widespread in Spain. In the event of such a cession, citizens of Gibraltar could certainly preserve their British nationality in all such circumstances. But I accept that an arrangement of that nature would not now be acceptable to Gibraltarians who have in their border crossings often seen the less agreeable face of Spanish officialdom.
Next I consider, but think I should discard as unrealistic, the suggestion of one sometime British ambassador to Madrid, Sir John Russell, who proposed a sale of Gibraltar to Spain in the 1960s, such as the sale of Florida, Louisiana and Alaska to the United States. I do not think that any noble Lord would entertain such a concept today.
I therefore return to the idea of dual sovereignty, which was advocated strongly by the Foreign Secretary last spring but which was rejected by the Gibraltarians in their referendum of last month. I think it a pity that they voted thus. A two-flag solution would surely recognise the reality that the Rock is geographically a part of Spain, even though it has been for so long politically and culturally attached to Britain. I urge the Gibraltarians in good time to think again. The benefits would be very great. Gibraltarians could negotiate, I think, almost any kind of autonomy with a dual sovereignty which they desired. They could preserve most of their economic privileges.
Britain could retain a residual strategic interest by, for example, maintaining a listening point, which, from statements made by the Secretary of State for Defence during the course of the summer, I gather is still important.
We might also be able to secure European support for a new university to be founded, say, at San Roque or Algeciras to serve Gibraltarians as well as the people of southern Andalusia. European institutions might establish themselves creatively on the Rock

201
With two famous and marvellous seas on either side, Gibraltar could become, at the least, a fine conference centre. The beautiful European flag, as I see it, with its golden stars, could share the honours with the British and the Spanish ones. Perhaps a NATO dimension could be added. Vast opportunities could open up were this to be accepted. And the grain of sand in the shoe of British/Spanish relations could thus be transformed, oyster-like, into a pearl.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, as I always do, and acknowledge his profound knowledge of Spain and all things Spanish, which I cannot remotely match. He put his argument seductively on the topic, as he always does. Perhaps I may briefly enlarge on his brief canter through the history of Gibraltar. I point out that Gibraltar has been under the Spanish crown for only 252 out of the past 1,300 years—less than 20 per cent of the time—which may or may not be relevant to the argument.
What galvanised me to speak was the noble Lord's use of the word "problem" to describe Gibraltar. If it is a problem —that is a big if—that is certainly not of Gibraltar's making, nor of this country's. In our lifetime, there have been many genuine territorial problems in various parts of the world, many of them arising from clashes of race, religion or culture within a particular geographical region.
As the debate started an hour and 28 minutes later than was forecast by the Whips' Office, I shall not go into the history of problems in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, nor the holocaust in the Indian subcontinent following an over-hasty partition. However, in our time—during the past 40 years or so —there have been genuine problems in Quebec, Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Lebanon and Sri Lanka. Most urgent and topical is Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Geographically rather nearer Gibraltar, it cannot be denied that, despite manifold concessions, for which it must be praised, Spain still has a serious Basque problem and many lives have been lost in consequence.
However, problems are not always inevitable. Alsace and Lorraine were not problems in 1940, nor were the Baltic states or the eastern part of the Alpes Maritimes, merely because Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini respectively wanted to get their hands on those areas. The Falklands were not a problem in 1982 when Galtieri wanted to grab them; nor was Kuwait 10 years later because Saddam Hussein wanted to annex it. In the extremely unlikely, indeed, virtually inconceivable event of Malaysia laying claim to Singapore—like Gibraltar, a tiny political entity lying at the southern tip of a large landmass, it would be an outrage but not a problem.
Lest I be accused of being anti-Spanish, which I am not, let me declare that neither Ceuta nor Melilla, both of which I have visited, can be seriously classified as genuine problems. Although in recent years, they have
202
both acquired substantial Muslim minorities of up to 15 per cent, every indication is that nearly all the inhabitants—whether they be Spanish Christians, Sephardic Jews or Moroccan Muslims—are happy with the status quo, although the majority that favours it may not be quite as high as that in Gibraltar.
Like Gibraltar, neither territory possesses oil or other scarce mineral resources that their larger neighbours could lack, nor do any of them possess the only deep-water harbour in the western Mediterranean at the possible expense of their neighbours. In other words, in each case there are neither valid demographic nor valid material grounds for coveting one's neighbours' property.
It would be unfair simply to turn the tables and declare that there is no Gibraltar problem, only a Spanish problem. As a noble Lord pointed out during one of our debates on Gibraltar during the past year—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but I cannot swear to it—it is not really a Spanish problem but a Castilian problem. Most of the Andalucians, Catalans, Galicians and others are totally relaxed about Gibraltar.
It is a fallacy to imagine, as is sometimes claimed, that all those who pour across the Gibraltar frontier at weekends are British expatriates living on the Costa del Sol, desperate to stock up on jars of Marmite or bottles of HP sauce. In my experience, most of the shoppers are Spanish. Moreover, I have driven all over the provinces of Huelva and Málaga in an unmistakably British car with Gibraltar number-plates. Not once did anyone shake their fist or scowl. On the contrary, we met with nothing but sheer kindness and hospitality all round.
I spoke of a Castilian problem, but I suspect that it applies to no more than a small minority of Castilians. Certainly, most people whom one encounters in Madrid nowadays seem pleasantly devoid of nationalistic or militaristic sentiment. I guess that there is a small Castilian clique, not unlike the French énarques—although not necessarily in their politics—in that its members are small in number but powerful in influence. It hankers after the old days: hence the bullying.
Bullying there has certainly been, not only of the Gibraltarians but of the Portuguese. It is not generally known that TAP—otherwise known as Air Portugal—tried to set up a thrice-weekly service between Lisbon and Gibraltar and had acquired aircraft specifically for that route. That would have been of enormous material and psychological benefit to the Gibraltarians. When Madrid heard of it, it was enraged and made every sort of threat to the Portuguese, who ultimately caved in. The service was cancelled, not least because the Portuguese are constantly worried about threats to their water supply. Most of Portugal's great rivers such as the Minho, the Douro and what we call the Tagus have their source in the mountains of western Spain.

203
All that bullying is not exactly communautaire. Indeed, it is wholly contrary to the spirit and probably the letter of what the European Union is supposed to be about. I hope that those responsible will think again, mainly because it is the right thing to do but also because, from a self-interested point of view, it makes sense. Only a lengthy and sustained period of civilised behaviour by successive Spanish governments towards Gibraltar will have any chance of persuading the Gibraltar electorate to change its mind.
I have one final point. Over the past six months or so, the Gibraltar Government's office in London has received an astonishing 750,000 messages of support from the British public, by letter, fax, phone and e-mail. That is heartening in itself and because it demonstrates that no British Government will now dare to sell Gibraltar down the river, if they wish to remain in office.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, on securing the debate.
More than a year ago, press reports began to suggest that the Government were prepared to consider sharing sovereignty over Gibraltar with Spain. Five months ago, in July, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that that principle had been agreed with Spain. I regret to say that, since then, the situation has gone from bad to worse. I would go so far as to say that, in their efforts to find a settlement for Gibraltar, the Government have, instead, scored a spectacular own goal. A settlement is further away than ever, and both Spain and Gibraltar are alienated.
We are all agreed on one thing: the ongoing dispute with Spain over the status of Gibraltar is in no one's interest. It is not in Britain's interest, not in Spain's interest and, least of all, in Gibraltar's interest. It is in the interest of everyone to find a comprehensive and permanent settlement. Such a settlement cannot be achieved without a constructive basis for talks with Spain. That was the rationale for the 1984 Brussels communiqué.
There must be something of the spirit that nothing can be agreed by any party until all is agreed by every party. The 30,000 inhabitants of Gibraltar cannot be left out of the loop in the wider interest of better relations with Spain. Yet, the Government seem, at best, to have found their views inconvenient and, at worst, to have disregarded them altogether. The starting-point for talks must be the consent of the people of Gibraltar. Without that, nothing can be achieved.
Your Lordships are well aware of the commitment made in the preamble to the 1969 constitution of Gibraltar. The Government have repeatedly insisted that there is no question of any change in sovereignty against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Yet, their actions belie their words. As a result, there has been much concern about what might or might not be agreed between the UK and Spain over the heads of
204
the people of Gibraltar. As the excellent Foreign Affairs Committee report on Gibraltar published last month states:
"The British Government risks giving the impression that it is more concerned to achieve an agreement with Spain, almost at any cost, than it is to ensure that the Government and people of Gibraltar support this agreement".
We all wish for the best possible relations with Spain. She is an important partner and an ally in so many areas—not least in the European Union and NATO. Yet we cannot sacrifice the interests and wishes of the people of Gibraltar to this wider goal. We cannot forget that for more than 30 years Spain has unreasonably discriminated and harassed Gibraltar through excessive border controls, air and maritime restrictions and limited telephone access. The people of Gibraltar are still beset by an unsubtle blend of obstruction, threats and restrictions contrived by Spain. Every day there is disruption—from long queues at the border to insufficient telephone lines and inadequate air services.
An end to Spain's sanctions against Gibraltar would be in the interests of the Gibraltarian people, but the Government's decision to discuss the concept of joint sovereignty with Spain has not secured this, even though one would expect that to be a minimum prerequisite of any negotiations which included sovereignty. Yet despite the relaunched Brussels process, good will from Spain in the form of concessions towards Gibraltar have been in short supply. Even the Minister for Europe recognises that, pointing out last month the need for, as he put it, a
"little bit of TLC on the part of Madrid"
to calm things down.
The recent diplomatic spat over responsibility for the oil tanker "Prestige" demonstrates how low relations between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar have sunk this year. For example, the Government officially denied reports that the "Prestige" was heading for Gibraltar. But during the row, Loyola de Palacio, the EU's Spanish Transport Commissioner, remarkably and inexcusably was quoted in El Pais as stating:
"In Gibraltar we see yet another case of tax evasion, smuggling and inappropriate behaviour".
Diplomacy is about straightforwardness as much as anything else. Straight talking is essential in the case of any country which thinks that it is entitled to some territory—for example, China and Taiwan, Argentina and the Falklands or Spain and Gibraltar.
It should be the goal of our diplomacy to impress on Spain that it will not get what it wants through the tactics of force, bullying and threats. From the days of Franco to today, in the single-minded pursuit of their claim to Gibraltar, successive Spanish governments have intermittently laid siege to the Rock with all the subtlety of a bar-room bully. That is in spite of the overwhelming evidence which points to the total failure of these tactics. It has long been obvious that if Spain wants Gibraltar, she must win the hearts and minds of the Gibraltarians. Yet the Spaniards are no nearer to capturing their hearts and minds today than

205
they were 30 years ago and Gibraltar's 30,000 inhabitants are resolute in their desire to remain under British rule. Again, the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded in its report that without a prolonged period of wooing the people of Gibraltar, it is surely unrealistic of Spain to expect any change on their part.
However, the Government do not seem to have made that clear. Instead, they have allowed unfounded and unjustified Spanish allegations to go unrefuted. Will the Minister say why the Government have not rebutted such Spanish allegations of illegal practices, including smuggling, money-laundering and tax evasion promptly and decisively, including, for example, the Ruperez letter published by the Wall Street Journal in June?
Standing up for Gibraltar when members of the Spanish Government condemn her as an economic parasite and condemning flagrant breaches of the law by Spain would hardly be an irresponsible inflaming of the situation, but rather the Government taking the opportunity, quite rightly, to put the record straight.
I would like to ask the Minister a number of key questions. First, will she state clearly for the record the Government's policy on Gibraltar following last month's referendum? Will the Government continue talks on the principle of joint sovereignty under the Brussels process? After all, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government would,
"continue to seek an agreement … but it must be one that is acceptable to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum".— [Official Report. Commons, 12/7/02; col. 1167.]
The people of Gibraltar have now held a referendum, yet the Government have effectively said that it does not count. I should like to know why. The argument that the referendum is valueless because there are, in the words of the Prime Minister,
"no proposals on the table",
and there is nothing to vote on does not square with the Foreign Secretary's statement that,
"After 12 months of negotiation, we and Spain are in broad agreement on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement. They include the principles that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar".— [Official Report, Commons, 12/7/02; col. 1166.]
The principle of joint sovereignty in itself is, to every man, woman and child in Gibraltar, a substantive proposal.
However, given that the Prime Minister has said that there are no proposals, can the Minister state clearly what has been agreed with Spain since the relaunch of the Brussels process? At minimum, as I understand it, the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar has been agreed, and it is that principle which the Gibraltarians have now rejected. Yet the Government will not accept that referendum as valid.
Can the Minister explain why the Government have been unwilling to allow the people of Gibraltar the chance to accept or reject the principle of joint sovereignty in a referendum? Is there some legal or technical reason why this referendum is flawed and
206
cannot be accepted? In what way was it not a democratic vote used to express a democratic wish? The Minister for Europe has said that he wants to,
"tackle the suggestion that we sought to dismiss the idea of the referendum out of hand or ignore it. I do not ignore any expression of the people's will".— [Official Report, Commons, 25/11/02; col. 141.]
So will the Government therefore accept the validity of the referendum?
Can the Minister clarify whether it is government policy that the British and Spanish Governments should be able to reach agreement on matters concerning Gibraltar with the endorsement of the Gibraltar Government? I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, that the "two flags, three voices" formula is meaningless if the Government of Gibraltar is granted a voice, only for it to carry no weight whatever. Can the Minister explain why, in the talks, a system could not be developed to allow Gibraltar to have even an internal veto within the British delegation in order to secure the Government of Gibraltar's attendance at the talks? Can she further say whether it was the case that the Gibraltar Government were allowed such a veto from 1996 to 2001 and why this is not possible now?
Does the Minister accept the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Committee that it was,
"politically impossible for the Gibraltar Government to participate in the Brussels Process talks without also having the power to limit the outcome of those talks"?
I do not think that the talks and the Brussels process should be permanently abandoned. Of course talks with Spain should and must continue. The only way to secure a more prosperous future for Gibraltar is through a negotiated resolution of the dispute with Spain on all issues. But the direction in which these particular talks have been going seems to hold little future. There have been calls for a period of reflection on how policy on Gibraltar should progress following the referendum, and I endorse those calls.
When talks reconvene they should be genuinely tripartite and on an agenda where agreement is possible, such as better access to the colony and improved communications. The thorny issue of sovereignty should be on the agenda only when all parties are willing to discuss it. It is essential to secure the agreement of the Gibraltarians prior to entering further talks with Spain and to secure a declaration which is accepted by all parties. Both the UK Government and the Spanish Government have a responsibility to prove to the people of Gibraltar that they have more to gain than to lose from this process.
9 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, speaking in the gap, I merely want to make two points about the general thrust of the interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. As all would surely agree, we should not be worrying about this question if it were a case of letting sleeping dogs lie. I am afraid that the dogs are hardly asleep; yet we find it very difficult to know how to make any progress.

207
Perhaps I may take up the penultimate point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—which will not be popular in all quarters but which is in a sense to do with the dilution of everyone's sovereignty in the European Union. I am not sure what the technical status of Gibraltar is vis-a-vis the European Union. What I do know is that many of the "hearts and minds" problems accurately identified by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, are problems that we all have—we have them in Belfast and we have them in Basingstoke—about our own sovereignty being diluted. Yet we talk as though undiluted sovereignty—"we are more loyal than you are" almost—has to be taken as a fixed thing. Therefore, the hearts and minds question arises.
I am reminded that in many parts of the European Union border areas there is a sort of "creep" of co-operation on many matters. This is relevant. I refer, for example, to the air traffic control problem, relations with the rest of Andalucia and so on. That "forward creep", although not very dramatic, should be related—in this respect I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—in order to bring elements of the hearts and minds further forward.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, in examining what has been described in this debate as the "problem of Gibraltar", I take the saga of the inappropriately named tanker "Prestige" as illustrative of two key aspects of the problem.
First, after disaster had struck the tanker—and because of the awful damage to the beauty of the Galician coast and to the livelihood of the area's fishermen—our real and deep sympathy went out to Spain. But after that disaster, the Spanish Government, unfortunately and inaccurately, sought to focus unique blame on Gibraltar—an error that was compounded by the over-emphatic European Commissioner to whom reference has been made.
The charge was that the "Prestige" called frequently at Gibraltar, where she had never been adequately examined. In the event, the truth is rather more complicated, as the press and our ambassador in Madrid have hastened to point out.
The "Prestige" has docked at Gibraltar only once in the past five years. In that time she has also docked at Algeciras and Las Palmas, as well as at Dunkirk, Wilhelmshaven, Cork, Rotterdam and many other continental ports, and was apparently headed for Singapore. "Gibraltar for orders" as a ship's destination does not necessarily signify that a ship will actually call there, as orders are often received while still at sea. In any case, as The Times pointed out in an editorial, pinning blame for a disaster that overtakes,
"a Liberian tanker, registered in the Bahamas, managed in Greece, and chartered from Switzerland on behalf of a Russian oil trader",
is inherently tricky, and to attempt to the lay blame uniquely on Gibraltar is frankly "ludicrous".
208
The attempt to do so, however, is sadly symptomatic of a great deal of what has been Spain's approach to the Gibraltar problem, and it is regrettable. It is the first aspect of the Gibraltar problem illustrated by the "Prestige" saga. So far, Spain has not succeeded in finding the language or the attitude to win the ears, let alone the hearts, of Gibraltarians. That is a great pity. Spain's rhetoric has rasped rather than reassured. So, too, in real terms, have actions over border-crossing arrangements, telecommunications, phone connections, air traffic and so forth.
Sadly, our own Government have made a poor situation apparently worse. Through ambiguity, intended or unintentional hilarity, and the suspicion at least of going behind or above the Gibraltarians themselves, the Government have agitated unease on the Rock. In another place, the new Minister for Europe produces what we in this House must all hope was a non sequitur. He said:
"I want to do right by the people of Gibraltar".
He added immediately:
"I seek no promotion to the Cabinet".
Why? Would an unwillingness to do right by the people of Gibraltar enhance his prospects of promotion to the Cabinet? One can only wonder and ponder.
Terry Waite, in an article last month on Gibraltar, wrote:
"Gibraltar is an anomaly but, for all that, the inhabitants of the territory have a genuine and unique identity and are entitled to be listened to even though they may be few in number. The key to resolving the problem lies in taking the people of the Rock seriously".
That is the key—for Spain, Her Majesty's Government and us in this House. The near 99 per cent vote in the referendum was not eccentric. It was really important. I was interested to note that, following the referendum, the Minister for Europe in another place conceded for the Government:
"We are not deaf or stupid and we have listened".
Good. That is necessary.
If the Government have agreed to listen to the Gibraltarians, so, too, should the Spanish Government. Gibraltarians, too, should listen and watch what is happening in the rest of Europe. I shall pick up a point made by several earlier contributors. What is happening in the rest of Europe is very significant for the future of Gibraltar and for the ultimate resolution of the so-called problem. It is hopeful. The old divisions in Europe between East and West are going, despite conflict and inherent animosity sometimes much greater and far sharper than in this case. There is a new propensity in Europe to open minds to new possibilities.
The future that matters surely is that of the younger generation of the Rock. They must have a future with, rather than against, their neighbours. The decision on the future of Gibraltar lies with Gibraltarians. That is their right. It is our obligation to safeguard it. I urge that, in making and taking their eventual decisions, Gibraltarians must consider the future as well as the past.

209
I return to the ill-fated "Prestige", whose saga illustrates a second aspect. The Times has pointed out that the solution to preventing future disasters lies in a European Union package of measures to be introduced next year which will concentrate on more and older vulnerable ships and also express a determination to make it compulsory for oil to be transported only in double-hulled vessels, which is surely right. The solution to the problem of Gibraltar lies in co-operation.
Our questions for the Minister tonight must be not simply for a general reassurance that the verdict of the referendum will be listened to, that the wishes of the Gibraltarians will not be overridden and that there will not be any secret deal. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to give such assurances to the House. However, we are really seeking something further than that. We need to know whether, in their dialogue with the Government of Spain, the Government are able to ensure that the real physical problems of Gibraltar are addressed, that the issues that are seen and experienced as harassment are resolved, that the tenor of the dialogue is fundamentally changed, that the concerns of the small but distinctive population of Gibraltar are addressed and that therefore talk about the longer future of the Rock can take place in a different context and a different atmosphere. I urge and ask the Minister not simply to point us to the lessons to be learnt immediately from the events of the past two or three months, but to give a clear indication that the Government can capture the attention of the Government of Spain to address the problems that most agitate people on the Rock so that, these having been addressed, we can move forward in a different atmosphere.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, this has been a useful short debate. Your Lordships will obviously be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, for initiating it. He said he was not going to go into history because of the time available. That is a pity, because the noble Lord is a historian of the first rank and I was half looking forward to a few adventures into history before we got on to the present or the future. However, I realise that the practicalities ruled that out.
The debate is useful because, by all accounts, the last debate on the subject in the other place was not a very fortunate affair and some very unhappy reports emanated from it. This has been an opportunity to see whether your Lordships are able to do better. The tone has been constructive, as it should be on this immensely difficult problem. Although the arguments for the status quo are put forward with respect and intensity, one has to accept that there are problems and it would be good to see a way forward.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I am not tempted to look at various solutions or settlements, let alone deals. Although one certainly wants to do everything possible to ensure good
210
relations between this country and a glorious country such as Spain, which we so much admire, the recent endeavours on the diplomatic side—particularly the endeavours of the British Government, I am afraid—have left such a cloud and a mist over the situation that it is very hard to see any way forward. I shall follow the path of methods and ways forward step by step. I cannot offer your Lordships a clear vision of how we get to the happier goal of good relations between ourselves and Spain and a contented Gibraltar that feels its voice has been heard and its views respected. I do not see how we can get there at the moment, but I shall examine a few aspects to see whether we can open one or two doors.
The first point is that the recent endeavours and the opening of the discussion—indeed, the opening of the negotiations, apparently—described by my noble friend Lord Moynihan are not actually a continuation of what we on this side understood to be the Brussels process. I know that Ministers have said from time to time, "The Conservative government started all this", first under my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and then under my noble friend Lord Hurd, "and we are continuing it". However, to me, one of the most important sentences in the Select Committee report which has been much quoted this evening is one which is not actually in black, but states:
"The Foreign Secretary failed to point out the difference between the 1984 Brussels Process talks—when sovereignty was one of several subjects for `discussion'—and the 2001 Brussels Process talks, when the principle of joint sovereignty was negotiated between Britain and Spain".
It is that word "negotiation" which comes zooming up into the scene that has been a cause of so much trouble.
The Select Committee goes on to make other points, some of which have been quoted by noble Lords. Like some noble Lords, the committee rejects the view that it was eccentric for the people of Gibraltar to hold their own referendum. It points out, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan has done, that the chances of progress without a prolonged period of wooing the people of Gibraltar is unrealistic. It says that the Government were wrong to negotiate joint sovereignty when they must have known that there was no prospect whatever that any agreement on the future of Gibraltar which included joint sovereignty could be made acceptable.
The committee says that it was politically impossible for the Gibraltar Government to participate in the Brussels process talks without also having the power to limit the outcome of those talks; that is the veto issue. It concludes that publicly questioning the probity of Gibraltar during the course of the relaunched process increased tensions and suspicions. It says that we have ended up with the worst of all worlds, and that the British Government now face an unenviable choice: to carry on with the negotiation in flat defiance of the view of the people of Gibraltar, or to withdraw from negotiations and offend Spain whose hopes had no doubt been raised that there was going to be some kind of deal.

211
So that is the sad situation we have reached. Trying to be as objective as one can, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that this round of endeavours to meet a recognised problem has been very poorly handled. Looking back, it seems extraordinary that there was not the realisation that there had to be, to start with, a whole preliminary period of discussion fully involving the people of Gibraltar and bringing to them, and to the eyes of the Spanish Government, and to ourselves—we have to learn as well—the possibility that certain solutions could be achieved.
So what am I left with recommending? I think that one has simply to say to our good Spanish friends, partners, allies and fellow Europeans that the lesson is that kindly behaviour—being nice, if you like—and showing good will can pay dividends. If the past attitudes, which have appeared at times to be bullying, have been frustrating and have messed up people"; lives at the frontiers and so on give way to a very positive and friendly approach, Spain may be surprised, we may be surprised, and the Gibraltarians themselves may be surprised at what can be achieved.
I confess that one is open to the accusation that this sounds a bit like Woodrow Wilson believing in the innate decency of human beings and nations and that, if only we had talks, all would be well. That is a bit naive. However, I cannot believe that there would not be dividends, at least in step one—I am not sure where this leads beyond step one—in the Spanish authorities determining as a clear act of policy to be supportive and to meet the immediate sores and irritations that antagonise the people of Gibraltar and make them so absolutely determined to reject any negotiations and not to participate in discussions on the terms offered.
I hope, therefore, that that policy can be put to bed and that it has finished. Frankly, it has done a lot of damage and has made matters worse. We must be constructive and now develop a new policy position with our Spanish and Gibraltarian friends. We must proceed on a tripartite basis and on the basis of discussions and not negotiations. We must realise that the attempt to negotiate in the way that that was done has reached a dead end. A new approach is needed, part of which comprises the two flags and three voices concept already mentioned and originally proposed, I believe, by my noble friend Lord Hurd. But that is not enough, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said. We have to proceed on a basis that, if matters are to be agreed, they should be agreed by everyone and that nothing should be agreed on the side until everything has been agreed.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that the solution lies in co-operation. For partners and friends to co-operate requires a starting point of trust and good will. If there is not some basis of trust and good will established between Spain and Gibraltar, and if there is not some restoration of good faith between Gibraltar and London, which has been severely shaken by the negotiation attempts, there will be no
212
progress at all. However, if there is a restoration of trust and good will, we can make progress and we can determine ways in which relations with Spain in this regard, which are very important to us, can be improved. I hope that the wishes of the people of Gibraltar can be respected and that a better future for them can be achieved. I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man to do that but I have to say that the attempts of the past few months have not made it any easier.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, for initiating the debate. His knowledge and understanding of the Iberian peninsula and its history are well known in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, set out the issues which face Gibraltar and need to be addressed. This debate is a clear sign of the concern felt in this House for the people of Gibraltar and for their future. That concern for a better future for the people of Gibraltar is something that we all share. It is precisely that desire to secure a stable and prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar that continues to drive this Government's policy.
The situation as it currently stands, with the continuation of a 300 year-old dispute, does not yet offer hope of that better future. To achieve this, it is not simply a matter of removing the every day disruption to the lives of people in Gibraltar, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, be it border delays or restrictions on air services and telecommunications. There is also a need and an opportunity to promote a secure base for future economic development in Gibraltar and the surrounding region in such a way as to enable Gibraltar to realise fully its potential.
It was with this in mind that my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary decided to relaunch the Brussels Process talks in July last year. In taking that decision, my right honourable friends recognised that the only way to secure a more prosperous future for Gibraltar was through a negotiated resolution of the dispute with Spain on all issues, including sovereignty. The process we are taking forward was launched in 1984.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, pressed me to talk about the context of the discussions that we are having. We feel that it is in no one's interests for the dispute that has dragged on for 300 years to continue. It places unacceptable restrictions on the daily lives of the people of Gibraltar, and damages relations between Britain and Spain, both bilaterally and within the EU. We want to overcome the differences between the UK and Spain and build new, better and more modern relationships between Britain, Gibraltar and Spain for the new century.

213
In relaunching the talks, the Government have made it absolutely clear that we will abide by the pledge given by Harold Wilson's government in 1969 that there would be no change in sovereignty without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. If we could reach agreement with Spain on a comprehensive settlement, the whole package would be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and they would decide. We have made that absolutely clear. That is an assurance to the people of Gibraltar that Ministers, including my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, have made again and again. It is fully understood and accepted by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, who confirmed in his New Year message this year that he believed,
"that this assurance is totally reliable".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has forgotten that we were also clear from the start that we wanted the Chief Minister to be involved in the process so that Gibraltarians could help to shape it. That invitation remains open.
The history of the recent negotiations bears some repetition. As noble Lords are aware, three Brussels Process meetings took place in July 2001, November 2001 and February 2002. A further meeting was due to take place in July 2002 but, due to Cabinet changes in Spain, it did not. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, conscious of his undertaking to keep Parliament informed of progress at every stage, made a Statement to another place on 12th July in which he reported on the progress of the talks and on our policy towards Gibraltar.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, may recall that that Statement set out a number of principles that we believe should underpin a lasting settlement and on which we had reached broad agreement with Spain. This included the principle of joint sovereignty, which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, set out in his speech, making reference to the benefits of that approach.
I remind noble Lords that there were other principles too: that Gibraltar should have more internal self-government; that it should retain its British traditions, customs and way of life; that Gibraltarians should retain the right to British nationality; that Gibraltar should be free to retain its institutions; and that Gibraltar could choose to participate fully in the EU single market and other arrangements. It also set out some important "red lines" on the need for a permanent settlement and for current arrangements for the British military facilities to continue. Again, it made it clear that any agreement must be acceptable to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. The Statement also made it clear that no agreement had actually been reached and that there would be no such agreement unless Spain met those "red lines" in full. There were therefore no proposals to put to the people of Gibraltar, and that remains the position.
I should like to deal with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others that we have sought to dismiss the idea of a referendum out of hand.
214
That is not the case. The principle of consent by the people of Gibraltar is central to our approach. Our commitment is firm: that if we reach agreement on a comprehensive settlement, the whole package will be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum, and they will decide. But that does not mean that we have not listened to the views expressed on 7th November and in the run-up to the referendum, just as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary listened to the views of Gibraltarians when he visited in May; and we have taken note of them. All the parties—us, Spain and the people of Gibraltar—now need to reflect on the best way forward. We shall also, of course, reflect on the report published by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 7th November, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and we will respond by the date given, which I believe is 7th January.
So, what is next? My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in another place on 6th November that the process that we began of discussion with Spain and with the people in Gibraltar is right because it is in the interests of people in Britain, Spain and Gibraltar. Constructive dialogue, as has been said this evening, has to be the way ahead and we will continue to pursue that. In so doing, we do not now want to start ruling things in or out. That would not make sense at this time.
As many noble Lords will be aware, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar is also in favour of a dialogue with Spain and my honourable friend the Minister for Europe is looking forward to meeting him shortly in London for a first discussion. I know that he wants to hear the Chief Minister's views on how best to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the comments of my noble friend in an interview the day after the referendum, when he said that we also see a need for some tender loving care—TLC—from Madrid and the need to build mutual respect, confidence and trust. My noble friend Lord Lea mentioned the importance of hearts and minds and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked of the importance of a friendly approach.
Sadly, that is not something that we saw in the course of the "Prestige" disaster, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Watson. Some in Spain tried to point the finger of blame at Gibraltar. We have made it clear to Madrid and the Commission that neither the UK nor Gibraltar was responsible for that terrible incident.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, discussed support for the people of Gibraltar and the difficulty for any government seeking to sell Gibraltar down the river. Let me conclude by repeating that our aim remains a better future for Gibraltar and the resolution of the problems that it faces. We will continue our dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar to that end. There remain real issues that have to be discussed. The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Moynihan, mentioned the issues raised in the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We will of course respond to those issues and I shall be happy to send a copy of our response to the noble Lords.

215
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what we were doing to counter the groundless allegations being made against Gibraltar. We will review seriously any inaccurate statements or allegations that damage Gibraltar. We look to correct any inaccuracies in public statements by Spanish Ministers or others in our contacts with the Spanish Government at various levels and through the press. We shall continue to do that.
216
We should do no one a service by ignoring the issues that confront Gibraltar or simply hoping that they will disappear. They need to be tackled constructively. We will maintain our commitment that no deal will be imposed on the people of Gibraltar against their will. Ultimately, their future is for them to decide.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before ten o'clock.

  Election Material: Post Office Box Numbers
  Election Material: Post Office Box Numbers
  Personal Injury Cases: Conditional Fee Arrangements
  Personal Injury Cases: Conditional Fee Arrangements
  Special Immigration Appeals Commission Cases: Funding
  Special Immigration Appeals Commission Cases: Funding
  Privately-funded FE and HE Institutions
  Privately-funded FE and HE Institutions
  Oxford and Cambridge and Russell Group of Universities: Honours Degrees
  Oxford and Cambridge and Russell Group of Universities: Honours Degrees
  Passive Smoking
  Passive Smoking
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Northern Ireland Block Grant
  Northern Ireland Block Grant
  Newtownstewart By-pass
  Newtownstewart By-pass
  Northern Ireland Railways: Funding for New Trains
  Northern Ireland Railways: Funding for New Trains
  Irish Human Rights Commission
  Irish Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland: Digital Hearing Aids
  Northern Ireland: Digital Hearing Aids
  Carry-over of Bills
  Carry-over of Bills